Homelessness Soars Among Older People

    From Yahoo Finance:

Many baby boomers across the country are now coming to terms with the hard reality that working for your entire adult life is no longer enough to guarantee you’ll have a roof over your head in your later years.

Thanks in part to a series of recessions, high housing costs and a shortage of affordable housing, older adults are now the fastest-growing segment of America’s homeless population, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal, based on data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. ...

Now, the over-50 demographic represents half of the homeless single adults in the U.S. — with no sign of their numbers slowing, leaving baby boomers (those aged 57 to 75) particularly vulnerable.

“Elderly homelessness has been rare within the contemporary homeless problem. We’ve always had very few people over 60 who’ve been homeless historically,” Culhane from the University of Pennsylvania told PBS NewsHour. ...

    I'm sure there are many reasons for this increase in homelessness among older people but the failures of Social Security's disability programs have to be a major factor. There are far, far too many disabled people in homeless shelters.

New Instructions On Transferability Of Skills

     The Social Security Administration has issued new instructions in its POMS manual on transferability of skills for purposes of determining disability. The sections affected are:

• DI 25015.015
• DI 25015.017 
• DI 25015.019

    At first glance I don't see anything that makes a difference but this is a sensitive enough subject that it bears a closer reading than I have given it to this point. 

    My longstanding opinion is that transferability of skills should only be found quite rarely. Those who really did have transferable skills almost certainly transferred them and didn't file disability claims.

PRW Time Period To Be Reduced From 15 Years To 5 Years

     From a notice that Social Security has scheduled for publication in the Federal Register:

We propose to revise the time period that we consider when determining whether an individual’s past work is relevant for purposes of making disability determinations and decisions. Specifically, we would revise the definition of past relevant work (PRW) by reducing the relevant work period from 15 to 5 years. This change would allow individuals to focus on the most current and relevant information about their past work, better reflect the current evidence base on changes over time in worker skill decay and job responsibilities, reduce processing time and improve customer service, and reduce burden on individuals.

    This is overdue by about 40 years but better late than never. It never made sense to tell disability claimants that they are not disabled because they can return to jobs they last held 12 years ago. Work skills just don't stick with people that long.

Good News For SSI Claimants

     From a notice that Social Security has scheduled for publication in the Federal Register:

We propose to expand the definition of a public assistance (PA) household for purposes of our programs, particularly the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, to include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as an additional means-tested public income maintenance (PIM) program. In addition, we seek public comment on expanding the definition to include households in which any other (as opposed to every other) member receives public assistance. We expect that the proposed rule would decrease the number of SSI applicants and recipients charged with in-kind support and maintenance (ISM). In addition, we expect that this proposal would decrease the amount of income we would deem to SSI applicants or recipients because we would no longer deem income from ineligible spouses and parents who receive SNAP benefits and live in the same household. These policy changes would reduce administrative burden for low-income households and SSA.

    Again, I'm not going to try to explain this. Just understand that it's good news for many SSI claimants.

"Close Proximity Of Time" Extension Made Permanent

     From a notice that Social Security has scheduled for publication in the Federal Register:

On July 23, 2021, we issued a temporary final rule (TFR) with request for comments to lengthen the “close proximity of time” standard in the Listing of Impairments (the listings) for musculoskeletal disorders because the COVID-19 national public health emergency (PHE) caused many individuals to experience barriers that prevented them from timely accessing in-person healthcare. That prior TFR is effective until six months after the effective date of a determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) that a PHE resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic no longer exists. The Secretary of HHS made that determination, and the COVID-19 national PHE ended on May 11, 2023. However, healthcare practices in a post-PHE world are still evolving. We are therefore issuing this new TFR to extend the flexibility provided by the prior TFR until May 11, 2025, so we can evaluate changes in healthcare practices and determine the proper “close proximity of time” standard for the musculoskeletal disorders listings. ...

    I'm not going to try to explain this other than to say that it's modestly good news for disability claimants with orthopedic problems -- a slight reduction in harshness is how I would put it.

Let Me Circle Back To This

     Let me circle back to the article I posted about yesterday concerning a man being asked to repay money allegedly overpaid in 1978. Here's a part of the article I didn't quote yesterday (emphasis added):

Byrd's father died when he was 4 years old. So his mother received social security for him while he was a minor. 

"This is not money I ever saw. I was not even living at home at the time," he said.

