Going Online To Schedule Appointments To File Claims

      Under the Paperwork Reduction Act Social Security must post notices when it develops new forms requiring information from the public. This is from such a notice posted today in the Federal Register:

... SSA developed an online tool to allow internet users to request an appointment to file an application for benefits and to establish a protective filing date with SSA. The electronic protective filing tool will allow individuals to submit information for the appointment request using a computing device, such as a personal computer or handheld (mobile) device instead of calling SSA by phone or visiting an FO [Field Office]. The tool will be available to potential claimants, as well as those individuals assisting them ...

[T]he system will ask the individual to tell us whether they are answering these questions about themselves, or about another person. To do so, the system will present several options for individual to select from the categories of individuals who, under current regulations, can establish a protective filing date. The next screens ask for basic information about the individual who will be claiming benefits, or requesting SSI payments. Additionally, the tool will collect the name, phone number, and email address (optional) of the person submitting the information, if that person is different than the person who will be claiming benefits or SSI payments. Once the system collects the data, it gives the individual the opportunity to review the information provided and electronically sign and submit the form. The system then transmits the information into eLAS [?] and establishes a protective filing date. ...

     The notice does not say when this might come into effect. The agency estimates that only 21,250 of these forms will be completed annually, which sounds awfully low.

Fighting To Survive

 

The Least Partisan Issue

 

EMs Allowing Benefits For Those Who Had Been Unable To Marry Due To Unconstitutional State Laws

      Social Security had earlier announced that it was settling two class actions concerning those who had been denied benefits due to the nine month duration of marriage requirement for widows/widowers benefits in the setting of couples who had been unable to marry due to state laws, later found unconstitutional, prohibiting same sex marriages. Now, the agency has issued two Emergency Messages (EMs) showing how it will implement the new policies.

     The Thornton v. Commissioner EM and the Ely v. Saul EM tell agency adjudicators to consider these questions in determining whether there was an intent to marry that was thwarted by unconstitutional state laws:

· Would the claimant have married their partner if not for a State law that prohibited same-sex marriage? 

· What date would the couple have married if they were not prohibited from doing so? 

· Did the law of the State where the couple lived permit same-sex marriages before the NH died? For information about when States and U.S. territories permitted same-sex marriages, refer to GN 00210.003. 

· Did the couple have a commitment ceremony or attempt to have the relationship formally recognized in any other way prior to the NH’s death? 

· Did the couple exchange commitment rings? 

· Was the claimant in a committed relationship with the NH? If so, for how long?

· Did the couple live together? If yes, how long did they live together?  

· Did they own property together?

· Did the claimant inherit from the NH based on a will?

· Did the NH name the claimant as a beneficiary for life insurance or retirement benefits?

· Did the couple have children together or did they raise any children together from prior relationships?

· Did the claimant and the NH share joint responsibility to care for one another?· Would the claimant and the NH have been otherwise eligible to marry if the law had not barred same-sex couples from marriage? Consider the following questions when determining whether the parties were eligible to marry:

· Were the claimant and NH related to each other in a way that would prevent them from marrying?
· Were the claimant and NH both over the age of 18 during their relationship (or, if not, over the relevant age of majority to marry)?
· Were the claimant and NH prevented from marrying each other because one of them was married to someone else?

· Did the couple choose not to marry prior to the NH’s death for reasons other than a State law prohibition on same-sex marriages?

· Is there any other available evidence regarding whether the couple would have married, and what date they would have married, if State law did not prohibit same-sex marriages?

It's Time To Get These Problems Solved

      From some television station in central New York:

On March 17th, 2020, Social Security offices across the country closed their doors to the public. The federal agency cited the emergence of COVID-19 as the reason - aiming to "protect" those they serve.

While restaurants, schools, and other government agencies like the Department of Motor Vehicles have all since resumed in-person business, social security offices are still closed. They won't open again until early April, according to a spokesperson, over two years since the pandemic began.

This has caused problems for people in Central New York, left to try to reach representatives on the phone. Some have reported waiting for hours trying to get through to someone at Social Security - at times, the call will just drop without anyone answering.

Jeanne Marshall first reached out to CNY Central in November of 2021. Having moved to Nedrow at the end of the summer from Colorado - Marshall said she was in a desperate situation, missing thousands of dollars worth of checks from Social Security.

 She said she had spent over 48 hours cumulatively on the phone - finally learning that there was an alleged issue with her bank routing number. Even after learning that, she said nothing was actually fixed, left without money coming in for three months in a row. ...

Checking the google reviews for the office, she's not alone.

As recently as one month ago - a user wrote "been calling for couple months and no one ever answers."

Another from 3 weeks ago said, "I can't wait till they reopen this office and these people go back to work and are held accountable for their actions of not doing their job!" ...

