Telework Thread

     I'm tired of deleting comments from readers who try to post their views about telework in response to every post I make, whether telework is relevant to what I posted or not. So, here is a post about telework. I don't have anything to say about it. Unlike most of my readers I don't have strong feelings about it. I just want to let readers speak their minds about telework. Have at it. Make endless, tedious, pointless comments if you want and let the comments on the other posts be about those posts.

Yesterday's Hearing

     The hearing yesterday before the Labor-HHS Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee went about as I expected but there were interesting details.

Robert Aderholt, Subcommittee Chair

    Robert Aderholt, the Chair of the Subcommittee, spoke first. He said he was happy that Commissioner O'Malley had already come to his office to discuss the agency's appropriation. He said that less than half of agency heads did this, which I find surprising. He also said that this was the first House Appropriations Committee hearing on Social Security in a decade. I knew it had been a long time but that's even more than I imagined. Note to future Commissioners, including Acting Commissioners: Meet with Appropriations Committee members on as regular a basis as you can.

    Aderholt went quickly into Republican talking points which basically amount to pressure to force an end to telework and a demand that the agency manage its way out of its service delivery problems. In particular, he didn't like the amount of overtime at Social Security and thought that it was being abused by employees. Maybe there are problems with overtime but if it there are, it's just the normal sort of management issue that you find at any large entity. It's hardly responsible for any work backlogs, nor is telework. Just about every entity employing white collar employees allows telework. If you don't allow it, you have a hard time holding onto your employees or hiring new ones.

    The other Subcommittee members divided along party lines in predictable and somewhat depressing ways. My limited experience with Congressional hearings in past decades was that they were nowhere near as partisan as this.

     There were many questions along the lines of “Can’t you use AI so you can give better service inexpensively?” The Commissioner’s answer was basically “We hardly have the money to maintain the systems we already have so we can’t possibly afford new AI contracts.”

    It grated on me that Commissioner O'Malley kept saying he had "turned around" Social Security. He's a politician so you expect some hyperbole but saying that the agency has been "turned around" is over the top. O'Malley has done a good job in the short time frame he's had but actually "turning around" the agency was impossible without more time and more money.

    In the end, I hope I'm wrong but I would be surprised to see any additional money for Social Security coming out of this Subcommittee.

    Republicans will get a chance to see whether a Trump appointee as Commissioner can manage the agency out of its service delivery problems. I don't have high hopes of anyone even being nominated for the position for many months, if not years, into the future. Given the quality of the man Trump appointed in his first term in office, I'm not expecting a transformational leader.

House Appropriations Hearing

     The written witness statement of Commissioner Martin O'Malley for today's hearing before the Labor-HHS Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee is already available. I think someone slipped up. They normally embargo these until literally the moment the witness starts speaking.

    The hearing, which is set for 10:30, will be available for viewing online.

Overpayment Changes Written In The Sand?

    From a press release issued by Social Security on March 20 of this year:

Social Security Commissioner Martin O'Malley today announced he is taking four vital steps to immediately address overpayment issues customers and the agency have experienced. ...

Our deeper understanding of the complexities of this problem has set us on the following course of action:

1. Starting next Monday, March 25, we will be ceasing the heavy-handed practice of intercepting 100 percent of an overpaid beneficiary's monthly Social Security benefit by default if they fail to respond to our demand for repayment. Moving forward, we will now use a much more reasonable default withholding rate of 10 percent of monthly benefits — similar to the current rate in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.
2. We will be reframing our guidance and procedures so that the burden of proof shifts away from the claimant in determining whether there is any evidence that the claimant was at fault in causing the overpayment.
3. For the vast majority of beneficiaries who request to work out a repayment plan, we recently changed our policy so that we will approve repayment plans of up to 60 months. To qualify, Social Security beneficiaries would only need to provide a verbal summary of their income, resources, and expenses, and recipients of the means-tested SSI program would not need to provide even this summary. This change extended this easier repayment option by an additional two years (from 36 to 60 months).
4. And finally, we will be making it much easier for overpaid beneficiaries to request a waiver of repayment, in the event they believe themselves to have been without any fault and/or without the ability to repay.

