From a press release issued by the Republican majority on the House Ways and Means Committee:
Four recently finalized rules from the Social Security Administration (SSA) are the latest examples of the Biden-Harris Administration’s expansion of federal power at a substantial cost to taxpayers, write House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO), Work and Welfare Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-IL), Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Drew Ferguson (R-GA), Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX), and Budget Committee Oversight Task Force Chair Jack Bergman (R-MI) in a new letter to Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley.
Over the next decade, these Biden-Harris rules from the SSA, which circumvent the fiscal accountability requirements of the bipartisan Fiscal Res ponsibility Act, will add $37 billion in new, unpaid-for spending within the Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI) programs.
The Biden-Harris Administration’s failure to offset the costs of these rules will both run up the already unsustainable national debt and further harm the financial health of the Social Security programs. Further, these rules were finalized at a time when the combined Social Security Trust Funds are expected to go bankrupt and be unable to pay full benefits in the next decade. ...
The rules in question are:
- Expand the Definition of Public Assistance Household: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $15 billion
- Omitting Food from In-Kind Support and Maintenance Calculations: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $1.6 billion
- Expansion of the Rental Subsidy Policy for SSI Applicants and Recipients: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $837 million
- Intermediate Improvement to the Disability Adjudication Process: Including How We Consider Past Work: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $19.7 billion
Notice the difference?
ReplyDeleteDems launched a war on poverty.
Republicans are fighting a never ending war on the poor.
@9:05 While I appreciate the sentiment, it's important to realize there are plenty of examples, perhaps more examples, of commissioners appointed by democrats being particularly anti-claimant. I attribute it to being defensively harsh to rebut the claim that Dems are for "welfare."
ReplyDeleteDoggette under Carter instituted the medical-vocational guidelines which at the time were both perceived and intended to reduce awards although actually they've worked out okay, Colvin under Obama practically destroyed judicial review as to medical opinion evidence, yes they became effective under Berryhill but they were proposed by Colvin.
Regardless, O'Malley's actions are laudable not because it's simply party politics, they are genuine improvements and specifically addressing the needs of the most vulnerable, the disabled.
What do they mean by "unpaid spending"? The Disability Trust Fund is not subject to annual appropriations. And last I looked, the DI Trust Fund is not projected to go bankrupt within the next decade...its the OSAI trust fund that goes south by 2035 ("bankrupt" is still highly misleading).
ReplyDelete37 billion over a decade is a drop in the bucket compared to total SSA trust fund distributions. It has no impact on the reducing the 2035 timeline. These GOP Congressman are cosplaying as fiscal conservatives. What have they said about Trump's proposal to end taxes on SSA benefits? That genius idea will accelerate "bankruptcy" of the Trust Fund by 6 years!
@1156 It looks to me like the first 3 proposals would only affect SSI so would not affect the trust funds at all. The last one would for the most part but would affect SSI disability decisions too.
DeleteThis ignores the significant savings on manpower related to the reduced amount time field office and DDS workers have to use processing cases. Less past work to develop, less financial resource issues to develop, faster determinations and services.
ReplyDeleteShoot, I hope those savings are billions upon billions, because we could hire a ton of people for those costs. The point of the article is that SSA decided to change rules that cost real money. My quick tally from the article is that SSA unilaterally decided to change rules that cost about $37 billion. If your local school district did something of similar scale comparison, there is a good chance the next election would find a bunch of new school board members elected no matter the perception of who was helped by the changes.
DeleteThis is a tiny fraction of GDP. I can explain it to you again, but I can't make you care about poor people.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the CBO, the US GDP is projected to increase from $28.18 trillion in 2023 to $41.65 trillion in 2034. Deloitte Insights projects a similar increase, with an average annual growth rate of 2.5% from 2024 to 2028.
The purpose of Social Security is:
ReplyDelete-To provide for the material needs of individuals and families;
-To protect aged and disabled persons against the expenses of illnesses that may otherwise use up their savings;
-To keep families together; and
-To give children the chance to grow up healthy and secure.
The four cited rules help accomplish those purposes while making it easier for an understaffed and underfunded agency to do its work. O'Malley is doing his job. It's time for Ways and Means to do its job and properly fund the agency instead of complaining.
Have to agree with these comments, and I love the new considerations of past work.
ReplyDeleteIs it just me or do those numbers seem a bit exaggerated?
ReplyDelete