California Cuts SSI

First, let me give a little background. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was created in the 1970s to give federal benefits to indigent aged, disabled and blind Americans. SSI replaced a prior system of federal grants given to the states which administered their own systems of benefits for the same population. The recipients of the state aid were grandfathered into SSI. Some state benefits were higher than the new SSI benefits. States were allowed to supplement SSI benefits in their states so that their residents would not be hurt by the change to SSI. Quite a number of states have done so ever since, but those states have always had the ability to decrease the supplementation or discontinue it. The state supplements are paid in the same check or direct deposit as the federal SSI benefit.

With that as a background, here is a report from KHSL-TV in Chico-Redding, California:

Denise Johnson and her husband have relied on their social security supplementary payments for two years now. But making ends meet this time around has been tough for the couple. lawmakers have already reduced their social security benefits twice this year, and just a couple days ago, the Johnsons received a letter in the mail stating their paychecks will get a third cut.

Johnson told Action News, "There was no warning or nothing. It was kind of like a slap in the face, here you go, it's gone," adding, "I thought it was wrong for them not to say anything at all and just make it a surprise. I think they should have just spoke up and been more honest."

The Johnsons will get another $41 deducted from each of their paychecks each month. All three cuts this year total to about $170 from the couple's combined paychecks every month. The third cut begins November. The Johnsons' paychecks are now down to a little more than $54 each. The Johnsons use the money for food, and because they are already receiving additional help from the state, they do not qualify for food stamps. Johnson says it is unfair. She said, "At least try to give us something back as far as getting food stamps from everybody that's getting the state supplementary."

Johnson says the cut this time around not only means less food on the table... it means less everything. She explained, "Just trying to really budget our money tight, and shop next to nothing."

A Social Security Administration public affairs official told me over the phone, they cannot explain the reason for the additional cuts and they are simply doing what state lawmakers tell them to do.

More than 1,000,000 people receive social security supplementary benefits in California

As you may have heard, the state of California is experiencing terrible budget shortfalls. The repeated cuts in SSI supplementation are one of the results of these budget shortfalls.

I am surprised that these cuts in SSI checks for Californians have not attracted more public attention.

University To Receive Grant From Social Security

From a press release:

The University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Financial Security has received first-year funding of $1.48 million to participate in the Social Security Administration's new Financial Literacy Research Consortium (FLRC). ...

The FLRC-supported research will include projects requiring extensive quantitative data analysis, as well as those gathering data through qualitative interviews and focus groups. Funded projects will define and identify forms of financial literacy during the life course and among low-income and other specific populations. This research will also explore "teachable moments," times that motivate a change in financial behavior, and identify potential financial education strategies for targeted populations. ...

The Center for Financial Security will sponsor a symposium, "Family Financial Security: Implications for Policy and Practice," on Monday and Tuesday, April 19-20, at the Fluno Center for Executive Education at UW-Madison. The symposium will convene leading applied researchers and practitioners to present current thinking across disciplines. Four panels — credit, retirement saving, thrift and banking — will each feature several papers. Participants will discuss how innovative programs, policies and products can best promote family financial literacy.

Firms As Representatives Coming And Representative ID Number Too

Under the Privacy Act Social Security must publish notices of new systems of record keeping or alterations to existing systems of records. Here are some excerpts from a notice just published by Social Security -- and note the representative number, which sounds minor to some, but attorneys and others representing Social Security claimants have been very unhappy with using their Social Security numbers as a unique identifier:

We are altering the Appointed Representative File system of records specifically to implement an online suite of services for representatives. The online services will enable us to establish a framework of new business processes and systems enhancements and to provide comprehensive online services for representatives who wish to perform services on behalf of our claimants.

To ensure that we administer the appointed representative business process in a more efficient and effective manner, we propose to: ... (3) expand the category of records we maintain in the system to include the representative's date of birth, cell phone information, and representative identification number ...

Our long-standing policy is to recognize only persons as representatives. However, in the decades since we adopted that policy, the business practices of claimants' representatives have changed significantly. For example, many claimants prefer to hire a firm rather than a single person within a firm. Accordingly, to provide claimants better flexibility in pursuing matters before us, starting in 2010, we will recognize firms and other professional entities as representatives.