        This has all been implemented via an Emergency Message and changes in the agency's POMS manual. Social Security says it has reduced the number of people affected by withholding the entire monthly check from 46,000 to 7,000. The problem is that none of these changes have the force and effect of law, as a regulation would. Everything O'Malley has done on overpayments could be easily undone by a simple memo. Regulations can be amended but the process takes time. It's much less likely to be done. Maybe the agency was working on regs and didn't get finished. Maybe it was thought that a subsequent administration wouldn't change this. Maybe they won't but I wouldn't be surprised if this one does. Have you noticed that the incoming administration seems a little bloody-minded?

    One other thing that O'Malley talked about was a statute of limitations on the collection of overpayments. I thought he could have done this by a regulation but, apparently, his agency eventually decided that Congress would have to amend the statutes, which, of course, is impossible.

O'Malley Resigning On November 29

     Martin O'Malley is resigning as Commissioner of Social Security effective on November 29.

    Update: NBC News reports that O'Malley is seeking to become the Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

It Keeps Getting Worse

     From a recently released report:

From Social Security's Freedom of Information website

Online Representative Availability Portal Coming

    An e-mail I received from Social Security:

The Office of Hearings Operations (OHO) is pleased to announce the release of the Representative Availability Portal (Portal) as part of the Enhanced Representative Availability Process (ERAP). The Portal is a dynamic, modern, and user-friendly website that allows representatives, through their Designated Scheduling Groups (DSGs), to provide us their availability for hearings. While you can still email your monthly availability to us if you choose, the Portal is a simpler and more convenient way to provide us your availability.   

We plan to register Portal users over the next several months as part of a phased national rollout, ultimately offering the Portal as an option for all representatives in 2025. If you are interested in registering individuals to submit availability through the Portal on behalf of your DSG, please send an email ... to ...

    Anything would be an improvement over the mess we've got now, both for attorneys and Social Security.

Just For One Person

    Here's a note intended only for one person. You're trying to post comments under the name "Admin." You're pretending to be me but you're not me. I'm not going to allow any comment you try to post to ever appear, you jackass!

Electronic Payroll Data Rules Advance

     Social Security has asked for Office of Management and Budget approval to publish final rules on "Use of Electronic Payroll Data To Improve Program Administration." This has not been controversial. It is the only Social Security regulatory package awaiting OMB approval. Without OMB approval before the change of administration, this one could languish for months if not years.

Disability Examiner Losses

 

From a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General

GPO And WEP Elimination Bill Passes House

      It happened quietly but the bill to end the Govern Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision passed in the House of Representives Tuesday night. Its fate in the Senate is uncertain.

Coming Soon -- Walk-In Service To End

     

    If you're a Social Security employee who thinks this is great, remember that there is little efficiency gained here. You'll feel less harried mainly because workloads are reduced by discouraging the public from doing business with Social Security in the first place and by extending time frames for service out potentially by months. There is a significant percentage of the population who aren't capable of jumping through even a few hoops. They'll wait in your waiting room to see someone but they won't call repeatedly trying to make an appointment only to get frustrated after 30 minutes or more and hang up. Yes, you can go to the field office and make an appointment there to come back in a month or two but many people won't keep that appointment. They've got problems that keep them from working and from keeping appointments. That's frustrating but those people are a significant percentage of the population the agency is supposed to be serving.

    Imagine this. Your Social Security checks suddenly end. Your Medicare is terminated. All of your bank accounts and credit cards are frozen. You have no way of paying your bills or even buying food. Someone tells you that the problem is that you're been declared dead. You have no idea who decided you were dead After a month of desperation, someone tells you that the problem is at Social Security. You immediately go down to the local Social Security field office hoping for a quick resolution of the problem but all that happens is that you have to make an appointment two months out into the future. How would you feel?

Appropriations Hearing On November 14

    The House Appropriations Committee has scheduled a hearing on the Social Security Administration appropriation for 10:30 on November 14. Commissioner Martin O'Malley is the only scheduled witness.

