Jul 14, 2007
Jul 13, 2007
Policy Change On Name Changes
A. New Policy In name change situations when evidence of identity in the old name is required (e.g., name change occurred more than 2 years ago) and the applicant alleges not having any evidence of identity in the old name with him or her at the time the SSN application is filed, request the following documentation (1, 2) and Numident verification (3) to process the name change:1. Name change document (e.g., marriage document) showing the old name that agrees with the name on the latest Numident record (e.g., maiden name), and
Important: If these three documentation requirements are not met, the name change request cannot be processed under this new policy. Evidence of identity in the old name would need to be submitted if required under the instructions in EM-06064 (for name changes based on marriage and divorce) or RM 00203.210 (for other types of name changes).
2. Evidence of identity in the new name (name to be shown on the SSN card), per criteria described in RM 00203.200E., excludes marriage document if it was submitted as the name change document in 1., above, and
3. Verification of identifying information (SSN, name(s) on latest Numident record, date of birth, place of birth, parents’ names) from the latest Numident record (this information is propagated into the SS-5 Assistant/MES application path) with the applicant and data shown on the SS-5. Under this policy, consider the identifying information to match if the following minor discrepancies exist: minor spelling errors, mother’s maiden name is incorrect or unknown, and/or place of birth provided is County of birth instead of city.
Mental Illness Causing Disability
Mental illnesses such as depression and post traumatic stress disorder have overtaken back pain as the world's number one reason for disability claims, the Life Offices Association (LOA) said on Wednesday. ...Demonstrating that circumstances in Africa are a bit different than the U.S, iAfrica has this as a a blurb for an article:
... mental diseases presented a challenge for life insurers because they were difficult to measure due to their "subjective nature". "
A North West owner of 10 lions that killed a boy has offered to sell two of the animals to compensate the child's family, the province said on Thursday.
If You're Reading This On A Government Computer, Pay Attention
The firing of a Navy Department civilian employee stemming from his improper use of his government computer has just passed muster with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. (Winters v. Department of the Navy, C.A.F.C. No. 2007-3106 (nonprecedential), 7/11/07)Winters was a GS-11 Electronics Specialist at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Indiana. Unfortunately for him, the Navy had to access his computer in order to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request. When the agency's computer people found "unusual" documents on Winters' computer, they notified his boss. It would seem Winters had more than 250 pages of unauthorized materials on a website he had set up using his government computer. This website said Winters was a Navy employee, talked about his job duties, and also talked about his unhappiness with his job and co-workers. ...
Winters was fired for poor judgment, wasting an excessive amount of government time, misuse of government equipment, and making a threat against a supervisor in a statement on his website. The Merit Systems Protection Board sided with the agency and sustained the firing. Winters took his case to court, but found no more sympathy there.
The Bureaucracy
Newt Gingrich hasn't officially returned to politics yet, but that hasn't stopped him from running against the government. “We need to rip apart every single government bureaucracy,” he told Norfolk, Va.-area Republicans yesterday, according to a report in the Virginian-Pilot. “We’ve replaced government for the people with government for the government.”
It's enough to make you wonder why Gingrich didn't solve that problem when he was speaker of the House and his party controlled both houses of Congress. But actually, we know the answer to that question, don't we? First, because it's really, really hard to do. And second, because when you start pulling the lid off all of these agencies and programs, it turns out a lot of them are doing their jobs pretty well, and almost all of them have strong constituencies that even the most hardcore government-hater can't afford to alienate. That's why anti-bureaucracy talk like this (from all sides of the political spectrum, by the way) has always been more about rhetoric than reality.
Stats On Children Receiving SSI
In December 2006, almost 1,079,000 blind and disabled children were receiving SSI payments. They made up 14.9 percent of the more than 7 million SSI recipients. The data reflect an increase of more than 42,000 child recipients since December 2005. ...
In calendar year 2006, the most recent year for which complete data are available, the Social Security Administration (SSA) received almost 460,000 SSI applications for children. This represents 17 percent of the more than 2.6 million SSI applications received during that period.