    This suggests how the overpayment occurred.  His mother wasn't entitled to the child's benefits she received on him because he wasn't living with her. So how is this an overpayment to him? His mother took money from him. He was the one injured back in 1978 and you're now compounding the injury by trying to force him to repay money that was taken from him?

Nobody Mentioned Waiver But The Bigger Issue Is The Lack Of A Statute Of Limitations On Overpayments

     From KDFW:

...  [A]n Arlington [TX] man is being told he owes back money that was paid to his mother — in 1978.  ...

The SSA is asking Jimmy Byrd to pay them more than $1,400 that was paid 45 years ago to his mother who died back in 2011. He could not believe his eyes when he opened a letter from the SSA last month. 

"I read the paperwork, and it was from January to June of 1978," he said. "Back in 1978, I was only 17 years old." ...

Byrd filed an appeal.

"Two weeks ago, I received a second letter stating I'm going to have to pay it, and I thought that's not right," he said. "I got in my car, went back down to the social security board."

Bryd told his story again.

‘The gentleman looked at me from behind the counter and said, 'You know, that is just the way it is,’" he said.

Byrd signed an agreement to have $100 a month deducted from his $1,800 social security check for the next 14 months.  ...

    Why, oh why, is there no statute of limitations on overpayments? These cases happen all the time. Of course, this overpayment would have been wiped out with a waiver request but it's easier to tell someone "that is just the way it is" than it is to help with a waiver request.

Proposed Regs On Consideration Of Past Work Advance

     The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) -- the most important government agency you've never heard of -- has approved proposed Social Security regulation changes with the title, Intermediate Improvement to the Disability Adjudication Process: Including how we Consider Past Work. There's no way to know for sure at this point since we have no more than vague descriptions of what's included but the proposed regulations will likely reduce the number of years of past work considered in determining disability.

    The proposal will now be published in the Federal Register and the public will be able to comment. Social Security must consider the comments before publishing the regulations in final form so they go into effect. This process will take months at the least.

    When I posted about this proposal going to OIRA there were several comments posted here by those who felt this proposal would hurt Social Security disability claimants. If you think this is the case, don't make comments here on Social Security disability issues. You don't have enough knowledge to offer meaningful comments. If this proposal reduces the time frame considered from 15 years to, let's say, 5 years, that's a modest improvement from the point of view of disability claimants. And, no, this isn't some controversial loosening of standards.  I don't think that 15 years ever made sense. It certainly doesn't make sense now. With a nomination for Social Security Commissioner pending, the agency and OIRA are being extremely careful to avoid doing anything the least bit controversial. That's probably an important reason why I've had so little Social Security news to post lately. This proposal wouldn't be going forward now if it were controversial.

Yet Another Golden Oldie

     A post on this blog on June 9, 2020:

    The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has issued a brief report recommending that the Social Security Administration "use evidence-based measures to evaluate access to agency services" which isn't the most exciting recommendation you'll find even in the context of government advisory board reports. There's another more complete report which adds detail. However, the brief report includes this chart which I think is far more interesting than the text in either report. (Click on the image to view full size.)

  

    What I get from this is that the dramatic increase in internet services provided by the Social Security Administration has had almost no effect upon the demand for services provided in person or over the telephone. 

     The idea that Social Security can wean the public off personal service so that in the future the public will just deal with the agency through its online services is bunk. There's no reason to expect that's ever going to work. By all means, provide online services but don't expect that online services will ever replace field offices and telephone service.

By Far The Most Read Post Ever On This Blog

     From this blog on May 22, 2022:

“Serious Concerns” About IG

      From the Washington Post:

… The acting commissioner [of Social Security] “has very serious concerns about the issues raised by The Washington Post about the inspector general’s oversight of this program,” Scott Frey, chief of staff to Kilolo Kijakazi, said in an interview. Kijakazi has scheduled a meeting with her senior staff on Monday “to discuss how to proceed,” Frey said. …

A spokesman for the Senate Finance Committee, which also has jurisdiction over Social Security, said the committee is “evaluating a number of steps” in response to the article. …

     An extreme reduction in productivity has been signaling for months that something is wrong at OIG.

 

 

    And, of course, that Inspector General is still on the job.

He Didn't See It Coming

     From this blog on July 9, 2021:

President Fires Saul And Black

      With no fanfare, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice issued an opinion yesterday that the President may remove the Commissioner of Social Security from office notwithstanding the statutory provisions limiting removal from office. An opinion had been requested by the Deputy Counsel for the President.

