For What It’s Worth

      For what it’s worth, the White House is apparently denying that it intends to make any changes in Social Security. 

Aggressive Action Against Disability Claimants Planned

      From the Washington Post:

The Trump administration is preparing a plan that will make it harder for older Americans to qualify for Social Security disability payments, part of an overhaul of the federal safety net for poor, older and disabled people that could result in hundreds of thousands of people losing benefits, according to people familiar with the plans.


Currently, the Social Security Administration evaluates disability claims by considering age, work experience and education to determine if a person can adjust to other types of work. Older applicants, typically over 50, have a better chance of qualifying because age is treated as a limitation in adapting to many jobs.


But now officials are considering eliminating age as a factor entirely or raising the threshold to age 60, according to three people familiar with the plans who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share private discussions. They also plan to modernize labor market data used to judge whether claimants can work, replacing an outdated jobs database that includes obsolete occupations like nut sorters and telephone quotation clerks, following a Washington Post investigation in 2022. …

“We felt that so many more jobs are now available to disabled people,” said Mark Warshawsky, who led work on the earlier proposed rule as the SSA’s deputy commissioner for retirement and disability policy during the first Trump administration. “The nature of work has changed.”

Warshawsky, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, predicted that while the new rule under consideration would allow the agency to turn away more older people, more people with mental disabilities are likely to be approved. … 

According to two former officials, starting next year the agency plans to develop a computer-generated database using the modern jobs data to determine which jobs, if any, someone seeking benefits could perform. Disability advocates say they worry that the database will be programmed to come up with a vast array of jobs, particularly if advancing age is no longer a limiting factor, and will end up denying benefits to tens of thousands of claimants every year. …

     As I’ve said recently, doing anything like this would be disastrous for its authors. The people planning this have no idea how radical it is.

Is A Replacement For The Grid Regs Coming?

      There are rumors that at least some portion of Social Security's upper level management wants to move ahead with a plan to replace the "grid regulations" that provide a framework for disability adjudication or at least to amend them. We can't know whether the Commissioner wants this or whether the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be willing to approve it. It would be a big move if it happens.

     In a sense, I'm happy to get some movement. The obsolescence of the Dictionary Of Occupational Titles (DOT) that formed the backbone of the grid regs has made some move inevitable. In a sense it's hard to understand how we've gotten this far without replacing the grid regs. On the other hand, everyone, and I do mean everyone, has been scared of what follows the grid regs. 

    The rumors about what would replace the grid regs -- something basically saying that if you can perform sedentary work you're not disabled regardless of your age, education or work experience or only if you're 55 or older -- fills me with great concern. However, there may be nuances in what's under consideration that we don't know.

    Here are some thoughts that occur to me.

I -- This Won't Happen Overnight 

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act there is a process to go through before new regulations can be adopted. The first step is for the agency to write up the proposed regs and their justification in a document called a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making or NPRM. This will be a major proposal so the NPRM should be a fairly lengthy, well reasoned document. Of course, the Trump Administration is known for slipshod work so who knows? 

    The Commissioner must approve the NPRM. He's a Social Security novice so this complicated proposal will be difficult for him to review. If there's anyone with any sense surrounding him at Social Security he's going to be warned that the NPRM would be important and controversial. The problem is that an environment of intimidation has been created. Can the Commissioner receive good advice in such an environment?

    Once the Commissioner approves the NPRM, it is sent to OMB, specifically to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for approval. OIRA is the most important agency you’ve never heard of. I'd like to think that there are still enough professionals at OIRA to warn that the NPRM will be highly controversial and could have disastrous political results once it comes into effect but they may also be intimidated or ignored.

    If OMB approves the NPRM, it is published in the Federal Register and the public is allowed to comment on the proposal. There will be literally thousands of comments on something as controversial as this. These comments are all supposed to be read and analyzed. Dozens of different issues will be raised.  The agency must respond to each of these issues in the Federal Register if it is to finally adopt the proposed regs. The responses have to be thought out carefully since everything about these regs will be challenged in federal court. You can't publish one justification in the Federal Register and try another one in federal court. At least that would be a bad plan. Social Security's staff has been greatly thinned out, including its staff involved in rule-making. In the past I would have expected it to take over a year to deal with the comments made on such a major NPRM. I have no idea now. This thing could easily take longer than Trump has left in office. It would be amazing if this could be finished before the next Congress begins.