Veterans Day 2024

 

OHO Caseload Analysis Report

 

Click on image to view full size

Why O'Malley Will Leave Office By January 20

     When I posted yesterday to give my advice about one thing the Commissioner could do before leaving office I didn't explain why he would be leaving office soon. I thought everyone knew that but it's apparent from the comments made that many don't understand so let me explain. Commissioners of Social Security have fixed six year terms. A Commissioner's six year term doesn't run from the date that he or she is confirmed. It runs until the end of the fixed six year time period. In O'Malley's case, he was confirmed with only a little more than a year left in that six year time period. O'Malley's six year term ends on Inauguration Day in January. However, after a Commissioner's six year term ends he or she can remain as Commissioner until a new Commissioner is confirmed. If Kamala Harris had been elected, this might have been of importance but she wasn't. More important than all this six year term business is the fact that a President can fire a Social Security Commissioner any time he or she chooses. That's what happened to Andrew Saul. It's extremely unlikely that O'Malley would want to hang around for the chaos of Trump II but even if he tried, he'd almost certainly be summarily fired. If you think there will be any bipartisanship in Trump II you haven't been paying attention. Thus, O'Malley will be leaving office by Inauguration Day.

    By the way, don't expect a nomination for a new Commissioner anytime soon. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have taken treated the nomination as a low priority matter.

What O’Malley Can Do Before Leaving

      There is precious little that Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley can do before Inauguration Day that could not be quickly undone by the incoming Trump Administration. One exception would be finally putting an end to the Eric Conn cases. There have been reports that O’Malley has planned to do something to terminate most of the Conn cases. Why not just end them all? Apart from the Chief Counsel, no one at the agency seems to have any appetite to go after these claimants any further. The politicians in Kentucky are pushing for relief for these claimants. Does anyone in Congress still want this group punished? It's time to clear this matter off the agency’s plate.

On Election Night House Freedom Caucus Uses Scheme To Stall Bill To Repeal WEP And GPO

     From Roll Call:

Members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus orchestrated an unusual play on the House floor during a rare election night, 5 p.m. pro forma session that resulted in killing, at least for now, a broadly popular bill that was set to hit the floor as soon as next week.

Reps. Garret Graves, R-La., and Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., had successfully rounded up the 218 signatures needed for a discharge petition to bypass GOP leaders and bring up bipartisan legislation that would repeal two long-standing provisions docking Social Security benefits for certain retirees. They were set to make their move as soon as Tuesday night by triggering a two-day clock to bring to the floor the special rule for immediate consideration of the bill. ...

Then the Freedom Caucus, which opposes the measure’s $196 billion cost over a decade, intervened.

What happened: Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., a more or less local member from the Eastern Shore, presided over the pro forma session, which lasted all of seven minutes.

During the brief session he recognized outgoing Rep. Bob Good, R-Va. — the former Freedom Caucus chair who lost his primary — for a unanimous consent request. Good’s request to lay the Social Security bill on the table was agreed to by unanimous consent, with no one else in the chamber to object.

The effect of laying the bill on the table in this context, under House rules, has the same effect as defeating a bill on the floor; it is dead for the time being. Since the discharge petition was actually filed on the rule for consideration, not the bill itself, the rule could still be called up for a vote under discharge procedures, which if adopted would remove the bill from the table and allow a vote.

 Alternatively, a brand new, identical bill could simply be introduced — as early as this Friday’s pro forma session — and that measure put up for a vote under suspension of the rules as soon as next week. ...

Harris’ move to recognize Good goes against the “Speaker’s announced policies” in exercising authorities under House rules, which stipulate that such UC requests can only be made after receiving assurances that the majority and minority leadership of both the House and the relevant committees have no objection.

In fact, before Harris recognized Good, House Parliamentarian Jason Smith can be heard on the microphone saying: “The chair will not entertain the gentleman’s request. The chair cannot entertain the gentleman’s request.” ...

November 6, 2024

I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. 

                                                                                    — Judge Learned Hand

Don't Forget

 

A Poll

 

online polls

Information Requested

    From a Request for Information posted today by Social Security in the Federal Register:

... This request for information (RFI) seeks public input to inform how Federal agencies can support broader State and local efforts to improve the outcomes of children in the child welfare system who are eligible for Federal benefits. The input we receive will inform our deliberations about potential policy changes. ...