     Update: Senator Grassley has tweeted that he's hearing that the President may oust Andrew Saul from his position as Commissioner. Senator McConnell has retweeted this saying "httI agree with @ChuckGrassley. This removal would be an unprecedented and dangerous politicization of the Social Security Administration."

     Further update: I've received several reports that there was a blast e-mail to Social Security employees at 4:30 today from an Acting Commissioner of Social Security indicating that Saul and Black are gone.

     And another update: The Washington Post reports that Saul still believes he’s Commissioner and plans to report for work on Monday — remotely from his home in New York City. Who’s going to break it to him?

How Field Offices Waste Their Time

     From a "Dear Colleague" letter from Dawn Bystry, Deputy Associate Commissioner, Office of Strategic and Digital Communications, Social Security Administration:

Recently, we notified you that we are no longer accepting faxed applications. We appreciate the feedback we received on the notification and want to provide clarifying information. ...

As you know, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted our services and the public’s ability to apply for benefits in person. In response, we implemented various temporary flexibilities – temporary changes to our policies and business processes. These flexibilities included accepting faxed applications as validly signed applications if they contained a legible, handwritten signature.  ...

With the end of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency as of May 11, 2023, we evaluated our temporary flexibilities and decided to discontinue accepting faxed applications. Since we have reopened our offices to walk-in traffic and expanded in-person services, we determined that continuing to accept signatures on faxed applications was no longer justified given the risk that bad actors could use faxed applications to commit fraud. However, you can still use a fax to help your clients. Although we will no longer accept faxed, signed applications as valid applications, a claimant can still submit a faxed application to establish a protective filing date. Upon receiving the faxed application, we will contact the claimant or a proper applicant, go over the information provided, and obtain a signature to validate the application. ...

    I've got a few questions:

• What degree of problem has there ever been with faxed claims?
• Why is a faxed claim more subject to fraud than a mailed claim or any other type of claim?
• How does a fraudulent filed disability claim actually get approved? They don't just look at the form and put someone on benefits. (I know there's presumptive disability but that really wouldn't get you very far with a fraudulent scheme.) Disability claims have to proceed through disability determination. That usually involves phone calls with the claimant. Medical evidence is gathered. There is at least one internal level of review after a determination that someone is disabled. Don't you think there would be problems getting a phony claim through all this without anyone noticing that something looks fishy? I'm no expert on fraud but I'm pretty sure that there are easier ways to commit fraud than submitting a fraudulent disability claim by fax.
  
• Does Ms. Bystry have any clue about the degree of stress that the field offices are under? Maybe she should work in one for a month or two.
  
• Why does Ms. Bystry think it important to waste field office time with such obsessive concerns?
• If she's so concerned about security, maybe she should just force claimants to show up in the office with three types of identification? (I hope I'm not giving her ideas.)
• Is there anyone over Ms. Bystry who can ask whether this emphasis on security is a bit too much?

Sanctioned Representatives

     The Social Security Administration has posted an updated list of "Registered and Unregistered Sanctioned Representatives."

    The list has never seemed that interesting to me but it always draws a good deal of attention whenever I post about an update which isn't often, even though they release an update almost every month.

Government Shutdown Looms

    The federal fiscal year (FY) ends on September 30. Social Security, as well as other agencies, will lack operating funds after that date unless Congress acts. At the moment, appropriations bills are being held up because of disagreements within the Republican Party over what to do. Republicans have a paper thin majority in the House of Representatives. A small group of ultra right wing Republicans is refusing to join the bulk of their colleagues to pass bills that would serve as vehicles for negotiations with Democrats in the Senate, even though anything they pass would be so slanted that Democrats in the House would never vote for those bills. Lacking a functioning majority, the Republicans who have the majority in the House, if not actual control, cannot move forward.

    When Congress is delayed in passing appropriations bills, in the end, they always vote for continuing resolutions (CRs) that allow agencies to continue spending money at basically the same rate as in the just concluded FY.

    House Republicans are working on a one month CR. The Washington Post reports that the CR they're working on would cut expenditures for FY 2024 by 1%. However, this pain would not be spread evenly. The Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs would be excluded from the 1% cut. After these exclusions, the cut for other agencies, including the Social Security Administration, would be 8%. That would result in massive layoffs at Social Security. The agency would be largely incapable of functioning.

    It's not completely clear that the votes are there for this draft CR in the House. It would certainly not pass the Senate or be signed by the President. It's not even a starting point for negotiations.

    We're likely to see a government shutdown at the end of the month. This is actually the result desired by the small group of ultra right wing Republicans holding up things in the House. If your mindset is basically anarchist -- that government is so evil that we would be better off with no government -- then government shutdowns are a good thing.

