They Don't Give Up; Neither Can We

     It won't surprise anyone familiar with the publication but the National Review has posted a piece calling for Social Security disability "reform." The "reform" they have in mind is ending Social Security disability and letting the states handle disability benefits, if they choose. You know the same people arguing for letting the states handle it would then argue that the states shouldn't handle it.

     Don't worry. This wouldn't have happened even with Republicans in control of Congress and it's definitely not happening with Democrats gaining control of the House of Representatives in a few weeks but the right wing doesn't give up. They keep coming back with the same bad, hugely unpopular ideas.

Offended By Washington Post Editorial

     From Dean Baker writing for the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

The paper owned by the man who got incredibly rich by avoiding state and local sales taxes is upset because workers are getting Social Security disability payments that average less than $1,300 a month. Since the U.S. has one of the least generous disability programs of any wealthy country, this might seem like a strange concern. Here's the picture from the OECD.

Click on image to view full size

Of course the Post is also a paper that gets hysterical over the prospect that truck drivers will get pay increases. In short, these are folks who practice crude class war. They are okay with some crumbs for the poor, but anything that is good for ordinary workers means giving up money that could be in the pockets of the Bezoses of the world.

Washington Post Returns To Its Campaign Against Social Security Disability Benefits

     From a Washington Post editorial:

... Just three years ago, in July 2015, the Obama administration warned that the [Social Security Disability Insurance] program’s reserves were so low that it might not be able to cover expected benefits in 2016. Now, the trustees say the program will be solvent until 2032. Declining disability insurance receipts may be one reason that labor force participation by “prime-age” workers, those between the ages of 25 and 54, has ticked up from 80.6 percent in September 2015 to 81.8 in May 2018. ...

What does not explain the decline is any structural reform to the program. The fact that disability rolls decline when the economy improves, and vice versa, reflects no intended purpose of disability insurance, because there’s no intrinsic connection between macroeconomic conditions and the likelihood of becoming disabled. Instead, SSDI has functioned as de facto long-term unemployment insurance, fraught with inefficiencies and perverse incentives. In particular, SSDI’s rules require that applicants be unable to engage in any significant paid work, giving them every incentive to cease working completely to qualify and to avoid rehabilitation — that is, to exit the labor force for good. The rules need to change so applicants face something other than a binary choice between work and benefits, perhaps by allowing benefits to phase out gradually as earnings from employment rise. ...

     Sure, convert the earnings test from a cliff to a slope but the subtext of this editorial is that there really is no such thing as disability or, perhaps I should say, "disability." I mean, what more proof do you need than Stephen Hawking that anybody who wants to work can work? Those people on Social Security "disability" aren't really disabled. They're just lazy and a lot of them are drug addicts. Not only is Social Security disability not needed but it is an evil program that destroys lives by paying benefits for sloth. Needless to say, that's not my view but it is the view of those who believe that Social Security disability is the "soft underbelly" of Social Security. Take out Social Security disability and you're one step closer to the holy grail of the right wing, abolishing Social Security itself.

Welfare For People Too Lazy To Work?

     From Dylan Matthews writing for Vox:

Over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said in 2015. “Join the club. Who doesn’t get up a little anxious for work every day and their back hurts?”

It’s a common line from conservative politicians: that the Social Security Disability Insurance program is just welfare for people too lazy to work.

Many of those politicians haven’t spent much time at all actually talking to the people they’re denouncing — people like Randy Pitts.

Before his body started to fail him, Pitts, a 43-year-old in Lake County, Tennessee, was a public servant. He loved his job as a 911 dispatcher for the county’s emergency services; he recounts with pride the story of the day he kept residents calm as trees crashed around them in an ice storm. He was elected county commissioner, a position he used to champion solar power.

Then in 2013, Pitts, who already had moderate arthritis and herniated discs in his back, was diagnosed with renal failure, an extreme form of kidney disease — the beginning of a chain of events that would leave Pitts and his family dependent on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which offers assistance for workers who develop disabilities and illnesses that render them incapable of working any longer.

