I don't know who's idea it was but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) included two proposals for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits among its "Options for Reducing the Deficit" -- eliminating eligibility for disability benefits for those 62 and older and requiring claimants to have worked 16 of the past 24 quarters before becoming disabled. The age 62 idea would save $17.4 billion over ten years. The 16/24 idea would save $44.5 billion over ten years. That sounds like small potatoes to me considering the political flak the GOP would take for adopting either but I'm not a Republican looking for ways to pay for a huge tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. By the way, neither idea is new. I think I first heard of the 16/24 idea in the late 1970s and it probably wasn't new then! Also, by the way, the CBO works for whoever controls Congress.
The CBO also included proposals to eliminate Supplemental Security Income benefits for children, reduce Social Security benefits for new recipients, raise full retirement age and reduce the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).
The CBO also included proposals to eliminate Supplemental Security Income benefits for children, reduce Social Security benefits for new recipients, raise full retirement age and reduce the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).
12 comments:
Those under 55 have been waiting and waiting for the push to come. We always knew we would get shorted on SSA with ever increasing ages of eligibility and ever decreasing benefits. We watched the years trickle by with no increase to FICA, we did the math. For years we were told we were stupid for not believing in the system. That we had to support the system that it would be there for us. That we would be protected. We laughed. Protected, like working for a company for 25 years, having a pension and benefits through employment, like the American dream.
They make the proposals so complicated, so they can advertise:
"This is for YOUR benefit - you will actually be getting MORE in the long run."
(even when it's a lie)
The CBO says "The options included in this volume come from various sources. Some are based on proposed legislation or on the budget proposals of various Administrations; others come from Congressional offices or from entities in the federal government or in the private sector." So some of these could just have been requested by a member of Congress, or even an entity in the private sector (I didn't know CBO did that). I don't think any of these were CBO's idea. CBO is supposed to be non-partisan, and I think they will prepare an estimate when requested by any member of Congress. I don't know if it's accurate to say they work for whoever controls Congress.
Frankly, the 62 age makes sense. I am sick and tired of dealing with claimants who have a college education, worked at a sedentary job, and at 62 decide to retire on full pensions, file for early SS Retirement, then suddenly become "disabled" so they can get the bump up to full retirement benefits. That is nothing more than playing the system.
7:08, they don't get approved. While it is easier to win a disability case for an age 62 claimant, you still need medical evidence of an impairment that precludes work activity at the level they previously worked.
7:08: for the person you describe to qualify for disability, that person would have to prove that they have health problems that preclude sedentary work or preclude any skills that person used in performing their past relevant sedentary work. That's not easy to do, even at age 62, if that person was performing sedentary work all their lives. That person, if he/she can prove disability, is not gaming the system.
Anon 7:08. Where does this attitude come from?
It seems like some have this endless desire for to make people work until they die. Most industrialized countries allow people to retire in their 60s. Why so mad at the aged?
Social Security is what workers paid into. It belongs to them when they get disabled or ready to retire. It certainly isn't a freebie and congress should n't view the money as their own like they do with all of our other tax money. And under SSDI FOR INJURED WORKERS, WE'RE GETTING SSI rates instead paid for by the state and not the employer. Congress cheated us again after working for all the required units, all to benefit the employer. Congress under the cloak of respected representation, are to me just traitors to the people, because they take care of themselves and those they serve, corporations. To top it all off no one can eve make a complaint about the abuses from within SSA on those who are paying into that system that is rife with fraud and deliberate incompetence. SSA employees would not exist just like other agencies if it weren't for the working class it cheats but it has no problem giving to those who never worked in this country , OUR BENEFITS!
We should make these changes when Wall Street stops stealing fortunes, discredited CEO's stop taking multi million dollar golden parachutes and our Congressional friends start cutting their benefits which, and I might be mistaken, also include some special privileges regarding insider trading with their Wall Street friends. This is a bunch of bs in my opinion. Go eat cake you A-holes.
It is clear that whoever wrote this proposal believes that everyone over 62 who goes out on disability really isn't disabled and could work to full retirement age! To those who are truly disabled it is a big "screw you". None of my clients who applied at age 62 or thereafter (mostly blue collar manual labor jobs without a pension) wanted to stop working.
A story.
Individual retired at age 60 on a private pension. At age 61 he is in a catastrophic car wreck and requires a far higher level of medical care than the day before the wreck, multiple surgeries, numerous medications. More than the limits of the auto carrier would cover.
Filed for disability and received it. In my opinion, a correct outcome. The day before the wreck he could have returned to work had an unexpected ongoing expense occurred. The day after the wreck and all days following, physically unable to do so.
SSI for children is a program that emerged in a different world than we have today. Access to speech therapy, occupational therapy, medications, counseling was a rarity.
Today many of the greatest needs for disabled youth are met by requirements imposed on our schools as well as via medical insurance plans.
The cash so desperately needed decades ago to meet the needs of these children is no longer required to meet those needs. Unless the cash is the difference maker between institutional care or home care, the need is quite different now.
Post a Comment