 Application

• For children who have contact with the child welfare system but who are not in foster care, what opportunities or challenges exist for child welfare agencies to assist with screening children for SSA benefit eligibility and applying for benefits?

• What opportunities or challenges exist for child welfare agencies to apply for SSA benefits on behalf of children in foster care or living away from their parents with other caregivers? Are there differences depending on whether the child or their family are eligible for other public benefits, such as preventative child welfare services, TANF, SNAP, or title IV–E foster care payments?

SSA Benefit Use and Conservation
• Current SSA rules allow payees, including child welfare agencies, who serve children in foster care to use SSA benefits to pay for the child’s current needs, including the cost of monthly foster care maintenance payments. Payees must conserve SSA benefits for future use only after meeting all of the child’s current and foreseeable needs. How effectively do these rules contribute to the ability of child welfare agencies to serve children in foster care? Are there differences depending on whether the child receives Social Security benefits or SSI payments?

• Please describe if it would be beneficial to offer additional guidance or clarification related to when Social Security benefits or SSI payments must be conserved by payees, including, as applicable, child welfare agencies, or expand on what kinds of factors should be considered in a conservation decision.

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, how do you make decisions about the use and conservation of the children’s SSA benefits? What do you do with SSA benefits that are not used as part of the monthly foster care
maintenance payment?

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, a child may be eligible to receive benefits from various sources, including Federal, State, and local. What are the benefits in using SSA benefits before or after other sources of funding to cover the costs of the child’s foster care maintenance?

• For child welfare agencies, if you were required to conserve SSA benefits on behalf of eligible children in foster care, would that affect the agency’s decision about whether to screen or apply for SSA benefits on behalf of a child?

• What would be the implications or challenges if child welfare agencies are restricted from using SSA benefits for foster care maintenance and required to conserve SSA benefits?

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, do you conserve any amount of the children’s SSA benefits for future use? If not, why not? If you do, how do you determine how much to conserve? Do you hold the funds, such as in a savings account or a trust account? Do you use Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts or special needs trusts to conserve funds? What are the benefits of and impediments to using ABLE accounts or special needs trusts? Does the decision on whether to conserve benefits depend on the type of benefit provided to the child (e.g., Social Security, SSI, foster care maintenance payments, etc.)?

• For current and former foster youth, what current needs would be met if you had access to your conserved SSA benefits? Are there examples of current needs that are not commonly met by the monthly foster care maintenance payments? If so, which needs?

General

 
• Are there other aspects of HHS’s or SSA’s programs where guidance, technical assistance, or information can be offered or improved to better support children in foster care or otherwise in contact with the child welfare system. ...

Inflation And Social Security Disability Recipients

     From The Bulletin on Retirement and Disability:

... Social Security Disability (SSD) program beneficiaries, like other consumers, have been negatively affected by inflation over the past several years. In a survey from June of 2023, more than half (59 percent) of SSD program beneficiaries reported higher prices for the disability-related goods and services they need to purchase, and more than one-quarter reported reducing food spending to cover disability-related costs, Zachary Morris and Stephanie Rennane found in Examining the Impact of Inflation on the Economic Security of Disability Program Beneficiaries (NBER RDRC Paper NB23-08).

Using new survey data, the researchers found that 82 percent of beneficiaries reported out-of-pocket expenses related to their disability, with average annual spending of $4,412 and median spending of $384 as of June 2023. Fifty-nine percent of beneficiaries reported higher spending on disability-related goods and services compared to two years earlier. In response to these rising costs, 25 percent of beneficiaries indicated they went into debt; 43 percent found recent COLA adjustments insufficient to maintain their standard of living. ...

Happy Halloween!

 

Dad In Freezer Case

    The title of this New York Post article says it all:  Twisted son left dad’s corpse in backyard freezer for years — so he could keep cashing his Social Security check. 

    You might think this is such a bizarre story that it must be without precedent. No, this happens semi-regularly at Social Security. As I've posted before, they've even made a movie about one such case -- Bernie.

In Person Service Matters

    From Effects Of Suspending In-Person Services At Social Security Administration Field Offices On Disability Applications And Allowances by Monica Farid, Michael T. Anderson, Gina Freeman, and Christopher Earles, a study for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

In this study, we examine the effect of the suspension of in-person services at Social Security Administration (SSA) field offices during the COVID-19 pandemic on applications ...