    If there is a government shutdown at the beginning of next month, most of the Social Security Administration will continue to function. The field offices, teleservice centers, payment centers, OHO offices, and the Appeals Council will not be affected.

Another Golden Oldie — Many Vets With 100% VA Ratings Get Turned Down When They Apply For Social Security Disability

     A post on this blog on August 7, 2014:

Below is a chart labeled "Allowance rates for first DI applications filed by veterans after receiving VA disability ratings of 100% or IU during fiscal years 2000–2006, by VA rating and SSA primary diagnosis body system and selected diagnostic categories." This appears in Veterans Who Apply for Social Security Disabled-Worker Benefits After Receiving a Department of Veterans Affairs Rating of “Total Disability” for Service-Connected Impairments: Characteristics and Outcomes by L. Scott Muller, Nancy Early, and Justin Ronca published in the Social Security Bulletin, the agency's research journal. DI refers to Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. IU refers to Individual Unemployability. Veterans may be approved for 100% VA disability benefits either with or without consideration of IU.

          Overall, Social Security is denying about 31% of disability claims filed by veterans with a 100% VA rating. Social Security approves only 43.5% of these 100% disabled veterans claims at the initial level and 13.8% at reconsideration but 70.8% at the Administrative Law Judge level. Social Security is turning down 25.3% of the claims filed by veterans determined 100% disabled by VA due to traumatic brain injury and 34.8% of those found 100% disabled by VA due to dementia associated with brain trauma.

Click on image to view full size

 

Variance By Race In Applying For Social Security Disability Benefits

     From How Does the Social Security Claiming Process Vary by Race?, a report by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

Stats From The Only Part Of SSA Working Down Its Backlog

      Recently released report on Social Security's Office of Hearings Operations:

Click on image to view full size

 

Should State Agencies Serving As Rep Payees For Children Be Allowed To Seize The Children's Social Security Benefits To Pay For Their Care?

     From WUNC, an NPR station

To Teresa Casados, who runs the department in charge of child welfare in New Mexico, it seemed like an odd question. At a legislative hearing in July, a lawmaker asked her if the state was taking the Social Security checks of kids in foster care — the checks intended for orphans and disabled children.

"My reaction really was: That can't be right," said Casados, who in the spring took over as acting secretary of New Mexico's Children, Youth & Families Department. "That can't be a practice that we're doing." ...

Casados and her chief legal counsel drove back to the office. "When we got back, we looked into it and found out it was a practice that the agency had for using those benefits — and had been going on for quite some time." ...

[L]ast month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration sent a letter to state and local child welfare agencies to encourage these changes.

The NPR/Marshall Project investigation found that in at least 49 states and the District of Columbia, when young people go into foster care child, welfare agencies routinely look for which ones come with Social Security checks. Or, if the children are eligible, agencies sign them up for benefits. Then state agencies cash those checks — usually without telling the child or their family, the investigation found. ...

Just days after that legislative hearing in New Mexico, Casados says her department "sent out a directive to cease using those funds for care and support." It pledged to start putting aside the Social Security benefits checks for foster children to have when they go back to their families or age out of foster care. ...

Bipartisan SSI Bill

     From a press release:

Today U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) announced the first bipartisan, bicameral push in decades to reform the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which has not been updated in nearly 40 years and currently punishes older and disabled Americans for saving for emergencies and their futures. The senators’ bipartisan SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act would update SSI’s asset limits for the first time since the 1980s to ensure disabled and elderly Americans are able to prepare themselves for a financial emergency without putting the benefits they rely on to live at risk.  

In addition to Brown and Cassidy, U.S. Representatives Brian Higgins (D-NY-26) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-1) will introduce companion legislation in the House. U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Casey (D-PA), and James Lankford (R-OK) are original Senate cosponsors. ...

    Of course, the bill stands no chance in this Congress. The GOP controls the House and the GOP would filibuster in the Senate. Sorry, but there's nowhere near enough Republican support in Congress for this to advance. Maybe, maybe, I can squint at it and imagine the bill progressing after the 2024 election, but only if the Democrats have an overwhelming victory.

Confusion Over Law Enforcement Officers On Personal Business At SSA Offices And Their Firearms

     From Queen City News:

A Cleveland County [NC] deputy was told to disarm himself in order to enter the Shelby Social Security Office, according to Sheriff Alan Norman. ...