II -- It Isn't Over Once The NPRM Is Adopted

    Major regulations are difficult to implement. Once you start training staff on the new regs, questions come up that you never considered. There may be questions that you just finessed in the Federal Register without ever giving a real answer but you can’t finesse them anymore. The answers to these questions can have a major impact on the effect of the regs. The questions are likely to be technical enough that they will have to be answered by experienced staff rather than political appointees. Experienced staff will probably be a lot less hostile to claimants than the people who thought up the plan.

III — The Courts Get Their Say

    As I've said above, every facet of a replacement for the grid regs will be examined closely by the federal courts. You might think that the federal courts, or at least the Supreme Court, would be highly sympathetic to the Trump Administration but that's not something you can assume. Those who have taken Social Security cases to the federal courts can tell you that you can't predict how Social Security cases will be decided based upon which President nominated the judge or judges hearing the case.

    One huge issue presented by a plan to effectively remove consideration of age, education and work experience is that the statute specifically requires consideration of age, education and work experience. How do you get around that? You could say that "in our adjudicative experience" none of those factors matter. Social Security has long used that phrase "adjudicative experience" as an all purpose explanation for anything they want to do but for which they lack an explanation. I don't see how that will cut it here. There's too much at stake. Is there a strong argument for what is proposed?

    There's also the issue of the reliability of whatever occupational information system (OIS) Social Security puts forward as a basis for what they're doing.  The OIS in question has been developed in secret under the command of the Social Security Administration. There have been serious questions about Social Security's OIS plan for, how long has it been, 20+ years? It sounds exactly like the sort of thing the federal courts would view with deep suspicions.

IV. The Administration Should Be Wary Of Political Consequences 

    Anything that dramatically reduces the percentage of disability claimants approved for benefits would be extremely controversial. I'm one of the few people still around who can tell you that the most controversial thing the Reagan Administration did was to make it much more difficult to get on disability benefits and to stay on them once they were approved. If this Administration wants to proceed with an anti-claimant plan, it is poking a hornets nest, especially if it is dealing with a House of Representatives or Senate controlled by Democrats.

    There are reasons this didn't happen in the prior Trump Administration. 

V -- The Administration Should Be Wary Of Unintended Consequences 

    I was working for Social Security in a position then called staff attorney, writing decisions for an ALJ, when the grid regs came into effect in 1979. There was concern leading up to the effective date that the grid regs would greatly reduce the number of disability claims approved. I wondered what the effect would be. As I recall, I pulled the last 100 decisions I had drafted and looked to see what effect the grid regulations would have had on them. I found that it would have changed five decisions from a denial to an allowance with none going in the opposite direction. I didn't put much effort into spreading what I had found but I think word did get about and allayed some fears. As it turned out, my unscientific study was right on the money. The allowance rate did go up by about 5%.

    Trump Administration officials may want to be evil but do they know enough about Social Security to accomplish the evil they have in mind? Back in 1979 I'm pretty sure that higher Social Security officials expected lower allowance rates under the grid regs but that's not what they got. The devil is in the details and the details are the specialty of people like me, not the Commissioner and his inexperienced aides.

Bad News Coming?

      From the Urban Institute:

SSA’s forthcoming regulation includes three major components:

• Replacing outdated occupational data: SSA plans to adopt the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS) to replace the obsolete Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), a move with bipartisan support.
• Implementing data from ORS: SSA must make many decisions on how best to implement and interpret ORS data, such as determining whether sufficient jobs exist at various skill and exertional levels that will directly affect eligibility outcomes.
• Age as a Factor: SSA is considering changes to how age, education, and past work experience influence disability determinations. These changes would disproportionately affect older workers.