Pitts’s renal failure led to a medical emergency that left him with what a doctor told him was likely post-traumatic stress disorder. Too weak to stand and talk, he campaigned for reelection but narrowly lost his seat. At his dispatcher job, he struggled to remain calm and form clear sentences to reassure callers. In 2015, struggling mentally and physically, he had to give up his job; these days, he’s unable to dress himself without help from his teenage son.

Pitts’s son works, as does his daughter, who is in college. But the family’s major lifeline is the $1,196 per month Pitts gets through Social Security Disability Insurance — which has been, over the past several years, under intense political assault from the likes of Sen. Paul....

Stereotypes about recipients wasting or not needing the money are common even among people on the program. ...

After visiting Tennessee, talking to SSDI recipients across the state, and scouring the rich economic literature on the program, I was left with a starkly different conclusion from the prevailing criticism. SSDI is not a gusher of free federal money for lazy people with backaches. It’s a stingy, hard-to-access program that helps some of the country’s most desperate citizens scrape by; applying takes months or years, and more than 60 percent of applicants wind up being rejected anyway. ...

According to Bloomberg’s Joshua Green, nine of the 10 counties with the highest share of working-age adults on SSDI voted for Trump, with each of those nine giving him at least 70 percent of the vote; all but one of those nine counties are in Appalachian West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky ...

The regions where people are more likely to be on disability map onto objective measures of health status — like years lost due to early death, diabetes and heart disease rates, and even cancer rates. SSDI serves people who are desperately sick or injured; its beneficiaries have a mortality rate triple that of other people their age, and one-fifth of men and one-sixth of women on the program die within five years of first getting benefits. It’s no accident that it’s concentrated in areas where that kind of severe hardship is also concentrated. ...

Only about a fifth of people on SSDI lack a high school diploma, but education nonetheless is a powerful predictor of the program’s geographic distribution. That’s largely because low levels of education are correlated with poor health. ...

Why Are There So Many Disabiltiy Recipients In Kentucky?

     Dustin Pugel at KY Policy Blog has responded to the recent arguments from the Kentucky Disability Determination Service director about the increase in the number of Kentuckians drawing Social Security disability benefits. Here's a long excerpt:

While some argue the considerable increase in DI beneficiaries in Kentucky is the result of a deficient culture that doesn’t value work, the data does not support this.  The rise in DI beneficiaries in Kentucky — from 148,375 in 2000 to 203,471 in 2016 — might seem alarming, but it is actually closely related to demographic factors, including the aging of the large baby boomer population and the increase in the number of women in the workforce who have the paid work history to qualify for DI.

Older workers are simply more likely to become disabled, and there has been growth in the number of older workers as the baby boomers aged. The likelihood that a worker will collect DI doubles between ages 30 and 40, 40 and 50, and ages 50 and 60. In Kentucky, 76 percent of DI beneficiaries are between 50 and 64 years old.

Kentucky, like the nation as a whole, has been undergoing a swell of population in that age group as the youngest baby boomers began to turn 50 in the late 1990s.

• As a share of the state’s population, those 50-64, has increased 49 percent, from 13.6 percent in 1990 to 20.2 percent in 2016.
• The number of 50-64 year old Kentuckians has increased 79 percent, from 501,679 in 1990 to 896,268 in 2016

This also means, however, that we should expect the number of DI beneficiaries to decline as more boomers reach full retirement age – and out of eligibility for DI. And that is exactly what has been happening.

After rising for a number of years, DI enrollment in Kentucky has dropped every year since 2013.

Women have also become a larger share of the workforce and subsequently, a larger share have been paying into Social Security and begun to qualify for DI. This is why women have accounted for much of Kentucky’s growth in DI beneficiaries. In fact the number of men receiving DI in Kentucky grew 41 percent between 2000 and 2016, but women with DI benefits nearly doubled, at 95 percent.

Some point to Kentucky’s high number of DI beneficiaries compared to other states as a reason for concern. However, most of the variation among states can be largely explained by four factors: a less educated workforce, an older workforce, fewer immigrants (as most immigrants do not qualify for DI) and an industry-based economy (including mining) that involves more physical wear and tear. Kentucky ranks high in these categories compared to other states:

• 5 percent of Kentuckians aged 25 or older completed at least a high school degree (3rd worst in the U.S.).
• The median age in Kentucky is 38.5 years old (18th oldest in the U.S.).
• Only 3.1 percent of Kentuckians are foreign-born (6th lowest in the U.S.).
• 4 percent of Kentuckians work a blue collar job (14th highest in the U.S.).

