A Possibility For Social Security?

     The Department of Justice has announced openings for Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys. The job involves "researching legal issues, drafting briefs, conducting hearings and trials and attending judicial proceedings."According to the announcement "only applicants with outstanding academic records and superior legal research and writing skills will be considered." There's just one little problem with the job.There is no pay. That's one way of dealing with a lack of adequate funding. Of course, this only works when there is a ridiculous oversupply of newly minted attorneys unable to find employment which is what we have at the moment. Would it work at Social Security?

NOSSCR Issues Press Release

     The National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) has issued a press release announcing that it is "launching a campaign to fight back against misleading allegations being made about the SSDI [Social Security Disability Insurance] program..." I mention this not because the press release itself has much importance but because as far as I know this is the first press release that NOSSCR has ever released. This means that NOSSCR now has a public relations firm and is ready to fight back against the lies and misrepresentations being spread about the Social Security disability programs.

Op Ed Piece In The Hill

     Charles Martin and Debra Shifrin, attorneys who represent Social Security disability claimants, have an op ed piece in The Hill (as in Capitol Hill), a D.C. newspaper for those working on Capitol Hill. The op ed piece is directed at the lies and misrepresentations being spread about the Social Security disability programs.

     Churchhill said that "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." I'm afraid that we're facing this reality when it comes to the Social Security disability programs. 

     I wish I had a better idea of what group or groups are behind this campaign of lies and distortions and exactly what their motivations are. This isn't organic. It's not happening spontaneously. It's organized.

Is This Right?

     This is from a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

SSA’s [Social Security Administration's] administrative finality rules permit it to continue paying incorrect payment amounts to some beneficiaries and recipients. During our prior and current reviews, we determined that SSA did not correct beneficiary and recipients’ payment amounts when it invoked administrative finality. For example, we identified a beneficiary receiving a full retirement benefit under her own SSN [Social Security Number] and another full benefit under her deceased spouse’s SSN that resulted in an $870 monthly overpayment. The overpayments started in July 1982 and created a total overpayment of approximately $215,000. Since our 2007 recommendation to revise its administrative finality rules, SSA has paid this beneficiary approximately an additional $40,000.10

We identified another beneficiary receiving a full retirement benefit under her own SSN and a full benefit under her deceased spouse’s SSN that resulted in a $373 monthly overpayment. The overpayments started in June 1988 and created a total overpayment of approximately $85,000. SSA had paid this beneficiary approximately $16,000 since our 2007 recommendation. Because of SSA’s administrative finality rules, it will not reopen these cases and these overpayments will continue increasing throughout the beneficiaries’ lifetimes. In addition, SSA does not pursue recovery of these types of improper payments.

      Is this an accurate statement of Social Security's position? I haven't seen one lately but I've certainly seen cases in past years where Social Security changed current benefits and declared large overpayments in this type of case.
     Really, OIG should not be pressuring Social Security on the overpayment part of this kind of case. There's a very good argument that it's against equity and good conscience to try to collect an overpayment when the mistake was clearly made by the agency, could not have reasonably been caught by the beneficiary but should have been caught by the agency's data systems. "Against equity and good conscience" is enough under the statute to get an overpayment waived.

Whether Furloughs And RIFs Come To Social Security To Be Determined In Next Few Weeks

      Update: According to Politico, the basic deal described below has been struck but the devil is in the detail for Social Security and we probably won't know the details until early September.
     The Washington Post reports that Congressional leaders are nearing agreement on a Continuing Resolution to fund government operations in the first half of the 2013 fiscal year (FY), which begins on October 1, 2012. Under the agreement, agencies would suffer an across the board reduction in their budgets in the percentage specified by last year's budget agreement. According to the article:

Congressional leaders are likely to announce that they have reached an agreement in principle but leave passage of the deal until after Congress returns from its August recess. The timeline would allow some details and budget crunching to take place, but it also would provide a window for the deal to go awry if outside groups pressure Republicans to fight for deeper spending cuts.

     For Social Security, the key language here is "details and budget crunching." This means there would be some departures from the across the board spending cuts. Social Security is in bad need of a major departure from the across the board spending cuts. According to a Senate Finance Committee report if the across the board spending cuts are applied to Social Security:

Social Security would lose 5,000 employees and all of the agency's employees and all Disability Determination Services employees would suffer approximately six weeks of furloughs. The average processing time at the initial level on disability claims would raise from 111 days to 180 days and the number of pending disability claims would nearly double from 861,000 to almost 1.5 million by the end of the fiscal year.

     You simply cut those numbers in half for a six month continuing resolution. Two and a half days a month of furloughs for ALL Social Security employees. I don't think you can lose 2,500 jobs without a significant reduction in force (RIF). This all starts on October 1, 2012 without Congress taking special action to protect Social Security. Other agencies are facing the same issues and are seeking the same sort of special exemptions from the appropriations cuts.