“Following that directive would place a uniformed law enforcement officer in jeopardy,” Norman wrote in a Facebook post. “[It] would compromise their safety, especially in the treacherous times we are living in.” ...

After speaking with other sheriff’s offices around North Carolina, [the county sheriff] says he discovered that is not the official policy at other Social Security Administrations. ...

SSA’s Regional Communications Director released the following statement to QCN regarding the incident:

“The Social Security Administration followed government-wide security policies established by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS). Generally, FPS policy allows Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities who are armed to enter Federal offices while performing law enforcement functions. FPS prohibits State and local law enforcement from carrying firearms into Federal facilities while on personal business.  ...

Headcount Inches Up

    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted updated numbers showing the headcount of employees at each agency. Note that these numbers do not tell the whole story. They don't account for part time employees nor for overtime. Overtime is a huge part of the story at Social Security. A Full Time Equivalent (FTE) report would cover that but we seldom see FTE reports.  Here are Social Security's numbers as of March with earlier headcount numbers for comparison:

• March, 2023  59,400
  
• December, 2022 58,916
  
• September, 2022 57,754
  
• June, 2022 58,332
  
• March, 2022 59,257
  
• December, 2021 60,422
  
• September, 2021 59,808
  
• June 2021 59,707
  
• March 2021 60,675
• December 2020 61,816
  
• September 2020 61,447
  
• June 2020 60,515
  
• March 2020 60,659
  
• December 2019 61,969
  
• December 2018 62,946
  
• December 2017 62,777
• December 2016 63,364
• December 2015 65,518
• December 2014 65,430
• December 2013 61,957
• December 2012 64,538
• December 2010 70,270
• December 2009 67,486
• December 2008 63,733

A Golden Oldie

      It’s a slow time in Social Security world so let me reprise a post from almost ten years ago. The themes coming from shills have changed but the problem hasn’t gone away. I’ve become quicker to delete comments that look phony to me. I do note comments now that appear to me to come from employee unions but it’s hard to tell since there are obvious reasons why many Social Security employees agree with union talking points.

Bombarding This Blog — From November 8, 2013

If you read the comments posted on this blog you might come to the impression that everyone knows that:

• Social Security employees do most of their "work" from at home but they don't really work because they're all lazy. The agency has way too many employees.
• Social Security's Administrative Law Judges are particularly lazy. They approve Social Security disability claims because they're lazy. A lot of the judges are crooks in cahoots with crooked disability claimants and their crooked attorneys.
• Most Social Security disability claimants are just crooks trying to scam the program.
• It's way too easy to get on Social Security disability benefits, especially for "mental illness." Anyone can get on Social Security disability benefits for "mental illness" just by pretending to be crazy.
• SSI child's benefits are the biggest scam. It's nothing but lazy, drug addicted mothers coaching their kids to act crazy. They get child after child on SSI child's benefits and then steal the money to support their drug habits.
• Attorneys who represent Social Security claimants are lazy. They're paid huge sums of money by Social Security but they do nothing for their clients. If anything, they're just crooks who assist their crooked clients in perpetrating fraud.
• There is no money in the Social Security trust funds. The money was all stolen by Democrats. The U.S. government bonds that are supposed to be in the trust funds are meaningless pieces of paper.
• Social Security is going bankrupt.You'll never get back the money you paid in. It's all a scam.

     Some of this comes from individuals legitimately expressing their opinions. However, it's long been apparent to me that most of this is coming from people who have been paid to post online comments about Social Security. Often, these people pretend to be Social Security employees, Social Security claimants or Social Security attorneys. Often, their comments just don't ring true because they're pretending to be someone they're not.

     Does it seem outlandish, even paranoid to think that someone would be paid to post slanted comments online? Take a look at this article from the Baltimore Sun. Officials at the University of Maryland had a problem. They wanted to shift the University's athletic programs from the Atlantic Coast Conference to the Big Ten. They knew that many of the University's alumni would be furious with this move. Here's what they did:

Brian Ullmann, the university's assistant vice president for marketing and communications ... wrote that the school planned to "engage professional assistance in helping to drop positive messages into the blogs, comments and message board sites. I will arrange for this service today." ...

Lee Zeidman, the corporate communications consultant who helped Maryland draft letters and talking points, said Wednesday that it is "standard operating procedure" in the business world to weigh in directly on message boards. "There are special PR agencies who work in the digital space who bombard blogs and newspaper sites where no one puts their name," Zeidman said.