Kentucky DDS Issues Report

     From WTVQ:

A new report issued Tuesday shows an increase of staggering proportions in the number of Kentucky adults and children receiving disability benefits. The report was prepared by Kentucky’s Disability Determination Services (DDS) ...

The groundbreaking study of outcomes covers a 35-year timeframe between 1980-2015. During that time, Kentucky's population grew by 21 percent while its combined disability enrollment grew exponentially by 249 percent. Childhood enrollment growth was an astounding 449 percent.

In 2015, 11.2 percent of Kentuckians were receiving some form of disability benefit payment, which is the second highest percentage in the country. ...

As the rolls have increased, so has the rate of controlled substance prescriptions. Per capita opioid prescriptions for SSI/Medicaid adult recipients have increased from 47.58 doses in 2000 to 147.29 doses in 2015, a 210 percent increase. Per capita psychotropic prescriptions SSI/Medicaid children have increased from 272.61 doses in 2000 to 456.87 doses in 2015, an increase of 168 percent. ...

The report states Social Security disability benefit dependence should be created by genuinely disabling conditions which permanently preclude individuals from ever performing remunerative work. For people so afflicted, the integrity and solvency of the system must be preserved. Tragically, some individuals in Kentucky have never experienced life without public assistance. The culture within the Social Security Administration (SSA) is described as a bureaucratic institution, the SSA is motivated to protect and, if possible, expand the scope of its activities across the full horizon of its operational domain. For the SSA, claims and beneficiaries equal budget. This simple equation drives the SSAs internal culture thereby making it a significant obstacle to long-term change. 

An outline for SSA reforms is laid out in the report and includes a recommendation for an overhaul of the SSA Program Operations Manual System (POMS) to include:

1) Mandate the use of objective medical evidence using best practices in forensic evaluation to determine benefit eligibility. Objective evidence of injury or illness must be paired with objective functional capacity evaluations that include cross-validation and intra-test reliability protocols which measure the legitimacy of demonstrated physical effort and limitation.

2) Mandate the use of best practices in forensic psychological evaluation to include symptom and performance validity tests such as the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS), the Test of Memory and Malingering (TOMM), and the Rey 15 Item Memory Test. These tests should be accompanied with the application of clinical thresholds of benefit eligibility.

3) Remove all subjective non-severe conditions from the listing of eligible conditions and require mandatory termination reviews for all recoupable conditions based on clinically accepted recovery timelines.

4) Eliminate the SSAs Medical Improvement evidentiary standard of continuing disability review in favor of an Objective Functionality review founded upon objective forensic evaluation standards.

5) Cease payment of benefits upon CDR termination pending the outcome of an appeal to an ALJ.

6) Eliminate the SSAs Lost Folder policy which restricts the re-evaluation of a beneficiary whose file has been lost. This policy is referred to as the Golden Ticket because the individual whose file is lost will likely receive benefits for the rest of his/her life without any prospect of termination. ...

Trump Budget To Call For Social Security Disability Cuts

     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

Conference Today

      For what it's worth:

Today, the McCrery-Pomeroy SSDI Solutions Initiative will be hosting an all-day solutions conference. 

The conference will feature 12 policy proposals to improve the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program, written for the initiative by authors from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. The conference will also feature opening remarks by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), mid-day remarks from Bob Greenstein, president of the Center for Budget and Policy Priories, and a wrap-up panel including Congressmen McCrery and Pomeroy alongside Social Security experts Mark Warshawsky and Alan Cohen. 

We invite you to watch the SSDI Solutions Conference live, today from 8:45 am to 5:00 pm on our livestream. You can find a full agenda on our website. 

Also, in case you missed, it please check out Congressmen McCrery and Pomeroy’s op-ed on SSDI in The Hill. 

 To watch the SSDI Solutions conference live, click here.

     This is sponsored by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is, at least on this issue, largely a front organization for Pete Peterson's longstanding campaign to cut Social Security. Yes, there are some bipartisan trappings but this is basically a right wing group.