SSA Phones Down?

      My firm has been experiencing even greater difficulties than usual communicating with Social Security since yesterday. There seem to be technical difficulties so that nothing is going through. I'm hearing reports that this problem extends at least into other parts of North Carolina and South Carolina.

     How extensive is this problem?

Black History In Social Security's Early Days

   

The "Black Cabinet"

   From Black Past (emphasis added):

The Black Cabinet was an informal advisory group of African American civil servants who lobbied for African Americans to receive equal access to federal benefits and employment and job training programs associated with President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Often promoting programs closely aligned with the demands of working-class Blacks, they encouraged First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and white liberals to press FDR on institutionalizing support for racial justice within his New Deal administration. ...

The leaders included Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of the National Council of Negro Women, economist Robert C. Weaver in the Department of the Interior; educator Ambrose Caliver in the Works Projects Administration (WPA) and the Office of Education; lawyer William Hastie in the Department of the Interior; former National Urban League Executive Director Eugene K. Jones in the Department of Commerce; social worker Lawrence W. Oxley in the Department of Labor; and sociologist Ira De A. Reid in the Social Security Administration. ...

Officially this group called itself the Federal Council on Negro Affairs, but it was popularly known as FDR’s “Black Cabinet.” Its central leadership usually met every Friday for group updates and planning sessions...

Who Is Naive Enough To Believe This?

      From Roll Call:

If Republicans take one or both chambers of Congress in November, don’t be surprised if shoring up Social Security’s finances becomes an area of bipartisan focus.

Pronouncements like that have been made before only to die on the next election campaign’s vine. But the spirit of compromise that animated discussions around last year’s bipartisan infrastructure package appears to be creeping into nascent talks about finally, really, this-time-we’re-not-joking doing something to stave off Social Security insolvency.

The prospects look brighter now in the Senate, where veterans of previous bipartisan “gangs” have begun talking about the need for fixes. ...

     What are the chances that Democrats agree to benefit cuts? Nearly zero. What are the chances that Republicans agree to tax increases? Nearly zero. Spirit of compromise? Are you kidding? Nothing's going to happen until there's a gun to their heads.

What Will Social Security Do About The Marasco & Nesslebush Case?

      I had written recently about Social Security's inability to react to an adverse ruling by a court at anything other than a glacial pace. Let me ask when the agency might decide what it's going to do about Marasco & Nesselbush v. Collins. On July 16, 2021 the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that:

... SSA's rule barring payments to attorneys for work completed before they enter government service is both arbitrary and, in some circumstances, in conflict with the statutory mandate to pay "a reasonable fee" for successful representation of SSA claimants. ...

and further held that:

... SSA must adjust its rules, as described above, to ensure that the law firms that employ salaried associates to represent SSA claimants may receive direct payment of the attorney's fees to which the firms' associates are entitled for representation performed while employed by those law firms. ...

     This didn't go to the Supreme Court so Social Security has no choice but to implement it in the First Circuit area (most of New England) but it makes little sense to try to apply it just to that one area of the country. Payment centers all over the country are involved in authorizing attorney fees in the cases of claimants residing in the First Circuit area. Why would you want to have two systems? I can't exclude the possibility that Social Security will be that pig-headed but I hope that wiser heads prevail. Something should have been done about this problem decades ago.

So, Wendell Primus Is The Problem?

      From The Intercept:

Democratic Rep. John Larson of Connecticut has written a bill titled“Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust” that would immediately expand the program’s benefits for all 65 million recipients. It has at least 200 co-sponsors, all Democrats, in the House. And increasing Social Security payments should be an easy lift for Democrats, especially in an election year.

Yet the bill still awaits a vote in the Subcommittee on Social Security — chaired by Larson — of the House Ways and Means Committee, much less a vote on the floor. Why?

Part of the answer appears to be Wendell Primus, a senior aide to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Primus is seen by many in the world of Washington, D.C., progressive politics as embodying a mindset from the Democratic Party’s past, when all that seemed possible was preventing cuts to important social programs, rather than going on offense.

Primus “passionately cares about children, he’s always made the point that we have to make sure that we’re taking care of the children,” Larson said in a recent appearance on The Intercept’s podcast Deconstructed. “Wendell’s concern would be that there’s only so much money to go around. We have only so many expenditures.” Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. …

According to Larson, Mark Meadows, former chair of the House Freedom Caucus and later chief of staff for former President Donald Trump, once told him that if his legislation “makes it to the floor, you’re going to find a lot of Republicans are going to be voting for [it].”

Social Security 2100 would then face a tougher challenge in the Senate. According to Senate rules, changes cannot be made to Social Security via the reconciliation process, which requires a simple majority. It would therefore need to attract the votes of all 50 Democratic senators as well as 10 Republicans to end a certain filibuster. …