Forcing Video Hearings On Claimants

     From a notice that Social Security will post in the Federal Register tomorrow:

In this final rule, before we assign an ALJ to the case or before we schedule a hearing, we will notify a claimant that he or sh e has the right to object to appearing at the hearing by video teleconferencing. If the claimant objects to appearing at the hearing by video teleconferencing, the claimant must tell us in writing within 30 days after the date he or she receives the notice, unless he or she shows good cause for missing the deadline. If we receive a timely objection, or we find there was good cause for missing the deadline, we will schedule the claimant for an in person hearing, with one limited exception. If a claimant moves to a different residence while his or her request for a hearing is pending, we will determine whether the claimant will appear in person or by video teleconferencing, even if the claimant previously objected to appearing by video teleconferencing. In addition, in order for us to consider a change in residence when scheduling a hearing, the claimant must submit evidence verifying a new residence. After we receive evidence regarding the claimant’s new residence, we will decide how the claimant’s appearance will be made.

What Happened In Augusta?

     Social Security closed a hearing office in Augusta, GA, leaving a building that the government is leasing vacant. The local paper is wondering about the waste of money.

It's All A Matter Of Priorities

     123 members of Congress have signed on to a letter asking that Social Security field offices resume issuing copies of Social Security numbers (Numi-lites) and benefit verification statements. There's no mention in the letter of the services that these members of Congress are willing to see stopped so that Numi-lite and benefit verification statements can be resumed. It's a zero sum world when it comes to service at Social Security. The agency doesn't have enough operating funds to do everything it ought to do. Any service that's being dropped is being dropped to allow the continuation of other services deemed to be more vital. You can argue about the priorities but you can't argue that Social Security should cut no service.

Even The Wall Street Journal

     Even the Wall Street Journal is talking about Social Security being short-handed!

The Perils Of The Disability Trust Fund

     NBC has a story on the predicted exhaustion of Social Security's Disability Trust Fund and what may happen then. The author has tried to present all sides of the issue but misses one, the view that the Disability Trust Fund is doing better than predicted and will either require only a very small, very temporary rescue or no rescue at all. 

More Media Reaction To Hearing On Office Closures

Money Magazine
Daily Caller
Bankrate
Bloomberg Business Week

Colvin Gets Nomination To Become Commissioner Of Social Security

     The President has nominated Carolyn Colvin to become the next Commissioner of Social Security. Colvin was confirmed as Deputy Commissioner of Social Security in 2011. That term has ended but she may remain in office until a successor is confirmed. She became Acting Commissioner when Michael Astrue resigned as Commissioner last year. Colvin will remain as Acting Commissioner until she is confirmed. No one has yet been nominated to become Deputy Commissioner.

Still Crazy After A Year; New Policy On Same Sex Marriages

     The Justice Department has finally advised Social Security on how it must treat same sex marriages. It only took them a year after the Windsor decision! Social Security has been recognizing same sex marriages ever since Windsor as long as the parties to the marriage live in a state that recognizes same sex marriage but has been putting a hold on cases where the parties live in a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriages. The Justice Department has now told Social Security that it may recognize same sex marriages if a party to the marriage gets on benefits based upon that marriage while living in a state that recognizes same sex marriages but then moves to a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriages. As an example, let's say a same sex couple from my state, North Carolina, which doesn't recognize same sex marriages, travels to the District of Columbia where they can be legally married. The couple returns to North Carolina and eventually one of them applies for Social Security benefits based upon that marriage. Under this policy, they won't get the benefits. They would if they had stayed in the District. However, if they had lived in the District after the marriage and one of them had gotten benefits based upon the marriage and then they had moved to North Carolina, they could keep their benefits. This sounds crazy enough but it gets worse. What if they get married in the District but later separate, with one living in the District but the other in North Carolina and only become eligible for benefits after the move? Under this policy, the one who stays in the District is married and can get benefits based upon the marriage but the one who moves to North Carolina isn't married and can't get benefits based upon the marriage.

     This is nuts. Either the Supreme Court must decide that people have a Constitutional right to marry a person of their same gender or Congress needs to pass a law requiring that Social Security accept same sex marriages nationally. What we've got now is unworkable.