Republicans Praise Coburn Bill

     From BloombergView:

Before leaving office last year, former Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma introduced legislation with that goal. His bill called for intervention programs to spot and help people when injury or illness first threatens their livelihood. Medical and therapeutic technology has improved dramatically over the past two decades, but those advances aren't always available to everyone, especially those in low-skill, low-wage professions. Offering medical help, rehabilitation or other benefits can encourage workers to stay employed.

Coburn's measure also proposed to withdraw disability payments less abruptly for those who can still work, even if it's in a lower-wage job or only part time. In effect, their wages would be topped up with payments akin to the earned income tax credit.  The most pernicious incentive in the current system is the "cash cliff" that halts benefits to those who earn any meaningful income. When people try to support themselves, they deserve to be encouraged, not punished.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the new Finance Committee chairman, has supported this approach to reforming disability insurance. Democrats have resisted the idea, arguing that it's wrong to save money at the expense of the disabled. In fact, the Coburn-Hatch approach to promoting employment would aim to save money, if at all, more by raising revenues (thanks to taxes on higher employment) than by cutting benefits.

     I am unaware of any statement by Senator Hatch to the effect that he supports the Coburn bill. However, I learned about this piece from a tweet by Sam Johnson, the Chair of the House Social Security Subcommittee, who seemed to express approval. Also, this piece is a serious misrepresentation of the Coburn bill which is almost exclusively aimed at punishing the disabled.
     Republicans should be realistic. There's no way the Coburn bill gets a majority of Republican votes in either house of Congress much less any Democratic votes. I'm not sure that calling the bill draconian goes far enough.

A Collective Yawn

     I can't find any sign that the news media are picking up the story of indictments for alleged Social Security disability fraud in Puerto Rico. Maybe local media in Puerto Rico are covering this but even Fox News isn't covering the story.

    So far, I'm not sensing any momentum behind the campaign to cut Social Security disability.

The 80-Year War Against Social Security

     Dylan Scott at TPM gives a history of The 80-Year Conservative War On Social Security.

The "Hop Out Of Your Truck" Test

     Senator Rand Paul on disability:

What I tell people is, if you look like me and you hop out of your truck, you shouldn’t be getting your disability check. Over half of the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts. Join the club ... Who doesn’t get up a little anxious for work every day and their back hurts. Everybody over 40 has a little back pain.

     Over half of all applications for Social Security disability benefits do come from people whose primary health problem is either mental or musculoskeletal. This includes people disabled by schizophrenia, traumatic brain injury, multiple amputations and spinal problems causing paraplegia. "Either anxious or their back hurts" is misleading. It's like describing someone with no light perception in either eye as being a little near sighted. One problem is that many on the right believe that what Paul said is true. A bigger problem is that Paul probably believes that what he said is true.
     If you believe that government paid disability insurance benefits are wrong, say so. Don't resort to outrageous misrepresentations of the program you oppose.

     Update: Paul has received a fair amount of criticism for his comments. His response is that those criticizing him are " ... arguing for fraud ... I'm arguing for eliminating fraud." That makes sense only if you believe that the vast majority of people drawing disability benefits are doing so fraudulently.

     I sometimes think that the only test for disability that folks like Paul would accept is that it must be immediately obvious to anyone at any time that the person is disabled and also that it must also be immediately obvious to anyone at any time that the person is suffering badly.

Senators Oppose Cuts In Disability Benefits

     This is the text of a letter sent by Senators Ron Wyden (Ore.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Vermont independent Bernie Sanders:

Dear Leader McConnell et al:

This week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives took an unprecedented step toward cutting Social Security benefits for millions of Americans with disabilities, including veterans and children. As you consider what legislation Congress must pass this year, and how to maintain good governance of the United States Senate, we ask you not to pursue this highly partisan rule change.

We are deeply concerned that the rule change in the House will impact millions of Social Security beneficiaries. According to its actuaries, the Social Security Disability Trust Fund will be unable to pay full disability benefits starting as early as 2016, meaning that legislative action will be necessary to protect the benefits of nearly 11 million Americans. Instead of taking responsible action to address this issue, House Republicans acted according to their extreme ideology and put these benefits at risk by adopting a legislative rule change that creates a point of order against simple bipartisan technical corrections (called reallocations) to adjust the financing of the Social Security Disability Trust Fund.