Estimated Impact:

• The anticipated regulation could reduce eligibility for new applicants to the SSDI program by as much as 20 percent overall, and up to 30 percent among older workers. The potential impact on the SSI program is unclear.
• A 10% reduction in SSDI eligibility could result in 500,000 people losing access over 10 years including 80,000 widows and children. An additional 250,000 beneficiaries could lose eligibility for part of the period. 

• A 10% reduction would reduce benefits by $82 billion, with ripple effects on Medicare and Medicaid eligibility. 

• Many denied older workers may claim early retirement benefits, reducing their lifetime income by up to 30%. …

A Busy Saturday For Social Security

      It was a busy Saturday for Social Security. Yes, a busy Saturday!

     First, Social Security has added significantly more data to the online reports available to attorneys representing claimants at the initial and reconsideration levels. I have not tried it yet but early reports I have heard indicate that it’s a work in progress. Still, this holds out the prospect of two advantages. It gives attorneys easier access to information on the status of their clients’ cases. It cuts down on the number of calls to Social Security asking about case status.

     Second, Social Security issued two Emergency Messages on which jobs can be considered as alternative work a claimant can perform if he or she is unable to perform their past relevant work. In the more important of the Emergency Messages there is a list of jobs that cannot be considered absent “additional evidence” from a Vocational Expert:

DOT Code	DOT Occupational Title	DOT Industry Designation
209.587-010	Addresser	clerical
249.587-018	Document Preparer, Microfilming	business services
249.587-014	Cutter-and-Paster, Press Clippings	business services
239.687-014	Tube Operator	clerical
318.687-018	Silver Wrapper	hotel and restaurant
349.667-010	Host/Hostess, Dance Hall	amusement and recreation
349.667-014	Host/Hostess, Head	amusement and recreation
379.367-010	Surveillance-System Monitor	government services
521.687-010	Almond Blancher, Hand	canning and preserving
521-687-086	Nut Sorter	canning and preserving
726.685-010	Magnetic-Tape Winder	recording
782.687-030	Puller-Through	glove and mitten
976.385-010	Microfilm Processor	business services

     In another Emergency Messages there’s this list of jobs that can no longer be considered at all:

DOT Code	DOT Occupational Title	DOT Industry Designation(s)
013.061-010	AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER	professional and kindred occupations
013.061-014	AGRICULTURAL-RESEARCH ENGINEER	professional and kindred occupations
013.061-018	DESIGN-ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT	professional and kindred occupations
013.061-022	TEST ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT	professional and kindred occupations
021.067-010	ASTRONOMER	professional and kindred occupations
029.067-010	GEOGRAPHER	professional and kindred occupations
029.067-014	GEOGRAPHER, PHYSICAL	professional and kindred occupations
045.061-014	PSYCHOLOGIST, ENGINEERING	professional and kindred occupations
045.107-030	PSYCHOLOGIST, INDUSTRIAL-ORGANIZATIONAL	professional and kindred occupations
052.067-014	DIRECTOR, STATE-HISTORICAL SOCIETY	professional and kindred occupations
052.067-018	GENEALOGIST	professional and kindred occupations
052.067-022	HISTORIAN	professional and kindred occupations
052.067-026	HISTORIAN, DRAMATIC ARTS	professional and kindred occupations
052.167-010	DIRECTOR, RESEARCH	motion picture; radio and television broadcasting
072.101-018	ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEON	medical services
072.101-034	PROSTHODONTIST	medical services
193.162-022	AIRLINE-RADIO OPERATOR, CHIEF	air transportation; business services
193.262-010	AIRLINE-RADIO OPERATOR	air transportation; business services
193.262-014	DISPATCHER	government services
193.262-022	RADIO OFFICER	water transportation
193.262-026	RADIO STATION OPERATOR	aircraft manufacturing
193.262-030	RADIOTELEGRAPH OPERATOR	telephone and telegraph
193.262-034	RADIOTELEPHONE OPERATOR	any industry
193.362-010	PHOTORADIO OPERATOR	printing and publishing; telephone and telegraph
193.362-014	RADIO-INTELLIGENCE OPERATOR	government services
193.382-010	ELECTRONIC INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS SPECIALIST	military services
203.562-010	WIRE-TRANSFER CLERK	financial institutions
235.462-010	CENTRAL-OFFICE OPERATOR	telephone and telegraph
235.562-010	CLERK, ROUTE	telephone and telegraph
235.662-018	DIRECTORY-ASSISTANCE OPERATOR	telephone and telegraph
236.562-010	TELEGRAPHER	railroad transportation
236.562-014	TELEGRAPHER AGENT	railroad transportation
237.367-034	PAY-STATION ATTENDANT	telephone and telegraph
239.382-010	WIRE-PHOTO OPERATOR, NEWS	printing and publishing
297.667-014	MODEL	garment; retail trade; wholesale trade
299.647-010	IMPERSONATOR, CHARACTER	any industry
305.281-010	COOK	domestic service
338.371-010	EMBALMER APPRENTICE	personal service
338.371-014	EMBALMER	personal service
379.384-010	SCUBA DIVER	any industry
410.161-010	ANIMAL BREEDER	agriculture and agricultural service
410.161-014	FUR FARMER	agriculture and agricultural service
410.161-018	LIVESTOCK RANCHER	agriculture and agricultural service
410.161-022	HOG-CONFINEMENT-SYSTEM MANAGER	agriculture and agricultural service
411.161-010	CANARY BREEDER	agriculture and agricultural service
411.161-014	POULTRY BREEDER	agriculture and agricultural service
413.161-014	REPTILE FARMER	agriculture and agricultural service
452.167-010	FIRE WARDEN	forestry
452.367-010	FIRE LOOKOUT	forestry
452.367-014	FIRE RANGER	forestry
455.367-010	LOG GRADER	logging; sawmill and planing mill
455.487-010	LOG SCALER	logging; millwork, veneer, plywood, and structural wood members; paper and pulp; sawmill and planing mill
519.684-010	LADLE LINER	foundry; smelting and refining
519.684-022	STOPPER MAKER	blast furnace, steel work, and rolling and finishing mill
579.664-010	CLAY-STRUCTURE BUILDER AND SERVICER	glass manufacturing
661.281-010	LOFT WORKER	ship and boat manufacturing and repairing