More than 170,000 children were awarded SSI payments in calendar year 2006. This was more than 20 percent of the 838,000 persons awarded SSI in that period.
Historically, the percentages of both applications and awards for children have gradually increased. Both rates rose rapidly in the early to mid-1990s, after the Sullivan v. Zebley decision. They dropped off somewhat after welfare reform legislation was enacted in 1996. The number of applications for children has continued to increase since then, but their percentage share of all applications has gradually decreased. Both the number and percentage of awards for children steadily increased for several years following welfare reform, but there was a slight decrease in the number in 2005 and 2006 and in the percentage of all awards in 2004, 2005, and 2006. ...
In addition to the almost 1,079,000 recipients who are currently considered as children for program purposes, the SSI rolls in December 2006 included almost 731,000 adult recipients who first became eligible for SSI payments before age 18. Twenty percent of these recipients first became eligible during the 1974–1980 period and thus have been receiving SSI for much of their lives.
What Astrue Hasn't Done
- Kill the proposed age regulations -- Social Security still has proposed regulations pending that would increase the age categories of the grid regulations by two years. This would have a devastating effect upon Social Security disability claimants. It would be politically suicidal for Astrue to adopt these regulations. Even former Commissioner Barnhart who had the proposal published said she did not want to adopt them, but was forced to propose them due to budgetary pressure from the Office of Management and Budget. Astrue has said he is not planning to go ahead with the proposal at this time, yet it sits there, ready to be adopted by Astrue or any future Commisioner upon no more than a few days notice. I have this vision of Astrue deciding to resign when President Bush leaves office, but adopting the age regulations as a parting shot. That is unlikely to happen, but Astrue knows well that he would make many people more comfortable by officially withdrawing that Notice of Proposed Rule-Making but he has not done so. Why?
- Increase attorney fee cap -- The cap on fees for attorneys and others who represent Social Security claimants has stayed at $5,300 for more than six years despite significant inflation. For the sake of fairness, Astrue ought to raise the cap. He has been asked to do so. It would take little effort to do so, but he has not. Why?
- Lobby for SSA's budget -- Under former Commissioner Barnhart the Social Security Administration had come up with a proposed budget for the next fiscal year of about $10.4 billion. Social Security really needs the money, yet Astrue has lobbied for the much lower budget proposed by President Bush. Why?
- Show any sign of independence from White House -- Connected to the last item is the question of why Astrue has shown no sign of independence from President Bush. By statute, the Commissioner of Social Security is independent, yet Astrue has a person in his office working full time as White House liaison. As far as I can tell, no Commissioner has ever had an employee in such a role. Even in avoiding talk of privatizing Social Security, Astrue is doing the White House's bidding, since Astrue said during his confirmation hearing that this subject was just about the first thing that came up when he was talking with the White House about the nomination and they wanted him to stay away from privatization. Why not show some sign of independence from such an unpopular president?
- Go ahead with senior attorney without OMB blessing -- Astrue wants to go ahead with this. He needs to go ahead with it, yet decided to propose it as a regulation which lets the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) veto it -- and it looks as if they probably have vetoed it. Why not just call senior attorney decisions reconsideration decisions? Astrue could do that quickly without OMB approval, yet he has not done so.
- Announce any plan that goes beyond FY 2008 -- Social Security needs a long term plan to deal with its workload -- a plan that calls for a lot more personnel. I am not interested in any "grand plan" like Barnhart's Disability Service Improvement (DSI) fiasco, but I would like to see some sign of long term planning. It may be too soon for a full blown plan, but why is there no sign of work on it?
- Decide what to do about DSI in Region I -- Astrue has clearly decided not to go national with DSI, which is now in use in Social Security's Boston region (Region I). However, something has to be done about DSI in Region I. Federal Reviewing Officer (FedRO) morale has to be terrible. Many FedROs must be looking for other jobs. Productivity must be awful. Cases are in limbo. It is a situation that cries out for rapid resolution, but there is no sign of a plan for unraveling DSI in Region I. Why not?