Trouble In New Jersey

     From the Daily Journal of some city in New Jersey (the newspaper's website hides the city name):

BRIDGETON – A Vineland man’s anti-social behavior at a Social Security office landed him in jail, authorities said. 

The trouble began Thursday when 53-year-old Jeffrey Kuss became “irate” because he was unhappy with the long wait time while in line at the Social Security office on West Broad Street, according to police Lt. James Battavio. A security officer at the office contacted police because Kuss was acting up, he said.

The guard told Kuss that his appointment had been canceled due to his inappropriate behavior and asked him to leave the premises. Kuss responded by shouting obscenities in front of a crowd of 40 people, including children, police said. 

Police informed Kuss he had to leave, but he refused and insisted he had an appointment, Battavio said. Officers then escorted him outside the building, 

That’s where Kuss began blocking patrons from going inside as he made threats and used profanities, police said. 

He was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct and taken to the police station, where he refused to be processed and subsequently charged with obstruction, Battavio said.

Kuss was held on $1,000 bail in Cumberland County Jail.

Continuing Disability Reviews Study

     The Social Security Advisory Board convened the 2014 Disability Policy Panel to study Continuing Disability Reviews. Here are the Panel's recommendations:

• Provide Continuing Disability Review (CDR) Funding that is adequate, predictable, and sustained
• Retain the Medical Improvement Review Standard (MIRS) and strengthen its implementation
• Strengthen other payment integrity tools
• Strengthen links between CDRs and support for return to work
• CDRS for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) children and youth: 1) SSA should communicate expectations of independence to youth beneficiaries whose medical improvement is expected or possible. 2) As with the adult population, the Panel recommends that Congress continue the employment support services of the Ticket to Work program for one additional year. 3) The training recommended for the medical review standard should be extended to include examples unique to children.

Plea Bargain Sends 91 Year Old Man To Prison For Nine Years

     A press release from Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

A 91-year-old ex-cop at the heart of a massive Social Security scam involving more than 120 retired NYPD cops and FDNY firefighters who raked in millions agreed to a plea deal Friday that could land him behind bars for up to nine years, prosecutors said.

Thomas Hale copped to grand larceny and agreed to pay $2 million in restitution in exchange for three to nine years in prison during a hearing in Manhattan Supreme Court.

“In essence, he was the epicenter of the scheme,” said Assistant DA Christopher Santora. “Even with respect to the other ring leaders, it was Mr. Hale who was the hub through which everything and everybody went right up until this case was taken down and Mr. Hale surrendered for arrest.”

The nearly $22 million scam that spanned 25 years was orchestrated by Hale, who coached applicants to lie on their Social Security disability applications, authorities said.

About half of the defendants exploited 9/11 by falsely claiming they suffered post-traumatic stress by responding to the attacks.

It's a Weird Scheme But Why Not Allow It?

    PBS runs some pieces by Laurence Kotlikoff on Social Security. His specialty is figuring out angles to increase Social Security payouts. It's all legal but often a bit weird. It's always schemes that only a few people could use. One scheme he's been promoting is for people who are drawing Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) to suspend their Social Security retirement benefits once they reach full retirement age (FRA) and wait until age 70 to start collecting them. He's mad that Social Security has decided to stop this scheme. It's an odd scheme he's been promoting, available to only a few and advisable for even fewer but I think that Social Security's decision to prevent this scheme is wrong.

     Let me explain how his scheme would work -- if Social Security allowed it. If you file a claim for DIB, you're also filing a claim for retirement benefits. It says so at the top of the claim form. When you get to FRA, your DIB automatically stops and your retirement benefits start. You don't have to file a claim for the retirement benefits because you did so at the time you filed your DIB claim. A person who never files for DIB can get more per month by waiting until age 70 to file their claim for retirement benefits. It's called the delayed retirement credit. It's a good thing to do if you can afford to wait and if you're healthy because you receive a good deal more per month if you wait until age 70 to start drawing benefits. You can, in the alternative, file a claim for retirement benefits at FRA and ask that Social Security suspend your benefits. You still get the delayed retirement credit but dependent benefits are payable on the account. Kotlikoff was urging DIB recipients to suspend their retirement benefits once they reach FRA, thus getting the delayed retirement credit.

     Kotlikoff was unhappy to find out that Social Security decided in December to treat a request to suspend benefits in the automatic conversion situation as a request to withdraw the original DIB claim. That would require the claimant to pay back all DIB benefits that had been received. Almost no one would do that, ending Kotlikoff's scheme.

     I think the scheme that Kotlikoff has been promoting would be of value to very, very few people even if it were allowed. The vast majority of people eligible for Social Security retirement benefits have no choice but to take the money in order to support themselves. Many, perhaps most, of those who could afford this strategy shouldn't do it anyway because their life expectancy is low. The very impairments that put them on Social Security disability lower their life expectancy. Even those few claimants who could do this are unlikely to do so because the scheme is so exotic and hard to explain.

