New Blog On Social Security Disability Issues

     Julia Mariani, an attorney who had been representing Social Security disability claimants, has shut down her regular practice and taken up blogging on Social Security disability issues. So far, her blog,  Disability Dunk Tank, has a different focus from mine. She is oriented just to disability issues and attuned to the issues that claimants face.

     I wish there was a wider profusion of blogs on Social Security issues. Social Security has a huge impact on America. It deserves widespread coverage by non-traditional media.

Unemployment And Disability Claims

     Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued a report on Impact of Increases in State Unemployment Rates on the Social Security Administration’s Disability Programs. This subject could certainly use research. Unfortunately, OIG merely looked at states with high percentage increases in unemployment. There is no comparison of these states to states with low or no increase in unemployment over the same time period. There is this table in the report:

     Alabama, by the way, had a much larger increase in unemployment than Utah.

Today's Newspaper Stories On Social Security Disability

     The Sacramento Bee has an article on the growth in the number of people drawing Social Security disability benefits -- even though that growth ground to a halt almost a year ago -- and the Associated Press has an article on a doomed attempt to phase out the five month waiting period for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act.

You Crazy Right Wingers Are Such A Hoot!

     From The Examiner of Independence, MO:

U.S. District Court Judge Brian C. Wimes sentenced Charles Daniel Koss, 63, of Independence to seven years in federal prison and ordered Koss to pay $212,987 in restitution to the Social Security Administration and the Department of the Treasury. ...

Koss began receiving Social Security disability payments in 1987 for myoneural disorder and hypertension. In 1994, according to court documents, Koss began operating Embassy Mortgage, a real estate business, with his wife in Blue Springs. Koss was working as a loan officer and office manager for the business.

According to the indictment, when Koss learned that he would have to repay the government, he created a false negotiable instrument – which he called a “Registered Private Money Order” – purporting to draw on a bogus trust account held by the U.S. Treasury. He allegedly utilized the false negotiable instrument as payment for his debt and mailed it to the Social Security Administration.

Koss subscribed to what is known as the redemption theory, the indictment says, which claims that a “Birthright Trust” is created with the U.S. Treasury when parents of a newborn child pledge the child’s birth certificate to the government. Redemption theory involves bogus claims that when the U.S. government abandoned the gold standard in 1933, it pledged its citizens as collateral so it could borrow money. The movement also asserts that common citizens can gain access to funds in secret accounts using obscure procedures and regulations.

According to the indictment, adherents of the redemption theory sometimes call themselves “sovereign citizens.” The sovereign citizen movement is a loosely organized collection of groups and individuals who have adopted anarchist ideology. Its adherents claim that virtually all existing government in the United States is illegitimate and they seek to “restore” an idealized, minimalist government that never actually existed.

Why No Statute Of Limitations?

      From KATU:

The Social Security Administration sent Lanier Schriner a shocking letter. It said the feds paid her too much more than 30 years ago, and now they are coming to collect.
More than three decades ago, Schriner was just heading to college along with small disability payments from her deceased father's Social Security.
"I received it before I went to college and then after I turned 18," she said. "Then you could still collect disability and disability payments if you're going to school."
Just last week, the payments came back to haunt her.
"I got this letter, 30-some years later, just the other day, that said I owed a $167 back payment," Schriner said.
It says she was overpaid at some point, but there are no specifics in the letter.
The amount's not important to her, but the time that's passed.
"I think it's ridiculous," she said. "I can give evidence that I don't owe it, but I'm not sure how to do that when I don't have any paperwork from 30-some years ago," she said.

Figures Never Lie ...

     The Heritage Foundation has put out an impressive looking chart showing that in 1960 the average person received $6.39 for each dollar they had to pay in Social Security taxes but that by 2013 the average person was receiving only 92 cents for each dollar of taxes and that by 2030 this will be down to only 84 cents. Wow! QED! Social Security is a bad deal!

     However, if you look at the study that the chart is based on, you notice that it's for "hypothetical workers with specific work histories and longevity characteristics." If you look further, you notice that those hypothetical workers don't become disabled nor do they die early leaving survivors who receive benefits, nor, in fact, do they have spouses who receive benefits on their account either before or after their death. In other words, the study is misleading since it excludes dependent benefits, survivor benefits and disability benefits.

We're Movin' In!

     From Social Security Works:

Oh, the sweet irony.

Pete Peterson is the conservative billionaire who is a major financier in the effort to dismantle, cut and privatize Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Recently he and his foundation held a contest asking folks to submit videos on why it is important to “fix” the national debt of which, he and his foundation falsely claim, Social Security is a major contributor.

Sometimes the best-laid plans for a propaganda campaign can go awry. The winner of the $500 grand prize determined by popular vote on the website came from the completely opposite side of Peterson’s cut Social Security argument.

Confusing New Attorney Fee Instructions

     Social Security has issued new instructions on fees for attorneys and others representing Social Security claimants. The instructions have to do with fee agreement cases where the claimant appoints two or more people to represent him or her and then one or more of the attorneys or representatives withdraws. It would be an understatement to say the instructions are confusing. Take a look at these examples given in the instructions and see if you can tell me what the underlying theory is:

Example 2: The claimant appointed two representatives from Firm A, one representative from Firm B, and one representative who is a sole practitioner. The representative from Firm B waived his or her fee from any source. The sole practitioner waived charging and collecting a fee from the claimant or any auxiliary beneficiaries because a third party entity will be paying his or her fee. The two representatives from Firm A have an approved fee agreement that each of them signed, and SSA determines a fee of $6000. The representatives from Firm A will receive $3000 each.
Example 3: The claimant appointed two representatives from Firm A and one representative from Firm B. One of the representatives from Firm A signed a fee agreement. The second representative from Firm A and the representative from Firm B both waived charging and collecting a fee from any source. At the time of a favorable decision, the decision maker approved the fee agreement; subsequently, SSA determines a fee of $6000. The Firm A representative who had an approved fee agreement will receive $3000, but the “waived share” of $3000 for the second representative from Firm A should go to the claimant.

    Would you want to be the person implementing this "policy"?