661.281-018	PATTERNMAKER APPRENTICE, WOOD	foundry
661.281-022	PATTERNMAKER, WOOD	foundry
661.380-010	MODEL MAKER, WOOD	any industry
690.682-078	STITCHER, SPECIAL MACHINE	boot and shoe
690.682-082	STITCHER, STANDARD MACHINE	boot and shoe
690.685-494	STITCHER, TAPE-CONTROLLED MACHINE	boot and shoe
693.261-018	MODEL MAKER	aircraft-aerospace manufacturing
714.281-010	AIRCRAFT-PHOTOGRAPHIC-EQUIPMENT MECHANIC	photographic apparatus and materials
714.281-014	CAMERA REPAIRER	photographic apparatus and materials
714.281-018	MACHINIST, MOTION-PICTURE EQUIPMENT	motion picture; photographic apparatus and materials
714.281-022	PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT TECHNICIAN	photographic apparatus and materials
714.281-026	PHOTOGRAPHIC-EQUIPMENT-MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN	photographic apparatus and materials
714.281-030	SERVICE TECHNICIAN, COMPUTERIZED-PHOTOFINISHING EQUIPMENT	photofinishing
715.281-010	WATCH REPAIRER	clocks watches, and allied products
715.281-014	WATCH REPAIRER APPRENTICE	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-010	ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-014	ASSEMBLER, WATCH TRAIN	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-018	BANKING PIN ADJUSTER	clocks watches, and allied products
715.381-022	BARREL ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-026	BARREL-BRIDGE ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-030	BARREL-ENDSHAKE ADJUSTER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-038	CHRONOMETER ASSEMBLER AND ADJUSTER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-042	CHRONOMETER-BALANCE-AND-HAIRSPRING ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-054	HAIRSPRING ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-062	HAIRSPRING VIBRATOR	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-082	PALLET-STONE INSERTER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-086	PALLET-STONE POSITIONER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-094	WATCH ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.584-014	REPAIRER, AUTO CLOCKS	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.681-010	TIMING ADJUSTER	clocks, watches, and allied products
761.381-014	JIG BUILDER	wooden container
788.684-114	THREAD LASTER	boot and shoe
826.261-010	FIELD-SERVICE ENGINEER	photographic apparatus and materials
841.381-010	PAPERHANGER	construction
841.684-010	BILLPOSTER	business services
849.484-010	BOILER RELINER, PLASTIC BLOCK	foundry
850.663-010	DREDGE OPERATOR	construction; coal, metal, and nonmetal mining and quarrying
861.381-046	TERRAZZO WORKER	construction
861.381-050	TERRAZZO-WORKER APPRENTICE	construction
861.664-014	TERRAZZO FINISHER	construction
899.261-010	DIVER	any industry
899.684-010	BONDACTOR-MACHINE OPERATOR	foundry
910.362-010	TOWER OPERATOR	railroad transportation
910.363-018	YARD ENGINEER	railroad transportation
910.382-010	CAR-RETARDER OPERATOR	railroad transportation
910.583-010	LABORER, CAR BARN	railroad transportation
910.683-010	HOSTLER	railroad transportation
910.683-022	TRANSFER-TABLE OPERATOR	railroad equipment building and repairing; railroad transportation
911.663-010	MOTORBOAT OPERATOR	any industry
919.663-014	DINKEY OPERATOR	any industry
919.683-010	DOCK HAND	air transportation
919.683-026	TRACKMOBILE OPERATOR	any industry
930.683-026	ROOF BOLTER	coal, metal, and nonmetal mining and quarrying
952.362-022	POWER-REACTOR OPERATOR	utilities
960.362-010	MOTION-PICTURE PROJECTIONIST	amusement and recreation; motion picture
960.382-010	AUDIOVISUAL TECHNICIAN	any industry
961.367-010	MODEL, PHOTOGRAPHERS'	any industry
961.667-010	MODEL, ARTISTS'	any industry

