First key question: Would the CCD proposal cost money or save money? I'm not sure. I doubt that it will have much effect either way.
Second key question: Would the CCD proposal give further encouragement for claimants to return to work? The proposal would be easier for Social Security to administer, which is a good thing, but I don't think it would have any significant effect upon claimant behavior. Claimants already want to return to work. The problem isn't the incentives; it's the state of their health. Huge bargains won't induce people to shop at a store if the store's doors are locked.
Second key question: Would the CCD proposal give further encouragement for claimants to return to work? The proposal would be easier for Social Security to administer, which is a good thing, but I don't think it would have any significant effect upon claimant behavior. Claimants already want to return to work. The problem isn't the incentives; it's the state of their health. Huge bargains won't induce people to shop at a store if the store's doors are locked.
Third key question: Can any tinkering with work incentives achieve the goal of reducing program costs. The answer to this one is clear. You certainly can save money by tinkering with work incentives. All you have to do is to reduce the work incentives. Can someone come up with a proposal that reduces work incentives while simultaneously pretending that they are increasing work incentives? Probably. That's the sort of thing that politicians excel at. That may be where we're heading.
Fourth key question: Is there really a consensus forming to only tinker with work incentives or is this just the game that Republicans play until after the election at which point they reveal their real plan to use the exhaustion of the Disability Insurance Trust Fund to force dramatic cuts?
Fourth key question: Is there really a consensus forming to only tinker with work incentives or is this just the game that Republicans play until after the election at which point they reveal their real plan to use the exhaustion of the Disability Insurance Trust Fund to force dramatic cuts?
9 comments:
"Where there's smoke, there's fire" thinking would certainly lead to the conclusion that work incentive rule changes are coming. Simplifying the RTW rules certainly make sense - I regularly receive calls from claimants who returned to work and now are dealing with overpayment issues. I could also see changes to the Grid Rules removing the illiteracy/age 45 section. However, has there been any recent "smoke" about major cuts? Or is the bait-and-switch fear a general concern(which unfortunately is warranted) about current Congressional Republicans?
Just speculation but my guess is there are two considerations for Republican Congress members here:
1. Create the perception that they are doing something to reduce government benefits to the poor/people with disabilities. Emphasis on perception. They gain brownie points with their far right base ("hey look, I am actually passing legislation that may reduce benefit rolls") and moderates ("hey look I am reaching out to the other side and making compromises"). They also get to look like they care about helping people with disabilities (may be genuine in some cases). Little downside politically.
2. Keep proposing substantial benefit cuts for people with disabilities because the really big Republican donors want this. If they want their troughs to continue being filled with dollars from those big donors, they have to keep proposing such cuts regardless of whether there is any realistic chance they could pass.
It will be a matter of time before the Republican party is obsolete. They won the House and Senate due to massive gerrymandering. It wont be long until they run out of options.
"Claimants already want to return to work. The problem isn't the incentives; it's the state of their health."
This makes me laugh. Really, do you think people are clamoring to go back to work at minimum wage (40 hours * $7.25/hour * 4.33/weeks/month = $1,255/month) when they "earn" nearly that much (sometimes more) but do not have to leave their house and don't have to pay for gas, car, insurance, etc. While I agree there are some people that miss work, the vast majority of people I see are more than happy to get benefits with the hope they will never have to work again because it does not require ANY work. Working at minimum wage jobs is hard and, for most people, the small (increase in pay) is not worth the extra costs and effort required.
Work incentives NEED an overhaul. Simplification, cohesiveness, common sense. The current rules are layers upon layers of complicated and confusing and difficult to administer and understand. And lead to horrendous overpayments. Toss them out. Start fresh. Sure, like any change in law, some claimants will benefit, some will not.
This is fanciful thinking from the same crowd that went all in on the Ticket to Work program. Since its inception Ticket to Work has wasted close to a billion dollars in contractor fees and was described in a recent House hearing as the Ticket to nowhere. This is feel good, rah rah in the sky.
Why was my post NOT posted?
@1:30
I wish you could meet some of my SSD clients. Their most fervent wish is that they could return to work. Unfortunately they cannot.
Let me paint a picture for you. All of them had at least 5 years in the work force, many had much more (see Charles' recent post). For many, their sense of self-worth and their role as a provider for a spouse and/or children were based on their work. When their ability to do that was ripped away, their sense of self-worth and ability to provide for their families went with it. They watched and could do nothing as their life savings were depleted and then lost, then their homes. Due to the strain it was not uncommon for married clients to become divorced. It comes as little surprise that these clients have a high rate of anxiety and depression. Any of them would leap at a chance to return to the days when they could work, but that's not an option for them.
That's the reality I see. It doesn't make me laugh.
I will try this again and hopefully get posted. In response to the comment that starts with "this makes me laugh"....It is not a good assumption to think that all on SSDI are minimum wagers. Also the minimum wage stated in the post is at the Federal level; most states have a higher min. wage, such as Mass. which is $9 per hour. I happen to be one of those who does not see SSDI as just a 'few dollars less than I would normally get' I was over $40 per hour. Taking away the Trial Work Period would so scare me off, because I was always thinking that if there was ever a chance then that would be a security blanket for 9 months. If that goes then I will be so disappointed....as it is I could never survive the potential 19% cut next fall. SSDI is not a fun gift; it is helpful but awful. I worked so hard and for this little pittance? Come on.
Post a Comment