Roll Call is reporting that the White House budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2018, which begins on October 1, 2017, will call for cuts in Social Security disability benefits. The cuts are not specified in the article.
But
sources said the budget will include proposals to reduce the cost of
the Social Security Disability Insurance program, which is not
means-tested. - See more at:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/trump-wants-800-billion-10-year-cut-entitlement-programs#sthash.YV839krT.dpuf
White
House officials are crafting a fiscal 2018 budget proposal for
President Donald Trump that aims to wipe out the deficit through a
combination of robust economic growth, steep cuts in certain
means-tested entitlement programs and other savings. - See more at:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/trump-wants-800-billion-10-year-cut-entitlement-programs#sthash.YV839krT.dpuf
White
House officials are crafting a fiscal 2018 budget proposal for
President Donald Trump that aims to wipe out the deficit through a
combination of robust economic growth, steep cuts in certain
means-tested entitlement programs and other savings. - See more at:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/trump-wants-800-billion-10-year-cut-entitlement-programs#sthash.YQqJR9St.dpuf
White
House officials are crafting a fiscal 2018 budget proposal for
President Donald Trump that aims to wipe out the deficit through a
combination of robust economic growth, steep cuts in certain
means-tested entitlement programs and other savings. - See more at:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/trump-wants-800-billion-10-year-cut-entitlement-programs#sthash.YQqJR9St.dpuf
25 comments:
Well you know this was coming with the way Mulvaney has been talking about SSDI. Will Congress go along with this, especially after the blowback that will come from the public? Or will Congress ignore it like they ignored the White House's proposed cuts in the recently passed continuing budget? I believe any cuts to SSDI, specifically, will need 60 Congressional votes to pass.
You can see in his face that Mulvaney hates people on ssdi how the hell did we get to this place and vote these people into office. I believe that they will go after medicade medicare ssdi and other programs and i hope they biteoff more than they can chew. 2018, 2020
get rid of them as fast as possible.
Since SSDI is a mandatory spending program, I think it would be subject to 60 votes in the Senate. In any event, I don't think Congress will have the stomach to go there.
One thing for sure poor white trump voters will be affected and not re-elect trump.
Considering the Republican party has been heaping indignity upon indignity on poor white voters for the past two decades, yet they continue to vote for them anyway, I don't see much changing.
4:50: I listened in to the last NOSSCR Washington Happenings webinar. It is true that 60 votes will be needed to change SSD, but SSI only needs 51 votes. The concern NOSSCR expressed was that SSI would be a "pay for" used to fund tax cuts, military spending or the wall. Paul Ryan has even written about completely eliminating child's SSI benefits. The "I earned it - don't touch my entitlements" argument goes out the window for SSI. SSI will likely be lumped in with the huge Medicaid cuts in the block grants to the states. Let's hope Congress doesn't choose to hurt people like that...
My SSDI payment is $1120 a month. A 7% cut would make it $1041.60, a 14% cut would make it $963.20, and a 21% cut would make it $884.80. If the cut is more than 7% then I would have to move again, probably into a studio apartment. It wouldn't be the end of the world, but I would probably not vote for any Republicans if they cut SSDI. How about a cut for Congressional salaries? How about a cut for the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE?
If you're on SSDI, they would need 60 votes in the Senate to make cuts. That won't happen.
Makes perfect sense and follows the Trumpian thinking and class stratification we have seen in this society. What's left of the white middle and working class with a solid work record and preferably male will be the Cadillac claimant to represent. SSI will be a dog whistle or blatant label which will mean lazy, crazy, drug crazed, alcoholic minorities and white bummers who will be the cannon fodder for the cuts. They will play the insured off against the poor SSI wretches. Get ready for more destitute in the streets, shelters and court systems. These, of course, are all breaking down too. Welcome to the USA of billionaires and crony politicians.
I know this is a little off topic, but I wonder if the new 5 day rule has caused a big drop in the number of written pre hearing briefs. Who wants to write a brief, when evidence doesn't yet even have exhibit numbers you can cite? I really think this rule will make ALJ's work harder, because many Lawyer will opt instead to do oral statements, instead of written briefs. Let's see if ALJs will prefer oral statements on day of hearing to receiving a written brief 2 or 3 days before hearing. Sometimes, when you try to squeeze too much juice out of a fruit, instead of getting more juice, you end up with lots in your juice cup.
I don't understand what you're saying. If I write a brief and I cite unexhibited evidence I just call it by the name in the e-file and the date it was received. How does 5 day rule change that?
The article says that the cuts would aim to reduce the cost of the program, not the benefits themselves.
I have never understood SSI for children. SSI is for food, clothing and shelter. Last I checked, those things are provided by parents. If we decide children "deserve" SSI, then why aren't they in a B living arrangement?
Anon 5:57 - the costs of the program include the benefits, no?
Nobody knows at this point.
@10:43
In my experience, evidence gets exhibited nearly always at the latest 2-3 weeks prior to hearing. Briefing time takes from a few hours...to a few days when it is a VA file. Regardless, there is not generally a need to breach the 5-day time period.