     I’m not completely sure about this second list. There aren’t terrazzo finishers or artist’s models anymore? I don’t see being an artist model as a career, however. Aren’t there still embalmers these days?  None of this matters except in rare cases, however.

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.

New Proposed Regs In Pipeline

     The Social Security Administration has sent a set of proposed regulations to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. Here's the description, limited as it may be:

We propose to develop intermediate improvements to reduce the burden in our current disability adjudication process as a step towards longer-term reforms to ensure our disability program remains current and supports equitable outcomes. Actions could include decreasing the years of past work we consider when making a disability determination, as well as other potential regulatory changes.

Every Bad Idea For Social Security That The GOP Has Ever Had, In One Document

    Republicans in the House of Representatives have put forth their plan for what that they hope to extort from the President by threatening to put the U.S. government into default on its debts. Here's what their plan would do to Social Security retirement benefits (begins at page 80):

• Implement a new minimum benefit of 15% of the average wage index;
• "Modernize" the Social Security benefit formula, which is a euphemism for reducing future benefits for those now 54 and younger;
• Increase Full Retirement Age to 70 between now and 2040;
• Eliminate the retirement earnings test for those who are under Full Retirement Age;
• Eliminate auxiliary benefits for high wage earners.
  

    The plan also includes changes in disability benefits (begins at page 74):

• Enact a benefits offset experiment that would reduce disability benefits by $1 for every $2 earned (they must not know that this experiment is underway already);
• Allow FICA reductions for employers with high rates of employee retention, which is supposed to help handicapped people stay employed (which would disadvantage manufacturers);
• Require employment in six of the last ten years, instead of five;
• Time limited disability benefits for some recipients; 
• "Update" the grid regulations;
• Make disability benefits contingent on medical improvement (I don't think they meant to say that but that's what they said);
• Prevent those drawing unemployment benefits from drawing disability benefits;
• Eliminate withholding of attorney fees for representing claimants (at least I think that's what they're saying but they only thing clear about it is that they bear a lot of ill will towards attorneys);
• Close the record "after a reasonable period of time";
• Require Social Security to conduct periodic reviews of ALJ decisions, particularly those of "outlier" judges;
• Prohibit reapplications within 12 months of a denial;
• Increase the waiting period for Medicare from 24 months to 60 months;
• Eliminate the ability to apply for both early retirement and disability benefits at the same time;
• Allow employers and employees a reduced FICA rate if the employer provides long term disability benefits.

Elections Have Consequences

      In accordance with a White House directive, all proposed Social Security regulations that were awaiting approval at the Office of Management and Budget have been withdrawn. These include proposed regulations on the timing and frequency of continuing disability reviews and proposed regulations that would have modified the age categories used in determining disability.

Could Musculoskeletal Listing Changes Be Reconsidered?

      The harsh new musculoskeletal Listings are scheduled to go into effect on April 2. However, the change of Administration could delay implementation or even kill these changes altogether. Soon after taking office, Biden's Chief of Staff sent a memorandum to agency heads giving them this directive:

... With respect to rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or rules that have been issued in any manner, but have not taken effect, consider postponing the rules’ effective dates for 60 days from the date of this memorandum ... for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy the rules may raise.  For rules postponed in this manner, during the 60-day period, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider opening a 30-day comment period to allow interested parties to provide comments about issues of fact, law, and policy raised by those rules, and consider pending petitions for reconsideration involving such rules.  As appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and where necessary to continue to review these questions of fact, law, and policy, consider further delaying, or publishing for notice and comment proposed rules further delaying, such rules beyond the 60-day period.  Following the 60-day delay in effective date:

a. for those rules that raise no substantial questions of fact, law, or policy, no further action needs to be taken; and 

b. for those rules that raise substantial questions of fact, law, or policy, agencies should notify the OMB Director and take further appropriate action in consultation with the OMB Director. ...

     The musculoskeletal Listings certainly raise substantial questions of policy, if not fact. Even though their effective date is more than 60 days after this memo, it would certainly seem that they should be subject to additional review and that there should be a new comment period. I would expect that there will be "requests for reconsideration" of the Listings. These new musculoskeletal Listings are not mere housekeeping. They were and remain a highly controversial attack on disability claimants.

     By the way, those proposed regulations that would have increased the number of continuing disability review and that would have modified the grid regulations may not have been officially withdrawn yet but they're dead.

Subcommittee Chairs Attack Proposed Grid Rule Changes

     A press release:

Today, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA), Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John B. Larson (D-CT), and Worker and Family Support Subcommittee Chairman Danny K. Davis (D-IL) released the following statement regarding news that a draft proposed rule that would narrow the eligibility criteria for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits has been sent by the Social Security Administration to the Office of Management and Budget for review: 

“Yet again, the Trump Administration is going out of its way to make it harder for people to qualify for the Social Security disability benefits they have earned. Already, fewer than four in 10 applicants are found eligible for Social Security disability benefits, even after all levels of appeal. This rule would reportedly further restrict eligibility for approximately 500,000 Americans, making it even harder for older, severely disabled people to access the essential income they’re qualified to receive. It is outrageous and cruel that at the eleventh hour and in the middle of a pandemic the Trump Administration is trying to advance yet another harmful cut to Social Security benefits for the most vulnerable Americans.”

Clearing Out The Regulations Cupboard

     The Social Security Administration has asked the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for proposed regulations on "Adjudicating Disability Claims in Which We Must Consider Vocational Factors." 

    Don't get excited. It's way too late for these proposed regulations to be finalized during the Trump Administration. It's not even theoretically possible given the notice periods involved. In fact, they'll probably not even be approved for publication as a proposal. 

     I don't want to read too much into this but sending this to OMB isn't something you'd do if you were interested in cooperating with the incoming Biden Administration.