Will History Repeat Itself?

From the Washington Post (emphasis added):

The White House is warning that catastrophe will strike if Congress fails to raise the limit on the national debt: With too little cash to pay creditors, the U.S. government would default. Interest rates would skyrocket. And the economic recovery would collapse. ...

So far, the Treasury has nearly drained a $200 billion cash-management account at the Fed, providing a cushion of money to pay bills without new borrowing. Next, Geithner is likely to take a series of “extraordinary actions,” such as suspending the issuance of special securities that help state and local governments manage their own finances. Once the debt hits the limit, Geithner may declare a “debt issuance suspension period,” permitting him to borrow from the pension fund for federal workers.

[Robert] Rubin [Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration] pioneered these strategies in 1995, at the start of the budget battles between President Bill Clinton and Republicans led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). As the fight dragged on through two government shutdowns, Rubin had to juggle the nation’s bills for 135 days. Finally, Clinton threatened to delay Social Security checks, spurring Congress to approve more borrowing to make sure the checks went out on time.

A Quiz

Take a look at the decision in Jackson v. Astrue, 733 F.Supp.2d 506 (D.Del.2010). Does anything strike you as odd about this decision? Worrisome?

Maybe things were handled properly but the decisions of both the Administrative Law Judge decision and the District Court decision were poorly drafted. Maybe a lot of people missed the boat but it does not matter anyway. Maybe an injustice has been done. You just cannot tell.

If you think you know what I am talking about, use the "Send Feedback" button on the right side of this page to send me an e-mail. I am blocking comments on this post for now. I will post something later with the names, or initials if you prefer, of those who figure out what I am talking about. You do not have to be a lawyer to take this quiz. Many non-lawyers with Social Security experience know about this.

One hint: If you know your Social Security stuff, you will probably be able to guess the problem by the time you finish reading the second paragraph of the opinion.

Update: Another hint. I have had a couple of correct answers that were not even one complete sentence. Also, pay attention to the first hint. Some people are going to be slapping their heads when I reveal the right answer.

NADE Newsletter

The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), an organization of the personnel who work at state government agencies but who make initial and reconsideration determinations on Social Security disability claims, has issued its Spring, 2011 newsletter. Here is an excerpt from one article:

A Group of NADE leaders (President Andrew Martinez, Past President Susan Smith, President-elect Tom Ward and Legislative Director and Past President Jeff Price) traveled to Washington, DC the week of April 11-15 for a series of meetings with SSA, Congress and Governmental oversight agencies. This group canvassed our Nation’s Capital seeking support for NADE’s Top Issues (see front cover) as well as general support for NADE and SSA. The message delivered by the NADE leadership was very specific and both political parties and both houses of Congress were receptive to NADE’s message. ...

NADE is on record as supporting an enhanced reconsideration appeal step but the NADE leadership discovered an over-riding concern among Members of Congress, the claimant advocate community and others was the question, “Does reconsideration have a future?” After lengthy discussions with SSA, with congressional representatives, and with others who have an interest on this issue, it was agreed NADE should investigate its long-standing position to determine if it was still relevant. The true value and effectiveness of this intermediate appeal step should be the subject of serious study to determine its role in the 21st century.

Don't worry, NADE, reconsideration isn't going anywhere. There are many good reasons to wish it gone but doing away with it would be way too expensive. Do worry, NADE, about the editing of your newsletter. An article continued from page 24 to page 8 -- and page 24 said it was continued to page 9!

SDW Finished -- But Was All The SDW Done?

Social Security has announced an end to the Special Disability Workload (SDW) project. SDW has been a long ongoing effort to identify and correct past mistakes in the processing of Social Security disability claims. A simple example would be a widow who filed only a claim for widow's disability benefits when she could also have filed a claim for disability benefits on her own account and received more money. Most, if not all, of the SDW cases were identified by database searches and matches. (There is a fascinating back story on the "unknown hero and pariah" who brought about SDW.) Many of the SDW cases involved staggering amounts of money. Not rarely, people received over $100,000 in back benefits as a result of SDW reviews. Many of the SDW cases were enormously complicated affairs since they went back years, involved complicated interrelations between different types of Social Security benefits and Social Security's byzantine disability work incentives. To handle the SDW cases, Social Security formed an SDW "cadre" of its most able, experienced people. SDW was conducted well out of view of the public but it was an important effort to get it right, to pay the correct benefits to the right people.

