Bombarding This Blog

     If you read the comments posted on this blog you might come to the impression that everyone knows that:

• Social Security employees do most of their "work" from at home but they don't really work because they're all lazy. The agency has way too many employees.
• Social Security's Administrative Law Judges are particularly lazy. They approve Social Security disability claims because they're lazy. A lot of the judges are crooks in cahoots with crooked disability claimants and their crooked attorneys.
• Most Social Security disability claimants are just crooks trying to scam the program.
• It's way too easy to get on Social Security disability benefits, especially for "mental illness." Anyone can get on Social Security disability benefits for "mental illness" just by pretending to be crazy.
• SSI child's benefits are the biggest scam. It's nothing but lazy, drug addicted mothers coaching their kids to act crazy. They get child after child on SSI child's benefits and then steal the money to support their drug habits.
• Attorneys who represent Social Security claimants are lazy. They're paid huge sums of money by Social Security but they do nothing for their clients. If anything, they're just crooks who assist their crooked clients in perpetrating fraud.
• There is no money in the Social Security trust funds. The money was all stolen by Democrats. The U.S. government bonds that are supposed to be in the trust funds are meaningless pieces of paper.
• Social Security is going bankrupt.You'll never get back the money you paid in. It's all a scam.

     Some of this comes from individuals legitimately expressing their opinions. However, it's long been apparent to me that most of this is coming from people who have been paid to post online comments about Social Security. Often, these people pretend to be Social Security employees, Social Security claimants or Social Security attorneys. Often, their comments just don't ring true because they're pretending to be someone they're not.

     Does it seem outlandish, even paranoid to think that someone would be paid to post slanted comments online? Take a look at this article from the Baltimore Sun. Officials at the University of Maryland had a problem. They wanted to shift the University's athletic programs from the Atlantic Coast Conference to the Big Ten. They knew that many of the University's alumni would be furious with this move. Here's what they did:

Brian Ullmann, the university's assistant vice president for marketing and communications ... wrote that the school planned to "engage professional assistance in helping to drop positive messages into the blogs, comments and message board sites. I will arrange for this service today." ...

Lee Zeidman, the corporate communications consultant who helped Maryland draft letters and talking points, said Wednesday that it is "standard operating procedure" in the business world to weigh in directly on message boards. "There are special PR agencies who work in the digital space who bombard blogs and newspaper sites where no one puts their name," Zeidman said.

     Who would pay online shills to post on Social Security issues? Pete Peterson and the Koch brothers are the prime candidates. They're tossing around tens of millions of dollars in their fight against Social Security. They certainly wouldn't be going after just this blog. It's quite unlikely they know anything about it. They would mostly be going after message boards at news media sites. However, I don't know that there's any other web site quite like this one where there's an ongoing discussion on Social Security issues. If you're doing an online campaign to malign Social Security both as a social program and as an agency, you're going to come here.
    I wonder how someone who works as an online shill would feel about their job. Would it make them proud? Would they tell their children about what they do for a living?

Anybody Can Make A Mistake

     The House Ways and Means Committee staff', controlled by Republicans, sent out a press release claiming that the chained CPI method of computing Social Security's Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) would have resulted in a 1.7% COLA this year instead of the 1.5% COLA that beneficiaries actually received. Wow, who says chained CPI would hurt Social Security recipients? There's just one little problem. The Ways and Means Committee press release was plain wrong and completely misleading.

Is Social Security Regressive

For Social Security

     Eduardo Porter writes in the Economix column at the New York Times that this chart shows that Social Security is regressive, that instead of helping poor people it hurts them because wealthier people live longer. The problem with Porter's argument is that he's basing it on race-ethnicity. The average age of whites is 41, African-Americans 30 and Hispanics is 27. What this chart does show is that the Republican party, which has become the de facto "white people's party", isn't likely to support changes that would cut Social Security. Only in theory and then they have to refer to "entitlements" rather than Social Security. People tend to think that "entitlements" are government benefits that go to someone else. They know that Social Security goes to everybody.

Senate Hearing Postponed Due To Coburn Cancer

     From the Huntington, WV Herald-Dispatch:

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn has had a recurrence of prostate cancer and is undergoing further evaluation and treatment, according to spokesmen for the conservative Republican.

Spokesman John Hart said in a brief statement to The Associated Press that the 65-year-old lawmaker will be out for the rest of the week but will be back "as soon as he's able, hopefully next week."

This week's treatments, in Oklahoma, forced postponement of another hearing as to findings of a two-year probe into alleged abuses in how Social Security disability benefits were approved at Huntington's federal Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, said spokesman Aaron Fobes to The Herald-Dispatch.

There Goes The Old Profit Margin

     John Uptain, an Alabama non-attorney who wants to represent Social Security disability claimants, is offering his services for 20% of the claimants past due benefits instead of the usual 25%. Uptain had previously worked for Social Security for 25 years. He attributes his ability to offer reduced fees to low overhead and not having to pay off student loans.

     Over the years I have often talked with Social Security employees who had serious misconceptions about the realities of representing Social Security disability claimants, particularly about the expenses involved in obtaining clients. You can operate out of your house with zero overhead expenses but you're still not going to make any money until you get a client. You don't get many Social Security disability clients just by networking. Anything beyond networking is expensive. People like discounts but they also wonder if you're for real if you're offering a cut rate price and you're operating out of your home. Shade tree mechanics work cheap but would you trust your car to one you didn't know?

A Blogger Writes About His Father's Experience With Social Security Disability

Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

 

     A blogger writes about his experience when helping his severely depressed father apply for Social Security disability benefits. He was surprised to find that "We could actually get people on the phone when we called, and when we arrived, we didn't have to wait long to be set up with a caseworker, who was respectful, and very businesslike about it." The blogger was pleasantly surprised to find that the disability claim was quickly approved. 

     I'm happy for this blogger. I wish prompt approval was the norm for people suffering from severe depression but it isn't. At any given time I almost always have a client who Social Security disability claim has been denied even though is undergoing or has undergone Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) for profound depression. (I don't think that the blogger's father had ECT). You thought that ECT went away after One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest? You are younger and have never heard of ECT or One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest? Trust me. In extreme cases, doctors hook up electrodes to a person's head and run electric current through their brain in a desperate attempt to alleviate their depression. Sounds gruesome but fifty years ago it was a common treatment for many types of mental illness. Today it's still used but only for extreme cases of depression that don't respond to other treatments. It's now done under anesthesia. It's hardly a cure-all. I don't think I have to tell readers that there are potential side effects. Wouldn't you think that individuals who consent to go through this sort of thing have to be desperate for relief?  Nevertheless, Social Security still denies their disability claims.

What's The Matter, Kansas? You Got What You Voted For

     The residents of Pittsburg, Kansas are up in arms that they're losing their local Social Security field office. Social Security management explains to them that they have to close offices because of lack of funding. Pittsburgers complain that they weren't consulted. Social Security management doesn't give the obvious answer so I'll give it. Kansas is a solidly Republican state, giving 60% of its vote to Romney over Obama and electing only Republicans to Congress. You were consulted on this and other cuts you don't like, Pittsburg, and you voted for them, so shut up.

Social Security Paid Dead People!

     Social Security paid out 0.006% of benefits to dead people. Does that sound like a big deal?