The paper found that:

• There were systematic differences in the characteristics of applicants by mode of application. In-person applicants were older, less likely to have completed high school, and less likely to speak English compared to phone or online applicants.
  

• The suspension caused a 6-percent decrease in the volume of applications, implying that not everyone who wanted to apply in-person was able to apply using other modes. The effect was larger for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) applications compared to Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) applications.
  

• The suspension of in-person services caused some would-be in-person applicants to apply by phone, but it did not cause an increase in the volume of online applications.
  

• We did not find evidence that the suspension disproportionately affected groups of applicants defined by educational attainment, age, or English-speaking status.
  

• Our estimates imply that in-person service suspensions explain more than 50 percent of the decline in SSI and DI applications during the pandemic. ...
  

    The first and fourth points above seem to be in tension with each other.

Prove Me Wrong

 

    Let’s imagine a scenario. Donald Trump is elected President.  A year later Trump issues an “executive order” (he’s big on those) saying that henceforth only U.S. citizens are eligible for Social Security benefits. This is to “save” Social Security. The order is blatantly illegal. Statutes and U.S. treaties make legal immigrants eligible for benefits.  The order is no great surprise. Trump has already ordered the arrest of political opponents and ordered the Department of Justice to ignore court orders for their release. He’s already ordered a complete end to refugee admissions across the U.S. borders, which also violates U.S. law and treaties and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to ignore court orders to admit refugees. He’s ordered the Army to suppress peaceful demonstrations. Court orders, even habeas corpus, are routinely ignored in the second Trump Administration. If you don’t know what habeas corpus is, just take it from a lawyer, if there’s no habeas corpus, no one has any rights whatsoever. When government employees have protested all the illegality, the Trump Administration has had two responses. First, don’t worry, I’ll give everyone involved a pardon so you won't get into trouble. Second, either do it or you’re fired since Civil Service protections will have long since been removed from all federal employees.

     So, what are you going to do if you’re a Social Security employee ordered to implement a blatantly illegal order? Pretend that if the President orders it, that it can’t be that illegal? Try to drag your feet? Tell yourself that you only have a small role in the process so what you do doesn't matter. Refuse to be concerned about it since you have no non-citizen friends or family? Implement the order because you like the policy even if it's illegal? Refuse to implement the order and get fired? Quit your job so you don’t have to implement the illegal order? 

     In general, I have enormous sympathy for Social Security employees but on this I expect that few of you will have the courage to quit or court firing.  Prove me wrong but I can hear you now. “I’ve got a family to feed.” “Refusing to implement the illegal order will do no good. If I don’t do it, someone else will.” “I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know what the law is.” “I was just following orders.”

     I doubt this exact scenario will happen but somewhat less dramatic illegality is almost certain. Trump is already saying he'll end citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the U.S. illegally. That's a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. The obvious first step in ending birthright citizenship would be to deny Social Security cards to children born in the U.S. to those present in the country illegally. Would you want to implement a cruel policy that's clearly illegal?

NADE Newsletter

     The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), whose members work at state agencies making disability determinations at the initial and reconsideration levels for Social Security, has released its most current newsletter, concerning its National Training Conference in Oklahoma City in August. Presentations by John Owen, Associate Commissioner of the Office of Disability Determinations, Hope Grunberg, Associate Commissioner of the Office of Disability Policy (ODP), Ben Gurga, Deputy Associate Commissioner of ODP, Kasey Torres, Director of the Division of Disability Quality and Kevin Huse, Deputy Assistant Inspector General For Cooperative Disability Investigations are summarized.

Ways And Means Republicans Oppose Recent Decisions By Commissioner Of Social Security

     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

Some Pics

     The Commissioner of Social Security, Martin O'Malley, visited Raleigh yesterday for an event at the Governor's Mansion to celebrate the 70th anniversary of North Carolina's Disability Determination Service (DDS). My partner and I received an invitation to the event. Here are a few pictures. 

