Final Rule On Garnishment Of Federal Benefits

     From today's Federal Register:

[Social Security and several other agencies] are adopting as final an interim rule to amend their regulation governing the garnishment of certain Federal benefit payments that are directly deposited to accounts at financial institutions. The rule establishes procedures that financial institutions must follow when they receive a garnishment order against an account holder who receives certain types of Federal benefit payments by direct deposit. The rule requires financial institutions that receive such a garnishment order to determine the sum of such Federal benefit payments deposited to the account during a two month period, and to ensure that the account holder has access to an amount equal to that sum or to the current balance of the account, whichever is lower.

     But Social Security, itself, can garnish these benefits before they're ever paid to collect a 40 year old debt.

Every Little Way

     From EM-13017 issued last week:

SSA [Social Security Administration] is implementing changes to reduce the agency’s printing and mailing costs. We will stop enclosing appeal pamphlets with initial award and denial notices. The body of the notice includes a detailed explanation of the claimant’s appeal rights. We will make appeal pamphlets available upon request. We will no long include return envelopes and pamphlets with any copies of notices to appointed representatives.

What Will They Do With The Report?

     From a presolicitation notice posted by Social Security at FedBizOpps.Gov:

Investigative services to be performed under contract to verify claimants? (sic) U.S. residency to establish eligibility for receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for (sic) the Social Security Administration (SSA). It is anticipated that one award will be made. The service area zones are located along the Mexico-U.S. border in Texas and New Mexico. ... Upon written request, the! contractor shall perform an unannounced onsite visit to the claimant's reported address to verify residency, contact one non-relative neighbor who has first-hand knowledge of individual's residence and submit a written report documenting results.

Political Patronage Jobs On Social Security Tribunal

     From The Canadian Press:

Up to a third of the people who landed cushy patronage jobs on the new Social Security Tribunal gave money to the Conservative party, public records show.

As many as 16 of the 48 people so far appointed to the tribunal donated money to the party, riding associations or candidates, according to Elections Canada records. None of the appointees appear to have given money to any other political party. ...

The new tribunal will also hear appeals from Canada Pension Plan and old-age security claimants.

The Social Security Tribunal appointments are full-time jobs that come with hefty salaries.

Most full-time members of the new tribunal earn between $91,800 and $107,900, while some earn between $105,900 and $124,500. Vice-chairs earn up to $164,600, while the chair makes up to $231,500.

Senator Says That Social Security Is Candy And It's Going To Kill Us If We Don't Do Something

     From a speech given in February by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) (emphasis added):

... The left is giving away candy.  You don’t have to buy it; they’re giving it away and it’s tasty stuff.  And what are we faced with as conservatives?  We’re the folks sitting on the sidelines going “Yes, I know you like that candy, but here’s the problem; it’s caused a cavity.  No, it’s even worse than that.  That cavity has abscessed and it’s worse than that.  That abscess has now caused an infection and it’s in the body and if we don’t cure it, you’re going to die.”

And so the left is still saying “No, no, no, don’t worry about that.  Social Security is still solvent.”  The left is saying “No, keep eating that candy, it’s really good for you,” and we’re the ones sitting there going “No, we got the shot of Novocain and we’ve got the drill.”  Do you understand the challenge?  ...

Memorial Day

Reallocation Is The Way To Go

     The National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) has issued a news brief discussing the issues concerning the looming shortfall in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund in 2016. The obvious solution is a temporary reallocation of more of the FICA tax to the Disability Insurance Trust Fund. Reallocations have been made -- in both directions -- eleven times in the past. What is unclear is whether Republicans will try to hold Social Security disability hostage this time. If they do hold it hostage, what ransom will they demand?

Anyone Have A Theory About What Happened Here?

     From WLTV:

Gene Mathis 75, said he looks for strength and comfort in a place where many find them, his bible. ...

Mathis, now retired, said he needs the encouragement to face his problems with Social Security, a problem that is two years old. 

"They said I owe them 30-thousand dollars," he said. 

Mathis was born 1938, but his Panama City school records show he was born 1942. Mathis said the discrepancy has created a problem with his social security benefits. 

 "I can't get no understanding from them," he said, "all these years I have been fighting with them." ... 

He said a few years ago Social Security accused of him of being overpaid; now SSA deducts $100 a month from his benefits to reimburse the government. 

"They get it before I get mines," he said. ... 

"I thought in America a birth certificate meant everything," said Mathis. 

"I guess not in my case, I must be related to Obama." 

 Privacy laws prevents social security from discuss the specifics of the problems with Mathis. But they're taking his concerns seriously. 

"We are contacting Mr. Mathis today and will provide assistance," said Patti Patterson.

     I'll take a wild guess at what may have happened. Mr. Mathis may be one of those rare people who were born in the U.S. but whose birth was not recorded at the time they were born. Later, he or his family later got a delayed birth certificate but Social Security decided at some point to ask for his school records to confirm the date of birth shown on the delayed birth certificate. The school records pointed at a later date of birth and Social Security decided to go by the school records.
     It wasn't that rare to see delayed birth certificates thirty years ago but they have to be quite rare these days. It's been decades since I saw one.
     Anybody have a better theory?