Amazing Op Ed Piece In The Washington Post

     From an Op Ed piece in the Washington Post yesterday by Charles Lane with some comments by me in brackets:

The Americans With Disabilities Act, passed with bipartisan support in 1990 at the urging of then-President George H.W. Bush, enshrines the notion that every American can and should hold a job regardless of physical or mental limitations. 

Under the ADA, employers who refuse to hire or promote the disabled may be liable for money damages in federal court.  [Whoa. Time out. That is not what the Americans with Disabilities Act says. That's what a lot of "disability advocates" wish it said.What it actually says is that employers must give "reasonable accommodation" to people with disabilities. There is nothing in the ADA that says or suggests that "every" American can or should hold a job. That would be absurd. If the Washington Post advertises a data entry job does it have to hire a quadriplegic who applies? Of course not. It doesn't have to hire the quadriplegic for that or any other job unless it could do so with only reasonable accommodation and that sure wouldn't be the case for a data entry job. Hire the quadriplegic for an editorial writing job such as Mr. Lane holds? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on the courts being willing to enforce such a right. The words "reasonable accommodation" are awfully vague and the courts have been almost completely unwilling to enforce them. The Americans with Disabilities Act doesn't even mean what it appears to mean and what it appears to mean is vastly less than what Mr. Lane thinks it means.]

Social Security Disability Insurance, however, pays people who can show that they are too mentally or physically impaired to remain in the labor force. In short, for many workers, SSDI creates a quasi-right not to work. [Yes, just as it should since there are many people who are too sick to work. Ever call in sick, Mr. Lane? Why? You are of the opinion that no illness should ever prevent a person from working. Why would you be so lazy as to call in sick?]...

In 1960, however, Congress removed the minimum age requirement [of 50], and in 1965, it allowed people to qualify if they suffered from a condition rendering them unable to “engage in substantial gainful activity” for a year or more, including mental and musculoskeletal ailments.  [No, what Congress actually did in 1965 was to eliminate the requirement that disability be permanent. Now disability has to have lasted or be expected to last at least a year. Mental and musculoskeletal ailments that were permanent -- and most were and are -- were already covered before 1965.]

After that, the rolls swelled with people claiming crippling back aches and depression. Both the Carter and Reagan administrations tried to cull undeserving cases, but the resulting backlash was so strong that Congress actually liberalized the rules in 1984. [What makes you so sure they were undeserving? Try to cut huge numbers of people off disability benefits in 2013 and see what happens. It will be 1984 all over again. Go ahead, I dare you, Mitt Romney.  Follow Lane's advice if you're elected President.] In 2010, mental and musculoskeletal conditions accounted for 54 percent of all new SSDI cases, according to the CBO [Congressional Budget Office]. ...

I don’t mean to imply that all, or even most, SSDI beneficiaries are malingering. [So kind of you, Mr. Lane, to acknowledge that not everyone on Social Security disability benefits is a malingerer. Honestly, I think you need to meet a cross section of those receiving Social Security disability benefits before you start suggesting that many people receiving Social Security disability benefits are malingerers. Essentially no one who has contact with Social Security disability recipients on a regular basis would agree with you. You don't know what you're talking about.] Indeed, some of the recent increase in enrollment would have occurred anyway due to the aging of the population.

Failure To Follow Up On Failure To Cash Checks

     Here's another of the many ways that Social Security has trouble fulfilling its mission because of lack of staff. An Inspector General report shows that Social Security is having a hard time dealing with situations in which a claimant fails to cash his or her Social Security check. The failure could indicate many things that Social Security should address, such as the claimant being dead, the claimant being mentally incompetent or a representative payee being irresponsible but the agency doesn't know unless it does an adequate follow up and that takes staff time but staff time is in short supply at Social Security. Social Security tries to follow up on these cases but isn't doing all that it should. 

     I suppose that switching to electronic payment might seem to be the solution for the problem but, if anything, electronic payment merely hides problems that need resolution.
     Congress may not like it, Social Security management may not like it, but the Social Security Administration cannot avoid social work duties. People's lives tend to get a bit messy when they get older or become disabled. Dealing with that messiness is an inherent part of the agency's mission. It's social work and it takes staff. Staff costs money. If you don't spend the money to allow an adequate staff, vulnerable people suffer and taxpayper money is wasted.

Romney Praises Government Run Health Care

     I suppose this is off topic but I cannot resist posting this from BuzzFeed Politics:

“Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? eight percent," Romney told donors at a fundraiser at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, speaking of a health care system that is compulsory for Israelis and funded by the government. "You spend eight percent of GDP [Gross Domestic Product] on health care. You're a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18% of our GDP on health care. Ten percentage points more. ... Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways — not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to find and manage our health care costs."