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.

Schumer Asks For Better Staffing At Social Security

     From the Syracuse Post-Standard:

The nearly two-year wait for a Social Security appeal hearing in Syracuse could get even longer if the federal agency does not beef up its staff soon, Sen. Charles D. Schumer, D-NY, warned today.

Congress included an addition $440 million in the federal budget approved in March to help Social Security address chronic delays that have plagued the agency for years.

Schumer said the agency's Syracuse field office should get some of that money first because its hearing office has 9,028 pending cases, the biggest backlog in the state. He discussed the issue at a news conference at the Cicero Senior Center. ...

     Unfortunately, as I'm sure Senator Schumer knows, that $440 million isn't enough to do much good. It's going to take budget increases well over a billion dollars a year to noticeably improve service at Social Security.

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.

Seven Months For Conn Associate; 15 Years For Conn

     From WLEX:

An accomplice of Eric C. Conn was sentenced Friday to prison time for helping the disgraced former attorney flee prosecution in a Social Security fraud scheme.

Curtis Wyatt pleaded guilty to conspiracy to escape in March. He is a former employee of the attorney. The FBI says Wyatt, under Conn’s direction, assessed security at US-Mexico border checkpoints, bought Conn’s getaway car with cash and registered it under a dummy corporation and also had an aluminum lined bag sent to his house in Pike County that scrambles GPS signals.

Conn was eventually recaptured in Honduras at a Pizza Hut restaurant.

Wyatt was sentenced to 7 months, with credit for 3 months of time served. He also was fined $500. 

The judge took Wyatt's background into consideration. His background is spotless.
As for Conn, a federal judge approved a plea deal where Conn could face an addition 15 years in prison for his escape to Honduras.

NADE Newsletter

     The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), an organization of the people who make initial and reconsideration determinations on disability claims for the Social Security Administration, has issued its Summer 2018 newsletter.

Why Does Anyone Think That Raising Full Retirement Age Would Be Acceptable To Americans?

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/35928543

New Rules Of Conduct For Attorneys

     The Social Security Administration is publishing final Rules of Conduct and Standards of Responsibility for Appointed Representatives in the Federal Register on Monday. You can read them today. The new rules will be effective 30 days after publication. Here are some excerpts:

... A representative should not withdraw after we set the time and place for the hearing ... unless the representative can show that a withdrawal is necessary due to extraordinary circumstances, as we determine on a case-by-case basis. ...

Disclose in writing, at the time a medical or vocational opinion is submitted to us or as soon as the representative is aware of the submission to us, if: 

(i) The representative’s employee or any individual contracting with the representative drafted, prepared, or issued the medical or vocational opinion; or 
(ii) The representative referred or suggested that the claimant seek an examination from, treatment by, or the assistance of, the individual providing opinion evidence. ...

Disclose to us immediately if the representative discovers that his or her services are or were used by the claimant to commit fraud against us....

What's Going On With The Saul Nomination?

     On April 13 President Trump nominated Andrew Saul to become Commissioner of Social Security. The average time for the Senate to clear Trump's nominations has been 85 days. It's already been almost that long but no hearing has been scheduled on the Saul nomination.
     I have to note a couple of things before we start speculating too much about the fate of the Saul nomination. The President nominated Charles Rettig to become Commissioner of the IRS on January 24. There was no hearing on that nomination until June 28. The other thing is that Saul actually received two nominations. One is for the current term of Social Security Commissioner which expires in January 2019. The other nomination is for a full six year term as Commissioner beginning in January 2019. Don't they have to wait until closer to the start date for the term to vote on confirming him to that six year term? What determines that? Statute? Senate rules? Tradition? The Senate Finance Committee may just be waiting until it can take up both of Saul's nominations.

A Couple Of Questions

     I've been giving thought to the recent Supreme Court opinion in Lucia v. SEC, which held that Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) at the Securities and Exchange Commission were unconstitutionally appointed. I keep coming back to a couple of questions.

• Why does Social Security want to keep a record of the cases pending administratively in which the claimant has objected to the ALJ on Lucia grounds?
• Why hasn't Social Security tried to limit the scope of its potential Lucia problem by having the Acting Commissioner appoint each of its ALJs and ratifying their actions?

     What can the agency do with records of Lucia objections? The only thing I can come up with is that the agency is considering making an issue preclusion argument, i.e., that a claimant can't get a new hearing on Lucia grounds unless they made an objection while the case was pending administratively. I don't think an issue preclusion argument would work for a couple of reasons. First, the Supreme Court decided in Sims v. Apfel  that issue preclusion generally doesn't apply in the Social Security context. Second, this would be a weird context to apply issue preclusion because Social Security has announced publicly that neither the ALJs nor the Appeals Council will consider Lucia arguments. If the agency isn't interested in making issue preclusion arguments, what are they up to? Is the point that even though the issue preclusion argument won't work that it might buy time for the agency?

     The question of why Social Security hasn't tried to mitigate its Lucia problem by having the Acting Commissioner appoint each of the ALJs may take us to a darker place. The issue in Lucia was that the appointments clause of the Constitution requires that "inferior officers" be appointed either by the President or by the head of a department. ALJs have been appointed through a process that hasn't involved the President or the heads of departments. Once the Supreme Court agreed to hear Lucia, the Securities and Exchange Commission and many other agencies that employ ALJs quickly decided to have the heads of the agencies appoint each of their ALJs so that the Lucia problem would be limited to old cases. Social Security didn't do that. It still hasn't done that even in the wake of Lucia. I don't know Social Security's General Counsel but I'm pretty sure he or she is a competent lawyer so I'm pretty sure that he or she advised the Acting Commissioner to mitigate the problem by appointing each of the agency's ALJs. That hasn't happened. Why? I guess you could blame it on general fecklessness by the Acting Commissioner or, more likely, the White House, since the Acting Commissioner probably deferred to the White House.  Alternatively, you could guess that there has been high level consideration of using Lucia as a pretext to replace all of Social Security's ALJs with non-ALJ hearing officers Think Mick Mulvaney, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, who tried to convince Trump that he could attack Social Security disability since it was really welfare, not Social Security. The agency could give each ALJ a notice that he or she is being riffed but that they can keep a job if they'll agree to accept a new, non-ALJ hearing officer position appointed by the Acting Commissioner. The new job would lack the protections of independence afforded ALJs. In the short run, I'd think that most ALJs would have no alternative but to take that offer, even if they immediately started looking for other work. I hate to rattle people's cages but this seems like a possibility. I think it would lead to chaos but the Trump White House isn't big on thinking through the consequences of its decisions.

Members Of Congress Oppose Field Office Closures

     A group of more than one hundred members of Congress have sent the President a letter asking that he stop closing Social Security field offices.