The only unexhibited evidence I find is usually evidence submitted just before the hearing. Other than that I've not had much trouble finding evidence not exhibited. This might vary by ODAR though. On the rare occasion that evidence does not get exhibited timely, or when we submit late evidence, calling ODAR usually gets the evidence exhibited the same day, or the next day at the latest. If it is a single exhibit, my general practice is to just cite the final document in my brief as #F with the number being the number immediately after the current final medical exhibit, or #E if it is non-medical evidence (i.e. education records, medication list, etc.) and notify the judge at the hearing that's what I'm doing with the presumption the evidence will be exhibited.
Administrative costs for SSA are extremely low, compared to other insurance companies. We know staff has been cut through attrition, to almost unsustainably low levels. Cutting administrative costs won't produce the cost-cutting sought by the Republicans. Benefit cuts would have to be done to fulfill the Republican vision.
Evidence submitted to update file before hearing usually won't get exhibited, until right before hearing. Trying to cite exhibits without exhibit numbers is awkward at best, and at worse ALJ may not even go to the exhibit, because ALJ will have to go hunting in file to find where it is. I think result of 5 day rule will be more oral opening statements, and less written ones, and I don't see how that make anyone's work easier. Explain to me why it would be better for the ALJ to have no written brief, as opposed to having one a day or 2 before the hearing.
That's Mulvaney's vision. Cuts to SSDI won't make it through the Senate.
As long as you notify the judge prior to five days before the hearing that you will submit a brief, or medical evidence from Doctor X or hospital Y, or statement from the spouse, child, etc., then that evidence will be admitted regardless of when you actually submit it.
The main reason for the 5 day rule is the prevent the "evidence dumps" that occur sometimes the night before the hearing. Hopefully, the rule will result in more reps seeing their clients well before hearing so the record is complete and a meaningful hearing can take place. Having a complete record, even if only just a few days before hearing, is much more helpful than a pre-hearing brief, which in my jurisdiction, only a small percentage of reps submit.
I am now retired from SSDI/SSI representation. What so many people do not understand is the low level of literacy and even cognition of many of the claimants who worked at menial physical occupations. Because of the backlog, unless we had good grounds for an expedited hearing, I would have a client's file in my office for 2-3 years. Upon taking a case, we gave the client a bundle of "treatment reports" to submit to us, especially if they saw a new treating source or had any special procedures/imaging studies, etc. During that time, my assistants and I would have some contact with them. When notifying them of the hearing date, we would call and send the client a letter asking about records to be obtained. About 2 weeks prior to the hearing, I would meet with the client for several hours to prepare them as to what to expect and to ask most of the questions which I anticipated an ALJ might ask. (I'm a former trial attorney, and I consider having a client of any sort testify without preparation to be malpractice).
Despite all of this diligence, you would be surprised at the number of cases in which we did not learn of new evidence until 2 weeks before the hearing (under HIPA, the treating source has 30 days to furnish the records). In a few cases the client revealed something at hearing about a new treating source of which he/she'd been asked several times in the last 2-3 years!
I realize that this drives ALJs and SSA workers up the wall (as it did me and my assistants, but it is the reality of practice with mere human beings!
10:55 - Not to hijack the thread, but I realize that on occasion a representative might not learn about new evidence until shortly before the hearing through no fault of their own. And the new policies address those occasions. However, there are large firms whose business model is apparently to conserve resources by having as little contact with their clients as possible and save costs by making records requests shortly before the hearing. For such firms, it has become common practice to dump hundreds of pages of medical records within a couple days of the hearing, the day of the hearing, and even in the days following the hearing. Under such circumstances, an ALJ is hard pressed to conduct a full and complete hearing. The new regulations are supposed to address such practices, but of course there are so many loopholes that it's hard to ascertain what the outcome will be. It's a shame that the actions of the large firms may negatively affect the practices of more conscientious representatives, but things really have gotten out of hand.
You can't be updating files every 3 months as you wait 2 years for a hearing. Requesting records usually involves 3 to 20 follow up calls per each provider, to get records, usually only to discover they sent them incomplete, and now you have to follow up with another 5 calls to get them to send complete file.Also, if you're trying to get rthen to waive copy fees, you can't be expecting the providers to send you records every 3 months. Social security has copy fees capped at $14, but in some states providers can charge hundreds or thousands to us for large files. In virtually every case where large amounts of record are submitted at last minute, it's usually upon discovering that request for records at initial and reconsideration left many records missing records and now I discover and submit all the records State agency should have already gotten. I don't fault State Agency because it's hard to get provides to provide complete records. However, with the increased denial rates, the average hourly rate a case earns doesn't enable us to hire the Support staff needed to continuously keep the file updated as we await a hearing.
To 8:37 re SSI for children. Consider a young couple who fully planned to support their coming child. She would work until shortly before the baby was born and return after six weeks to three months. However the child is born prematurely at 24 weeks of gestation so not only do they not have the expected earnings but the child has multiple medical needs and requires ongoing care. Similarly a child requiring extensive treatment such as cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy or childhood diabetes can easily require monitoring that affects the parent's ability to work full time. Nonetheless The majority of childhood allowances are for poor behavior in which the degree of medical treatment received goes down once benefits are received and the benefits to the child are minimal at best.
Post a Comment