This move is a particularly audacious in light of the fact that past reallocations have been commonplace and bipartisan. In fact, Congress has reallocated taxes between the Social Security retirement and disability trust funds 11 times before, in both directions, when it was needed to put either program on stronger footing.

The last reallocation occurred in 1994 and was passed without opposition by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. After that reallocation, it was projected that the Disability Trust Fund would be depleted in 2016 – so the need to adjust the trust fund’s financing is not a surprise or cause for alarm. There were no accusations of mismanagement then, or the 4 times it was used under President Reagan, because this country has traditionally managed Social Security as a whole. It is cynical to try and pit retirees and beneficiaries with disabilities against each other, as the House Republican rule change attempts to do.

An earnest debate on how to improve the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds is needed, and we look forward to working together to find bipartisan solutions. However, House Republicans have eliminated a common sense action to ensure that Americans with disabilities who receive Social Security benefits are held harmless as Congress debates that issue.

Holding hostage the Social Security benefits of any American, particularly those of the 9 million Americans with disabilities who are at risk in the coming years, is an untenable proposition. It only increases the chances of yet another unnecessary manufactured crisis, akin to shutting down the government or threatening the full faith and credit of the United States. We ask that you speak out and forcibly reject the House Republican rule in order to take this reckless concept off the table and ensure Americans with disabilities that they can count on their government to act responsibly.

Can The President Be Trusted On Social Security?

     From Dylan Scott writing at TPM:

When House Republicans signaled last week that they would provoke a fight over Social Security in the next two years, progressive stalwarts like Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren decried the action, with Brown alleging the GOP wanted to "set the stage to cut benefits for seniors and disabled Americans.”\

But notably silent on the Republican stance, which prevents what has been a routine transfer of revenue between the retirement and disability funds, upping the chances of a crisis for the latter in late 2016, was the Democratic official who might actually be at the table if conservatives succeed in forcing negotiations in the next Congress: President Barack Obama.

TPM asked multiple times last week for the White House's position on the House action, but never received a formal response, a stark contrast to the loud public pronouncements of Brown, Warren, and others. It also invokes the uneasy relationship between the White House and Social Security advocates, who were dismayed by Obama's willingness to accept cuts to the program during the 2011 grand bargain talks with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).

"Advocates do not trust the president on Social Security," Monique Morrissey, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, told TPM last week. "If he blinks and they message this right, it could be something."

Nancy Altman, co-director of Social Security Works, told TPM that while the Obama administration "hasn't been great on this issue," she sees encouraging signs in Obama's recent appetite for confrontation on issues like immigration.

"Our hope is that he'll be that way on Social Security, too," she said. "But if you look at past history, you can't be confident that that's what will happen."

Driving While Blind

     ABC ran a report Friday night on a man drawing Social Security disability benefits on account of blindness who was working without telling the agency and also driving. Maybe this is how Republicans plan to stigmatize Social Security disability recipients -- hidden videos of isolated individuals committing fraud. Sounds weak to me but maybe it will work. There are plenty of videos of people robbing convenience stores but we aren't planning to close them.

     By the way, I've had a couple of clients over the years who were unquestionably blind as that term is defined in the Social Security Act but who drove occasionally. They weren't defrauding Social Security but they were endangering everyone on the roads. Blindness as defined in the Social Security Act isn't the same as complete loss of vision. 20/200, the most important component of the definition of blindness in the Social Security Act, means things that are 20 feet away are seen about as well as a normally sighted person sees them at 200 feet but people with 20/200 vision still have some vision. I told the blind clients to stop driving, by the way.

How Does GOP Pass A Bill Cutting Social Security Disability?