     Who would pay online shills to post on Social Security issues? Pete Peterson and the Koch brothers are the prime candidates. They're tossing around tens of millions of dollars in their fight against Social Security. They certainly wouldn't be going after just this blog. It's quite unlikely they know anything about it. They would mostly be going after message boards at news media sites. However, I don't know that there's any other web site quite like this one where there's an ongoing discussion on Social Security issues. If you're doing an online campaign to malign Social Security both as a social program and as an agency, you're going to come here.
    I wonder how someone who works as an online shill would feel about their job. Would it make them proud? Would they tell their children about what they do for a living?

New Regs In The Works

    After a long break, the Social Security Administration is advancing proposed regulations. The agency has now asked the Office of Management and Budget to approve regulations to "implement the Commissioner’s access to and use of wage and employment information held by payroll data providers ...  to help  administer the title II Disability Insurance (DI) and title XVI Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs and prevent improper payments."

SSAB Supports O'Malley Nomination

     The four members of the Social Security Advisory Board, two of them Democratic appointees and two of them Republican appointees, have written to the Chairman and Ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee recommending swift approval of Martin O'Malley's nomination to become Commissioner of Social Security. 

    They also recommended that the six year terms for Social Security Commissioners end and that they serve at the pleasure of the President. I think it is beyond dispute that six year terms for Social Security Commissioners has been a bad idea which has led to the near impossibility of confirming Commissioners. In any case, due to recent Supreme Court rulings, Commissioners, in effect, serve at the pleasure of the President anyway.

    Let's get on with it. Endless Acting Commissioners aren't good for the agency.

Administering SSI Is Difficult

     From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

... Homes that SSI applicants and recipients own and reside in do not count toward SSI resource limits. The current market values of any properties other than their owned primary residences, referred to as non-home real properties (NHRP), are generally considered countable resources for SSI eligibility purposes.

In 2017, SSA introduced an electronic search application that employees are required to use in most cases to identify applicants’ and recipients’ real-property information. We reviewed 400 applicants/recipients who had real properties identified through the search application. Of these, properties were a determining factor for SSI eligibility and payments in 122 cases.

SSA employees did not accurately determine property ownership and/or values for 17 (14 percent) of 122 SSI applicants/recipients. As a result, applicants were possibly denied SSI when they should not have been, and recipients received SSI payments for which they were not eligible. Of the 17 applicants/recipients:

• 4 applicants may have been incorrectly denied SSI. SSA needs to further develop these cases to verify the applicants’ SSI eligibility, and
• 13 recipients received over $180,000 in SSI payments for which they were not eligible.We determined employees did not correctly determine the applicants’/recipients’ countable resources, including reviewing for prior ownership. In addition, SSA employees did not add required documentation in SSA’s records to support their real-property determinations for these 17, and 43 other, cases.

We project 1,204 applicants may have been improperly denied SSI eligibility, and 35,885 recipients were improperly paid because SSA employees made inaccurate real-property determinations. ...

Labor Day 1956

 

The expansion of Social Security was the creation of Disability Insurance benefits.

More Union Support For O'Malley Nomination

     From Government Executive:

A coalition of 35 labor unions that represent federal workers last week joined the chorus of stakeholders endorsing former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley to serve as commissioner of the Social Security Administration and urged senators to move quickly to confirm him to his post.

The Federal Workers Alliance, which consists of a variety of labor groups collectively representing more than 550,000 federal workers and postal employees, including the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the National Federation of Federal Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union, announced their support in an Aug. 25 letter to senators. ...

AI And White Collar Social Security Jobs: Part III

     Here's the third and final installment in my series on what Chat GPT can do in a Social Security context.

Request: Write a 10 line poem in blank verse on the subject of Social Security

Chat GPT Response:

Amidst life's journey, a safety net unfurls,

Social Security, a promise held firm.

A shelter for the elders, time's weathered crew,

Their toil remembered, their dignity due.

A woven tapestry of care and grace,

Support in twilight years, a steadfast embrace.

Contributions sown as seeds for the age,

Harvested in retirement, a just wage.

Through cycles and years, its shield endures,

Social Security, a nation's pledge secures

    I'd call this impressive. Of course, if you read anything about Chat GPT you’ll quickly learn about the app’s ability to write poetry. For me, I couldn't write even one couplet in blank verse. One of the questions I ask my clients is "Do you have any hobbies?" It never ceases to amaze me that a not insignificant number of people answer "Writing poetry" and some of those people lack even a high school education. I think there's a poetry gene that I didn't inherit.