I would be happy to see Social Security finished with the SDW since it ate up a lot of staff time but the announcement suggests that there may be some SDW that remains, work that may never get done. Has Social Security truly finished the SDW except for some minor loose ends or is SDW being abandoned because of budget pressures? The timing suggests the latter.

Happy Easter!

Social Security Doesn't Like Binder And Binder's Release

An e-mail that went out recently, just in Social Security's Atlanta Region as best I can tell:

Subject: INFORMATION: Binder and Binder's Privacy Statement

PLEASE SHARE WITH ALL INTERVIEWING PERSONNEL

The firm of Binder and Binder (B&B) serves nationwide as the authorized representative for a large number of SSA claimants. In some cases, B&B has submitted the following Privacy Statement in conjunction with their claims and appeals:

Privacy Statement

I do not authorize SSA to release my medical records and/or to discuss my medical condition with any neighbor, friend, or third party non-physician not directly affiliated with SSA.
My right to privacy is paramount to me. I do not want my medical information or any information disclosed in a SSA form to be discussed with anyone who is not an employee of SSA, an employee of the state agency contracted to process my social security case, or a health care professional contracted to examine me or review my file as part of the social security process.
I expressly authorize SSA to release any and all information to my representatives, . . . .
To the extent that any form I sign (including SSA-827) is inconsistent with this, this statement takes precedence.

Dated & signed by the claimant

The Office of Privacy and Disclosure (OPD) notified Charles Binder on April 11, 2011, to discontinue the use of these Statements. These Privacy Statements conflict with Federal statutes and regulations for disclosures related to SSA’s program administration. A form drafted by an authorized representative cannot overrule the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 USC 552a) and SSA’s regulations when we are permitted to disclose an applicant’s record information to assist us in making entitlement determinations for our program purposes.

Now that Mr. Binder has been notified, B&B should discontinue using this Statement. However, if you know of any situations in which the claimant or B&B has submitted or continues to submit the above Privacy Statement, please notify Martha Shepherd, RSI Programs Team at [e-mail address redacted] or by fax at 404-562-1583. You should provide the claimant’s name, SSN and address and a copy of the signed Privacy Statement. OPD will take the necessary action to notify the claimant and Mr. Binder that the Statement cannot be honored.

Contact Martha at 404-562-1319 if you have any questions.

Amy Roberts

Assistant Regional Commissioner

Management and Operations Support

Social Security Employee Pleads Guilty

From the Contra Costa Times:

A 29-year employee of the U.S. Social Security Administration office in San Jose has pleaded guilty to illegally creating and selling Social Security cards to more than 25 people she knew were not eligible to receive them.

Rachel Ochoa, 66, of San Jose was arrested at an office in San Jose in November and eventually pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully producing an identification document -- Social Security cards -- as part of a plea agreement, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Recipients of the cards were illegal immigrants who paid from $2,500 to $5,000 to obtain them, according to an affidavit by the FBI. ...

Ochoa is scheduled to be sentenced on July 18 and is facing a maximum term of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, according to the Department of Justice.

Service Cut In Alabama

From the Troy, Alabama Messenger:

Residents headed to the Pike County courthouse to visit the remote office of the U.S. Social Security Administration in Troy this week found a sign taped to the door that read, “The Social Security office will be closed until further notice due to budget cuts.”

According to Probate Judge Wes Allen, the closing of the office doors came without much warning.

“All we know is what they put on the front door,” Allen said. “We got a phone call and they said, ‘we would not be open, because of budget cuts and constraints, and will be closed until further notice."