     To clarify something I posted yesterday, I don't really think it's possible that the House of Representatives will end the Lump Sum Death Payment (LSDP) in order to allow transfers from the Retirement to the Disability Trust Fund. That would work under the rules they just passed but, no, even though ending the LSPD makes perfect sense -- the payments are so tiny they it probably costs more to administer them than is actually paid out -- Republicans would never end the LSDP because they're afraid of being accused of cutting Social Security. And there's the problem for Republicans. If they're afraid of being accused of cutting Social Security if they end the LSDP, a tiny benefit that ought to be eliminated, won't they be afraid they'll be accused of cutting Social Security if they really cut Social Security disability benefits? No doubt they tell themselves that Social Security disability isn't "really" Social Security but do they "really" believe that? More important, do voters "really" believe that? I'm pretty sure that if Republicans cut Social Security disability they'll see campaign ads run against them for cutting Social Security. They can tell everyone that didn't "really" cut Social Security since Social Security disability isn't "really" Social Security. They can also claim that Social Security disability is full of fraud (even though the evidence shows that isn't true) but that's not likely to help. So, how are Republicans really going to pass a bill cutting Social Security disability?I have no idea.

Weak Jujitsu

     Here's the actual language of the new rule in the House of Representatives:

(1) During the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that reduces the actuarial balance by at least .01 percent of the present value of future taxable payroll of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201(a) of the Social Security Act for the 75-year period utilized in the most recent annual report of the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act.

(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a measure that would improve the actuarial balance of the combined balance in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for the 75-year period utilized in the most recent annual report of the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act.

     Under this rule, even the most minor change that reduces either disability or retirement payments would allow for the transfer of funds between the two trust funds. Eliminating the lump sum death payment, for instance, would be enough to allow the transfer between the two trust funds and every knowledgeable person knows that should be eliminated. My idea of playing around with the benefit offset for those dually eligible for disability benefits and retirement or survivor benefits wouldn't work since that would leave the actuarial balance of the combined trust funds unchanged -- although that plus some minor change reducing either disability or retirement benefits, such as eliminating the lump sum death payment, would work. Reversing the offset for those dually eligible for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI would work since it would reduce the combined balance of the two funds by shifting some costs to SSI. Nobody's benefits would be cut. Nobody's taxes would be increased. There would be no effect upon the federal deficit.The windfall offset already reduces Disability Insurance Benefits for back SSI benefits. Just extend that to ongoing payments and the problem is solved. In other words, it will be easy to work around this rule. You don't have to cut anyone's benefits. If you do make a cut, it can be quite a minor cut.

That Jujitsu Move Doesn't Work

 

  I'm still trying to find a copy of the new House rule passed yesterday but if I have it straight they've set forth a rule that prohibits any transfer of money from the Social Security Retirement Trust Fund to the Disability Trust Fund unless the transfer is accompanied by cuts in benefits or increases in taxes so that the Retirement Trust Fund actually ends up with more money despite the transfer. This appears to leave two possible solutions for the looming shortfall in the Disability Trust Fund. First, Congress could pass and the President could sign a bill that would cut Social Security disability benefits by about 20% or Congress could pass and the President could sign a bill that would cut Social Security disability benefits by something less than 20% but which would cut Social Security retirement benefits or raise taxes significantly instead.

    My first thought on hearing of the House rule change was alarm. My second thought was that this changes nothing. This is just another in a long line of efforts by Republicans to find a jujitsu move which would cut Social Security but which would force Democrats to do the cutting. Republicans would then blame the Democrats for the cuts. Why is the risk that Social Security disability benefits will be cut dramatically a motivation for Congressional Democrats to vote for a bill that cuts Social Security benefits dramatically? It's a dramatic cut either way. You're just voting for the pain. For that matter, what's the motivation for Congressional Republicans to vote for a bill that would cut Social Security benefits dramatically? Forget trying to pass such a bill in the House of Representatives. Forget even trying to vote such a bill out of the House Ways and Means Committee. No such bill would even find a sponsor!

     In any case, House rules can be changed by the House at any time by a simple majority vote. Even within the terms of the rule, the House could pass a bill that would cut no benefits, raise no taxes and transfer no money between trust funds but which would prevent anyone from losing Social Security disability benefits. All they would have to do is to play around with benefit offsets for disability recipients who are dually eligible for Social Security retirement or survivor benefits or SSI.

Coburn's Parting Shot

Tom Coburn has just finished his career as a U.S. Senator. On the way out, he introduced S. 3003 which may or may not influence how the upcoming Congress will deal with the Social Security disability programs. Here are a few excerpts from Coburn's bill.

