Oct 19, 2019

And Now The Problem Will Be Solved In 24 Hours

     From Forbes:
Mrs. Jimmy Rogers of Houston, Texas, was disabled in 1996 in an aircraft accident while working for American Airlines. To this day she is unable to sit, stand, or walk for more than thirty minutes without extreme pain. After the accident, she applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. Four years later, she was able to work a few hours per day in her husband’s business doing some administrative tasks, always earning less than the substantial earnings amount that would disqualify her for receipt of those benefits. 
Starting in 2007 and for four of the following five years, Jimmy received [A1] shareholder distributions from her ownership of stock in her husband’s company. As Social Security Administrative Law Judge Timothy Suing recently confirmed, these payments were not labor income, but simply income from assets – no different than income Jimmy might have received had she owned government bonds.  
But in 2007, Social Security mis-instructed Jimmy, who understood very little of the distinction between asset income and labor income, to revise her tax return and report these shareholder distributions as taxable labor earnings. Jimmy did as she was ordered, but, on the advice of her husband, filed an appeal. 
Compliance with Social Security’s incorrect order triggered an unbelievable bureaucratic nightmare that is surely causing Franz Kafka to writhe in his grave.  
Over the past 13 years, Jimmy and her husband, Larry, have, thanks to Social Security’s acknowledged mistake, been deprived of tens of thousands of dollars in Social Security disability and spousal benefits. Jimmy has been forced to pay extra Social Security payroll taxes she didn’t owe. Jimmy has been forced to pay extra federal income taxes she didn’t owe. Jimmy and Larry’s company has been forced to pay extra FICA taxes they didn’t owe[LR2] . Jimmy retroactively lost her Medicare healthcare coverage and is now being told to pay for years of healthcare treatment coverage. But the icing on the cake is that Social Security has been and is still, to this day, sending Jimmy and her husband a bill for over $120,000 for disability and spousal benefits that they rightfully received (before their benefits were incorrectly terminated), but were falsely told that shouldn’t have received, even though Social Security’s own Administrative Law Judge says the benefits were properly paid (although slightly higher than what they should have been due to the downward adjustment in Jimmy’s income after the shareholder distributions were no longer included in her earnings record). ...

Oct 18, 2019

Our Lives Are So Much More Fragile Than We Want To Imagine

     Going from being a college professor to being on Social Security disability to being homeless. It took this man nine years.

What More Can They Do?

     Senator Collins believes that Social Security isn’t doing enough to combat the current wave of fraud involving telephone callers pretending to be Social Security employees. What, exactly, does she think they should be doing that they aren’t?

Oct 17, 2019

Not Keeping Up With Inflation

     Average Social Security attorney fee per case by year:
  • 2010 -- $3,492.40
  •  2011 -- $3,196.81
  •  2012 -- $3,036.62
  •  2013 -- $2,923.30
  •  2014 -- $2,944.49
  •  2015 -- $3,040.05
  •  2016 -- $3,110.89
  •  2017 -- $3,239.28
  •  2018 -- $3,309.93

Oct 16, 2019

LOL

     All I can say about this thread on the ALJ Discussion Forum (scroll down) is LOL! Take a look at my post that they think shows I must have paid someone at Social Security. The link is to something  the agency posted. All I did was go to the trouble of looking at what the agency posts.  
     I think the only thing I ever got from the ALJ Discussion Forum that I posted here was the bizarre story several years ago about Social Security telling ALJs to not report any work done in the last week of a fiscal year because it would mess up their stats. That one led to a Congressional hearing and considerable embarrassment to the agency but who would deny they had that coming?

Oct 15, 2019

Oct 14, 2019

Andrew Saul Buying Stock

     Social Security's Commissioner, Andrew Saul, is a wealthy man. Since being in office he's bought stock in Rolls Royce and Wayfair. For someone of his wealth, the purchases weren't large. The overall list of Saul's holdings is extensive.

Oct 13, 2019

It’s Easy To Get Your Social Security Problems Resolved — Just Get A TV Station Involved

     Social Security stopped a man’s benefits benefits because they say he’s in prison but a TV station found him at home saying he’s never been in prison. He couldn’t get the agency to restore his benefits. Twenty-four hours after the TV station starts asking Social Security about the case, the benefits are resumed. Funny how that happens.

Oct 12, 2019

Support For GAO Report On Organizational Rep Payees

     From the Ripon Advance:
U.S. Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) welcomed federal recommendations and urged their adoption to strengthen the U.S. Social Security Administration’s (SSA) monitoring of and reliance on organizations like non-profits or nursing homes that help beneficiaries manage their benefits.
“SSA should adopt these recommendations promptly,” said Rep. Reed and U.S. Rep. John Larson (D-CT), ranking member and chairman, respectively, of the U.S. House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, in a joint Oct. 4 statement.
The new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, Social Security Benefits: SSA Needs to Improve Oversight of Organizations that Manage Money for Vulnerable Beneficiaries, makes nine recommendations for SSA, including that the agency assess requiring background checks for organizational payees; and establish timeframes for, and conduct revisions of the accounting form required annually for most organizational payees, according to the lawmakers’ statement. ...

Oct 11, 2019

How Much Effect Will This Have At Social Security?

     The President issued an executive order on Wednesday on "guidance documents" that  has slipped below the radar but which will certainly have effects at federal agencies including Social Security. Here's the relevant language:
... [I]t is the policy of the executive branch, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to require that agencies treat guidance documents as non-binding both in law and in practice, except as incorporated into a contract, take public input into account when appropriate in formulating guidance documents, and make guidance documents readily available to the public.  Agencies may impose legally binding requirements on the public only through regulations and on parties on a case-by-case basis through adjudications, and only after appropriate process, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract. ...
 “Guidance document” means an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, but does not include the following:
(i)    rules promulgated pursuant to notice and comment under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;
(ii)   rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code;
(iii)  rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice;
(iv)   decisions of agency adjudications under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;
(v)    internal guidance directed to the issuing agency or other agencies that is not intended to have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties; or
(vi)   internal executive branch legal advice or legal opinions addressed to executive branch officials. ...
Within 120 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency shall review its guidance documents and, consistent with applicable law, rescind those guidance documents that it determines should no longer be in effect. ...
     One can argue that the vast majority of Social Security's policy issuances describe how the agency is supposed to behave, not how the public is supposed to behave. Still, I can think of areas where the agency has sought to bind the public without adopting rules through the notice and comment procedure, such as:
  • Material included in the notice of final rulemaking on regulation of attorney conduct that was not in the regulations themselves;
  • Material in the agency's POMS manual on trusts;
  • Materials in the HALLEX manual and Emergency Messages on the ways the Conn cases will proceed;
  • Materials in HALLEX and POMS on attorney fees.