No Pressures, Goals or Quotas For ALJs -- According To SSA Spokesman

From the Buffalo News (emphasis added):

The Social Security Administration is making some progress in its efforts to cut the backlog of disability cases in Buffalo and other offices.

But not enough progress, according to Social Security Administration judges who came to Buffalo for a conference this week.

Many people with serious illnesses or injuries still wait two years or more to get a hearing, and the judges say that is a source of frustration.

“People deserve the right to have their cases heard within a reasonable amount of time. The current waiting time is not acceptable,” said Marilyn Zahm, an administrative law judge in the Buffalo district.

“I once received a letter from a family member of a man who waited for a long time for his case to be heard, and before it could be heard, the man died,” said Randy Frye, an administrative law judge from Charlotte, N. C. “It made me feel terrible. . . . That just shouldn’t happen.”

Frye is the president and Zahm the vice president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, a national union of judges that held an educational conference Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. About 130 judges attended the event in the Hyatt Regency Buffalo.

The two officials said the system in which they work is in a “crisis.” According to the judges, the long wait for hearings is only one of several serious problems that affect a system on which millions of Americans depend.

Among the other problems, according to the judges:

• Far too many applicants — about two of every three — are turned down, sometimes for no logical reason, when they first apply. Later — only after months of waiting and having to hire attorneys — most of those people are approved for disability.

• The system has little or no flexibility. The judges are required to approve disability pay for life to a person who, in their opinion, should receive it for a year or two.

• They are pressured by Social Security Administration officials to rush cases through the system, when, in some cases, they would like to spend more time researching a case in the best interest of taxpayers and applicants.

“Right now, the only pressure we get from Washington is to push the cases through the system,” Frye said. “That seems to be the only priority.”

Mark Hinkle, a national spokesman for the Social Security Administration, disagreed. He noted that 7.5 million Americans and their dependents now received $106 billion a year in Social Security disability benefits.

“There are no pressures, goals or quotas for judges. We’re just trying to do the best job we can for the American public,” Hinkle said. “I don’t think you’ll find anyone who feels that the waiting times are acceptable.”

Social Security Bulletin Released

The Social Security Administration has released another issue of the Social Security Bulletin, its scholarly periodical.

The Human Cost Of Backlogs

From an Op Ed piece by Fran Quigley in the Indianapolis Star (emphasis added):

Do you know which American minority group experiences poverty at the greatest rate? Hint: It is not an ethnic minority.

A new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows that nearly two-thirds of working-age adults stuck in long-term poverty have one or more disabilities. ...

From my own work at Indiana Legal Services, I can rattle off grim examples of clients living in tormenting physical and psychological pain because they cannot afford to buy medicine their physicians have prescribed for them. Others endure years of destitute poverty waiting for a disability hearing to be scheduled in the shamefully backlogged Social Security Administration appeal system.

They Call It "Conflicting Goals" -- I Call It Bureaucracy At Its Worst

From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) on Aged Claims At The Hearing Level (emphasis added):

In our interviews, one Regional Chief ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] stated that conflicting timeliness goals in the past contributed to hearing offices ignoring the oldest claims. For instance, during FY [Fiscal Year] 2002, ODAR [Office of Disability Adjudication and Review] set timeliness goals for percent of claims processed in 180 days and 270 days. This observation is consistent with comments made during earlier audits. In 2003, during audit work on best practices at hearing offices, an OCALJ [Office of Chief ALJ] official noted that the hearing offices were facing competing goals on dispositions and timeliness. Since aged claims could take more time to process, they would be put aside to allow an office to process more claims and meet shorter timeliness goals. This official questioned the logic of having goals that ran counter to the “oldest claims first” approach. Our review of Agency reports found examples of this focus on shorter-term goals, such as a FY 2002 annual report stating, “Of the more than 532,000 claims processed, we decided nearly 18 percent within 180 days of the request for hearing, slightly below our 20 percent goal.”

New Malignant Neoplastic Disease Listings

Social Security has published new final listings for malignant neoplastic diseases, which are known to most people as cancer. There are only very minor changes from the current listings.