Is This The Plan?

     Mark Miller at Reuters writes that "House leaders appear to be maneuvering to push through an SSDI [Social Security Disability Insurance] fix during the lame duck session following the 2016 elections."

     If this is the plan, it's not much of a plan. The timing of the exhaustion of the Disability Trust Fund probably won't come right in the December 2016/January 2017 time period.  Even if it does, Social Security disability would become a red hot issue for the 2016 election. Do Republicans really want that?

How Does GOP Pass A Bill Cutting Social Security Disability?

     To clarify something I posted yesterday, I don't really think it's possible that the House of Representatives will end the Lump Sum Death Payment (LSDP) in order to allow transfers from the Retirement to the Disability Trust Fund. That would work under the rules they just passed but, no, even though ending the LSPD makes perfect sense -- the payments are so tiny they it probably costs more to administer them than is actually paid out -- Republicans would never end the LSDP because they're afraid of being accused of cutting Social Security. And there's the problem for Republicans. If they're afraid of being accused of cutting Social Security if they end the LSDP, a tiny benefit that ought to be eliminated, won't they be afraid they'll be accused of cutting Social Security if they really cut Social Security disability benefits? No doubt they tell themselves that Social Security disability isn't "really" Social Security but do they "really" believe that? More important, do voters "really" believe that? I'm pretty sure that if Republicans cut Social Security disability they'll see campaign ads run against them for cutting Social Security. They can tell everyone that didn't "really" cut Social Security since Social Security disability isn't "really" Social Security. They can also claim that Social Security disability is full of fraud (even though the evidence shows that isn't true) but that's not likely to help. So, how are Republicans really going to pass a bill cutting Social Security disability?I have no idea.

Hardly A Booming Business

     The final 2014 figures for payments of fees to attorneys and others representing Social Security claimants are in. These are amounts paid by the claimants themselves out of their back benefits. Social Security is only a conduit. The total amount paid in 2014 was $1,140,183,312.10. This is 8% less than the 2013 total of $1,226,129,697.74. Fee payments have been going down since 2010. The total fee payments per year are now down 20% from their 2010 peak.

Downturn In New Awards To Disabled Workers

Pithy

     The Wonkette title says it all: New GOP Congress Pretty Sure All You ‘Disabled’ ‘Folks’ Are Fakers Anyway, So Suck It.

Weak Jujitsu

     Here's the actual language of the new rule in the House of Representatives:

(1) During the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that reduces the actuarial balance by at least .01 percent of the present value of future taxable payroll of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201(a) of the Social Security Act for the 75-year period utilized in the most recent annual report of the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act.

(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a measure that would improve the actuarial balance of the combined balance in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for the 75-year period utilized in the most recent annual report of the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act.

     Under this rule, even the most minor change that reduces either disability or retirement payments would allow for the transfer of funds between the two trust funds. Eliminating the lump sum death payment, for instance, would be enough to allow the transfer between the two trust funds and every knowledgeable person knows that should be eliminated. My idea of playing around with the benefit offset for those dually eligible for disability benefits and retirement or survivor benefits wouldn't work since that would leave the actuarial balance of the combined trust funds unchanged -- although that plus some minor change reducing either disability or retirement benefits, such as eliminating the lump sum death payment, would work. Reversing the offset for those dually eligible for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI would work since it would reduce the combined balance of the two funds by shifting some costs to SSI. Nobody's benefits would be cut. Nobody's taxes would be increased. There would be no effect upon the federal deficit.The windfall offset already reduces Disability Insurance Benefits for back SSI benefits. Just extend that to ongoing payments and the problem is solved. In other words, it will be easy to work around this rule. You don't have to cut anyone's benefits. If you do make a cut, it can be quite a minor cut.

That Jujitsu Move Doesn't Work

 

  I'm still trying to find a copy of the new House rule passed yesterday but if I have it straight they've set forth a rule that prohibits any transfer of money from the Social Security Retirement Trust Fund to the Disability Trust Fund unless the transfer is accompanied by cuts in benefits or increases in taxes so that the Retirement Trust Fund actually ends up with more money despite the transfer. This appears to leave two possible solutions for the looming shortfall in the Disability Trust Fund. First, Congress could pass and the President could sign a bill that would cut Social Security disability benefits by about 20% or Congress could pass and the President could sign a bill that would cut Social Security disability benefits by something less than 20% but which would cut Social Security retirement benefits or raise taxes significantly instead.

    My first thought on hearing of the House rule change was alarm. My second thought was that this changes nothing. This is just another in a long line of efforts by Republicans to find a jujitsu move which would cut Social Security but which would force Democrats to do the cutting. Republicans would then blame the Democrats for the cuts. Why is the risk that Social Security disability benefits will be cut dramatically a motivation for Congressional Democrats to vote for a bill that cuts Social Security benefits dramatically? It's a dramatic cut either way. You're just voting for the pain. For that matter, what's the motivation for Congressional Republicans to vote for a bill that would cut Social Security benefits dramatically? Forget trying to pass such a bill in the House of Representatives. Forget even trying to vote such a bill out of the House Ways and Means Committee. No such bill would even find a sponsor!

     In any case, House rules can be changed by the House at any time by a simple majority vote. Even within the terms of the rule, the House could pass a bill that would cut no benefits, raise no taxes and transfer no money between trust funds but which would prevent anyone from losing Social Security disability benefits. All they would have to do is to play around with benefit offsets for disability recipients who are dually eligible for Social Security retirement or survivor benefits or SSI.

Is There Much Of This?

     From some television station in Colorado that doesn't put its real name on its website:

Fifty-seven-year-old Galdino Juarez depends on his Social Security benefits. He's been in a wheelchair for a decade.

According to two letters he's received from the Social Security Administration, the agency says it will stop paying Juarez because the Department of Homeland Security informed them Juarez has been deported.

However, DHS confirmed to 9NEWS that Juarez is a lawful permanent resident. He has been a legal resident and a green card holder for 35 years.