    First, me with Commissioner O'Malley:

    Second, a picture of my partner, Crystal Rouse, with the Commissioner:

    Next, a picture of Rose Mary Buehler, the Regional Commissioner for the Atlanta Region, myself, Joseph Lytle, the Deputy Commissioner for Hearings Operations and Crystal.

    Finally, a picture of the NC DDS employees in attendance.

    The venue was not large enough to accommodate the entire workforce at NC DDS.

A Little Help From GSA

     From a press release issued by the General Services Administration (GSA):

The Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) announced its latest round of investments totaling $50.2 million, aimed at modernizing critical services across two federal agencies. ...

With $19.5 million in TMF support, SSA aims to transition to a more efficient, user-friendly service featuring electronic signature capabilities and a robust online document upload platform. By 2028, SSA anticipates reducing paper mail volume by roughly half and saving over 600 staff work years annually. For the public, this could potentially save customers up to 1.3 million hours in travel time. ...

SSA plans to use $9 million in TMF support to create user-centered design guidance, build new digital tools, and modernize current backend systems for an enhanced customer experience. This effort aims to simplify notice language, create more digital options for receiving notices, and transform how SSA connects with applicants and beneficiaries. ...

As medical records grow increasingly complex and staff resources remain limited, SSA faces challenges in processing disability claims efficiently. To address this, SSA intends to use $1.9 million in TMF support to enhance several key systems, including the National Case Processing System and the Intelligent Medical-Language Analysis Generation tool. ...

    I don't see an explanation for the other $10 million.

NOSSCR Files RICO Suit Against La Grada

     From the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR):

NOSSCR filed suit on Friday, October 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a Spanish company for misleading Social Security beneficiaries and unnecessarily clogging SSA’s phone lines. The complaint alleges that La Grada Online published articles with sensationalized headlines about Social Security benefits, including a false report of a $600 payment increase in June 2024. This misinformation caused a surge in calls to SSA, overwhelming the agency's phone lines and costing NOSSCR members considerable time and money. The complaint further alleges that La Grada Online published another misleading article in August 2024, falsely claiming a "Social Security benefit boost."

The lawsuit accuses Kapital Media Productions of violating the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, and Illinois common law. NOSSCR seeks treble damages, attorneys' fees, and an injunction to prevent La Grada Online from publishing further false information about Social Security benefits.  ...

    I see it daily but never post the crap that La Grada puts out. It's obnoxious stuff that unquestionably misleads the public for the purpose of gaining clicks. The problem is titles such as these:

Total change in Social Security checks as of this date – How do I claim the new benefits?

Social Security makes new payment schedule official – List of checks to be paid in November

Last Social Security payment of October for retirees who born between this dates – $4,873 check to be paid this week

Goodbye to Social Security benefits – List of retirees who will no longer receive payments

     I'm not going to help these sleezes by giving links.

    I know just about nothing about RICO. Does NOSSCR have standing?

 

 

Drain The Trust Funds

     From the Washington Post:

A new report projects that the Social Security Trust Fund might run out of money within six years under a Donald Trump presidency, while Vice President Kamala Harris’s proposed policies would not meaningfully change the current trajectory.

Social Security faces a looming funding crisis in an aging country, with trustees most recently predicting that the retirement and disability program’s trust fund will become insolvent in 2035. Many of Trump’s campaign proposals would accelerate that timeline, potentially by years, said the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that opposes large federal deficits.

In a report released Monday, the organization concluded that many of Trump’s proposed second-term agenda items all work in the same direction when it comes to the Social Security Trust Fund. The budget group did not produce a similar report on Harris’s policies because they would have a negligible effect measured only in weeks or months rather than years, said Marc Goldwein, CRFB’s senior policy director. ...

Most directly, Trump has promised that no Social Security recipients should have to pay federal income taxes on their benefits. Under current law, 40 percent of beneficiaries pay taxes on some portion of their Social Security. The tax they pay on their benefits goes directly back to the trust fund, and getting rid of it could cost the program almost $1 trillion over 10 years, the report forecast.

Other Trump policies might have indirect effects. Trump’s pledge to deport millions of undocumented workers could cost the trust fund hundreds of millions of dollars, the CRFB said. Many undocumented immigrants have payroll taxes taken out of their paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, but never become eligible to claim benefits, so they are a net positive for the program. ...