Why Collect These Ancient Overpayments Out Of Social Security Benefits?

     Quotations from Mark Hinkle, a Social Security spokesperson, as quoted in an Associated Press article, with emphasis added:

We want to assure the public that we do not seek restitution through tax refund offset in cases when the debt in question was established prior to the debtor turning 18 years of age. Also, we do not use tax refund offset to collect the debt of a person's relative — we only use it to collect the overpaid benefits the person received for himself or herself.

     But they're still collecting the same debts every day by offsetting Social Security benefits. The statement makes it clear that they haven't sworn off that tactic. If it's inappropriate to seize tax refunds in these situations, why is it appropriate to seize Social Security benefits in these situations? You or your father or mother was overpaid when you were ten years old. Forty-five years later they're seizing your monthly Social Security check! Does that seem fair and reasonable?
    Let me make it clear that the problem here isn't at the Social Security Administration. The problem is draconian laws passed by members of Congress who equate Social Security overpayments with fraud when, in most cases, the overpayments are caused by the Social Security Administration's own mistakes.

Press Release On Overpayment Collections

     A press release issued by the Social Security Administration:

Statement of Carolyn W. Colvin
Acting Commissioner of Social Security

“I have directed an immediate halt to further referrals under the Treasury Offset Program to recover debts owed to the agency that are 10 years old and older pending a thorough review of our responsibility and discretion under the current law to refer debt to the Treasury Department.

If any Social Security or Supplemental Security Income beneficiary believes they have been incorrectly assessed with an overpayment under this program, I encourage them to request an explanation or seek options to resolve the overpayment.”

     But, what about collecting these ancient alleged overpayments by offsetting benefit payments? I don't see how that's any less of a problem.

Social Security Has A Plan

     The Social Security Administration has asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval to publish final regulations that would:

... revise our rules to protect the integrity of our programs and to address public concerns regarding the removal of an administrative law judge's name from the Notice of Hearing and other prehearing notices. To accomplish both objectives, these proposed rules state that we will provide an individual with notice that his or her hearing may be held by video teleconferencing and that he or she has an opportunity to object to appearing by video teleconferencing within 30 days of the notice. We have also made changes that allow us to determine that claimant will appear via video teleconferencing if a claimant changes residences while his or her request for hearing is pending. We anticipate these changes will increase the integrity of our programs with minimal impact on the public and result in more efficient administration of our program. 

     I'm telling you now, Social Security. This isn't going to work out the way you think. You're just going to dramatically increase the number of objections to video hearings because you won't be able to use the threat of delay to force claimants and their attorneys to accept video hearings. No, I don't think the agency can realistically tell claimants that it's going to take several months longer to get a hearing if they object to a video hearing if that objection is made early in the process. Social Security can get away with that sort of delay if a video hearing has already been scheduled before the claimant objects but it won't be be a credible threat if the hearing hasn't yet been scheduled.

And It Only Took Almost Three Years For Social Security To Clarify This

     From a transmittal sheet amending Social Security's POMS manual:

...to clarify the following:

• SSR 11-1p applies when a claimant wishes to file a new disability application under the same title and for the same benefit type as a prior claim pending administrative review.
• However, we follow existing application and protective filing procedures when a claimant files a new application under a different title or for a different benefit type than the pending disability claim.

I've Been Talking About This For Years. It's Absurd. It's Abusive. Why Don't People Care?

     From the Washington Post:

A few weeks ago, with no notice, the U.S. government intercepted Mary Grice’s tax refunds from both the IRS and the state of Maryland. Grice had no idea that Uncle Sam had seized her money until some days later, when she got a letter saying that her refund had gone to satisfy an old debt to the government — a very old debt. 

When Grice was 4, back in 1960, her father died, leaving her mother with five children to raise. Until the kids turned 18, Sadie Grice got survivor benefits from Social Security to help feed and clothe them 

Now, Social Security claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family — it’s not sure who — in 1977. After 37 years of silence, four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after her daughter. Why the feds chose to take Mary’s money, rather than her surviving siblings’, is a mystery. ... 

The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.

Pictures On Social Security Cards?

     From the Washington Post:

 As Republicans push for new voting restrictions around the country, a handful of Democrats have coalesced around an impromptu idea: placing a photo on Social Security cards.

 U.N. ambassador and civil rights activist Andrew Young — who chairs a nonpartisan voting rights group calledWhy Tuesday? — buttonholed President Obama and two of his predecessors in Texas this week in an effort to win their support for the concept. Former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter endorsed the idea, while the White House declined to comment.

     Update: Michael Hiltzik thinks this is a terrible idea.

House Oversight Committee Hearing

     The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing yesterday on Social Security's continuing disability reviews. Here are links to the written statements:

• Marianna LaCanfora, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Retirement and Disability Policy, Social Security Administration
• Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr., Inspector General, Social Security Administration 
• Jennifer Nottingham, President, National Association of Disability Examiners  
• Daniel Bertoni, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
• Jennifer Shaw Lockhart, State Director, Sooner SUCCESS, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

      LaCanfora, O'Carroll  and Nottingham all talked about the limitations on continuing disability reviews caused by inadquate administrative funding. Bertoni, as is normal for witnesses from the GAO, said nothing of consequence other that the agency was doing a bad job and ought to be doing better without saying what exactly they should be doing different given budget restraints. I think that if GAO had its way agencies would spend 100% of their funding making sure that they don't misspend any money. I don't know what Lockhart was talking about. Her written testimony seemed to have nothing to do with Social Security.

Should Social Security Comb Through Social Media Postings By Disability Claimants?

     From the Washington Times:

Key members of Congress said Tuesday that two Social Security judges may have approved thousands of bogus disability claims, but the agency has never gone back to review those judges’ cases to stop the ones that were fraudulent.

Rep. James Lankford, Oklahoma Republican, and Rep. Jackie Speier, California Democrat, who head the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on health care, say Social Security employees should be allowed to look at the social media profiles of those applying for disability, reasoning that photos and other information people post can expose the applicants as able-bodied.

The lawmakers also said the agency should come up with a system to review cases from “red-flag” judges who show inclinations toward rubber-stamping applications.

In an exhaustive 11-page memo to Social Security acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin, the lawmakers detailed nearly a dozen recommendations for improving a disability system that has received an explosion of applications in recent years and is in danger of going bankrupt by 2016.

Mr. Lankford and Ms. Speier said it was indefensible that the agency hasn’t reviewed applications approved by two administrative law judges, David B. Daugherty in West Virginia and Charles Bridges in Pennsylvania, who have been accused of making bogus disability determinations. ...

The oversight committee has been looking into the disability issue for some time and took testimony from Jasper J. Bede, a regional chief administrative law judge who told investigators that some judges appeared to be rubber-stamping applications.

Judge Bede singled out Judge Bridges, who decided more than 2,000 cases a year and who often went beyond looking at an applicant’s disability and considered income or other factors.