• With the exception of individuals who are classified by the Commissioner of Social Security as ‘medical improvement not expected’, any individual who, under this section ... is entitled for any month to both an old-age insurance benefit and a disability insurance benefit ...  shall only be entitled to the old-age insurance benefit for such month, as reduced for such month pursuant to subsection (q)(1). [Meaning that if you're over 62 and drawing Disability Insurance Benefits, your benefits will be reduced. This would immediately reduce benefits for about 20% of recipients of those benefits.]
• [Social Security disability benefits may be terminated if there is evidence] that would be sufficient to support a finding in an initial determination that the individual is not under a disability and is able to engage in substantial gainful activity. [Essentially ending the medical improvement standard.]
• In the case of an individual [who] ... is determined to be under a disability, and is classified by the Commissioner of Social Security as ‘medical improvement expected’, the termination month applicable to the individual shall be the 35th month following the first month after the individual’s waiting period... [Meaning that if Social Security has determined that your disability is expected to improve, the agency doesn't have to go through any process to cut off your benefits. They're just automatically terminated after 35 months. You have to reapply.]
• ... [A]ge shall not be considered as a vocational factor for any individual who has not attained the age that is 12 years less than the retirement age for such individual [which would be 54 current and would eventually raise to 55] ...
• Any review of an initial adverse determination with respect to an application for disability insurance benefits ... by reason of being under a disability shall only be made before an administrative law judge in a hearing... [Meaning that reconsideration would be eliminated.]
• ... [M]edical evidence ... shall not be received if the evidence is submitted less than 5 days prior to the date on which the hearing is held unless the individual can show that the evidence is material and there is good cause for the failure to submit it before the deadline, but in no case shall medical evidence be received if is ... based on information obtained during the period that begins after a determination is made by an administrative law judge; or ... submitted more than 1 year after a determination is made by an administrative law judge ...
• An individual and, if applicable, such individual’s representative shall submit, in its entirety and without redaction, all relevant medical evidence known to the individual or the representative to the Commissioner of Social Security.
• Each case that is scheduled for a hearing to determine if an individual is under a disability ... shall be assigned to a disability hearing attorney as soon as practicable. ... The disability hearing attorney assigned to a case under paragraph shall ...  develop the evidentiary record ... [A]fter the hearing, if the attorney finds that the evidence clearly does not support the determination of the administrative law judge that the individual is disabled, recommend to the Appeals Council ...review the determination on its own motion. [Meaning that there's a government representative at the hearing who can appeal from a decision approving a disability claim.]
• The Commissioner of Social Security shall establish rules under which an administrative law judge may impose fines and other sanctions the Commissioner determines to be appropriate on a representative for failure to follow the Commissioner’s rules and regulations.
• [I]n no circumstance shall opinion evidence from any source be given controlling weight.
• For purposes of evaluating the credibility of an individual’s medical evidence, an administrative law judge ... may require the individual to undergo a symptom validity test either prior to or after the hearing.
• For purposes of evaluating the credibility of an individual’s medical evidence, an administrative law judge responsible ... shall be permitted to consider information about the individual obtained from publicly available social media.
• The Commissioner of Social Security shall establish rules and regulations relating to the fees payable to representatives of individuals claiming entitlement to disability insurance benefits  ... Such rules and regulations shall ... require representatives to account for the work performed with respect to a case ... [I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.]
• [T]he Inspector General of the Social Security Administration shall conduct a review of the practices of a sample of the highest-earning claimant representatives to ensure compliance with the policies of the Social Security Administration. ...
• [T]he Equal Access to Justice Act ... shall not apply to ... any review under this title of a determination of disability ... or  ... if new evidence is submitted by an individual after a hearing to determine whether or not the individual is under a disability, judicial review of a final determination of disability ...
• [T]he Division of Quality of the Office of Appellate Operations of the Social Security Administration shall conduct a review of a sample of determinations that individuals are entitled to disability insurance benefits by outlier administrative law judges and identify any determinations that are not supported by the evidence. [T]he term ‘‘outlier administrative law judge’’ means an administrative law judge ... who, in a given year ...issues more than 700 decisions; and ... determines that the applicant is entitled to disability insurance benefits in not less than 85 percent of cases.

"Truly Disabled"

Senator Tom Coburn, who will be leaving the Senate in January, has some strong opinions he wants to share about Social Security disability.