     Even though I think that Kotlikoff's scheme would be of value to very, very few people, I think that Social Security's position is wrong. I can't think of anything in the Social Security Act that supports the agency's position. There's a difference between asking that benefits be suspended and withdrawing a claim. The agency recognizes that difference. Why would you refuse to recognize that difference in just this one situation? What's wrong with permitting a handful of people to get the delayed retirement credit after being on DIB? Would it be OK if a claimant tells Social Security to stop their DIB a month before they reach FRA and then does a file and suspend? Surely, Kotlikoff will soon figure out that possibility.

Many Opting Out Of Video Hearings

     The newsletter of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) (not available online) says that over 220,000 claimants opted out of video hearings when they were given the chance in October and November of 2014. That's more than one in five pending requests for hearing. I'm surprised that the number opting out isn't even higher. Some claimants and attorneys are more willing than others to tolerate video hearings but nobody likes them.

New Layout And Colors

     I'm sure that regular readers of this blog know that I've been adjusting the layout and colors for the blog. I'm not finished yet but I'm getting there. Please share your opinions.

     Just below the blog title is a line for you to enter your e-mail address. If you do that and hit enter, you'll start getting blog posts by e-mail. So far, I've been unable to get Blogger to properly label this gadget but that's what it's for.

SSA Employees Like Their Jobs

     The Social Security Administration ranks 6th on the list of best places to work among federal agencies.

Final 2014 Numbers On Disability Insurance Trust Fund: What Do They Portend?

Disability Insurance Trust Fund, 1957-2014
[In millions]

			Assets
Calendar year	Total receipts	Total expenditures	Net increase during year	Assets at end of year
1957	$709	$59	$649	$649
1958	991	261	729	1,379
1959	931	485	447	1,825
1960	1,063	600	464	2,289
1961	1,104	956	148	2,437
1962	1,114	1,183	-69	2,368
1963	1,165	1,297	-133	2,235
1964	1,218	1,407	-188	2,047
1965	1,247	1,687	-440	1,606
1966	2,079	1,947	133	1,739
1967	2,379	2,089	290	2,029
1968	3,454	2,458	996	3,025
1969	3,792	2,716	1,075	4,100
1970	4,774	3,259	1,514	5,614
1971	5,031	4,000	1,031	6,645
1972	5,572	4,759	813	7,457
1973	6,443	5,973	470	7,927
1974	7,378	7,196	182	8,109
1975	8,035	8,790	-754	7,354
1976	8,757	10,366	-1,609	5,745
1977	9,570	11,945	-2,375	3,370
1978	13,810	12,954	856	4,226
1979	15,590	14,186	1,404	5,630
1980	13,871	15,872	-2,001	3,629
1981	17,078	17,658	-580	3,049
1982	22,715	17,992	-358	2,691
1983	20,682	18,177	2,505	5,195
1984	17,309	18,546	-1,237	3,959
1985	19,301	19,478	2,363	6,321
1986	19,439	20,522	1,459	7,780
1987	20,303	21,425	-1,122	6,658
1988	22,699	22,494	206	6,864
1989	24,795	23,753	1,041	7,905
1990	28,791	25,616	3,174	11,079
1991	30,390	28,571	1,819	12,898
1992	31,430	32,004	-574	12,324
1993	32,301	35,662	-3,361	8,963
1994	52,841	38,879	13,962	22,925
1995	56,696	42,055	14,641	37,566
1996	60,710	45,351	15,359	52,924
1997	60,499	47,034	13,465	66,389
1998	64,357	49,931	14,425	80,815
1999	69,541	53,035	16,507	97,321
2000	77,920	56,782	21,138	118,459
2001	83,903	61,369	22,534	140,993
2002	87,379	67,905	19,475	160,468
2003	88,074	73,108	14,966	175,434
2004	91,380	80,597	10,783	186,217
2005	97,423	88,018	9,405	195,623
2006	102,641	94,456	8,185	203,808
2007	109,854	98,778	11,076	214,884
2008	109,840	108,951	889	215,773
2009	109,283	121,506	-12,223	203,550
2010	104,017	127,660	-23,643	179,907
2011	106,276	132,332	-26,056	153,850
2012	109,115	140,299	-31,184	122,666
2013	111,228	143,450	-32,221	90,445
2014	114,858	145,060	-30,201	60,244

     The crucial question is what happens in the next two years. There was modest improvement in  the rate at which the Disability Trust Fund went down in 2014 over 2013. Was it just a blip or a sign of things to come. The number actually drawing Disability Insurance Benefits stabilized in 2014 and was heading down in the last three months of the year. Was 2014 an inflection point? If so, how much of an inflection point?