Democrats Embracing Social Security Expansion

     From Nancy Altman writing for Huffington Post:

In the wee hours of [Friday] morning, when most people were sleeping, the Senate took a vote that has momentous implications for who will win in 2016 and beyond. In three resounding votes over the last two days, Democrats rediscovered and reclaimed their legacy. 

Just before recessing until April 13, the Senate passed a budget resolution. Prior to final passage, it voted on three separate Social Security amendments. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) offered an amendment protecting all Americans against cuts in their Social Security earned benefits. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) offered an amendment only protecting current beneficiaries from cuts. And around 2:30 a.m., Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) offered an amendment advocating the expansion of Social Security.  

The results were revealing and important. Every Democratic senator who was present but two voted to expand Social Security. Every Democratic senator but one voted against cutting Social Security's modest benefits.  

In sharp contrast, no Republican voted to expand Social Security. Every Republican but a mere six voted to keep open the option of cutting the earned Social Security benefits of every American except for those fortunate enough to already be receiving those benefits. (Sorry, those of you who are a month away from retiring or have a disabling or deadly illness or accident in your future. The Republicans refused to vote to protect you.)

Republican Senators Open To Social Security Cuts

     From The Hill:

Senators on Tuesday blocked an amendment from Senate Democrats aimed at protecting Social Security.  

Senators voted 51-48 on a procedural motion, after Democrats tried to override the decision of Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the chairman of the Budget Committee, to block the amendment. 

The amendment would have required any proposal that cuts benefits or raises the Social Security retirement age meet a “point of order” requiring a supermajority of 60 votes for passage.

Why Do Republicans Refuse To Fund Program Integrity At Social Security?

     Congressional Republicans loudly decry what they believe to be "rampant fraud" (their term, not mine) in Social Security's disability programs but they refuse to fund increased efforts to find and prosecute this fraud. Democrats support increased funding for program integrity while Republicans oppose it. Are Republicans interested in whatever fraud there may be only to the extent that it may be used as a political issue? Do Republicans have any actual interest in the proper administration of Social Security?

51 Senators Open To Cutting Social Security

     From The Hill:

Senators on Tuesday blocked an amendment from Senate Democrats aimed at protecting Social Security.  

Senators voted 51-48 on a procedural motion, after Democrats tried to override the decision of Sen. Mike Enzi's (R-Wyo.), the chairman of the Budget Committee, to block the amendment.  

The amendment would have required any proposal that cuts benefits or raises the Social Security retirement age meet a “point of order” requiring a supermajority of 60 votes for passage. 

But, Enzi blocked the amendment, saying it was not "germane" to the budget.

Online Appeals System Not Working

     Last week Social Security started up a new system for filing online appeals. The new system allows users to upload documents along with an appeal. This week I'm hearing many reports of difficulty filing appeals online, regardless of whether a document is uploaded at the same time. It's become just about impossible to file an appeal online. I can't say that the current problem is related to the new system but that seems likely.

     I'm sure that someone is working on the problem but it would be nice if the agency would communicate better on technical problems like this. Requiring that attorneys who represent claimants before the agency file appeals online at a time when the agency has no workable system for filing appeals online could cause some frustration.

How Many Times Do I Have To Tell You?

     I'm wondering how widespread this is. A Social Security disability claimant who has requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge is asked whether he or she objects to a video hearing. The claimant objects. Later, the hearing office ignores the claimant's wishes and attempts to schedule a video hearing anyway -- unless the claimant objects a second time. Anybody else seeing this?

An Interesting 4th Circuit Opinion

     The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down an interesting opinion last week in the case of Mascio v. Colvin. Here are a few excerpts:

Here, the ALJ has determined what functions he believes Mascio can perform, but his opinion is sorely lacking in the analysis needed for us to review meaningfully those conclusions. In particular, although the ALJ concluded that Mascio can perform certain functions, he said nothing about Mascio’s ability to perform them for a full workday. ... 

[W]e agree with other circuits that an ALJ does not account “for a claimant’s limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace by restricting the hypothetical question to simple, routine tasks or unskilled work.” ...

Mascio’s argument stems from the ALJ’s use of the following language in his opinion:

After careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment. 

We agree with the Seventh Circuit that this boilerplate “gets things backwards” by implying “that ability to work is determined first and is then used to determine the claimant’s credibility.” ...

[A] claimant’s pain and residual functional capacity are not separate assessments to be compared with each other. Rather, an ALJ is required to consider a claimant’s pain as part of his analysis of residual functional capacity.

21 Month Sentence For Former Social Security Employee

     From the Dallas Morning News:

A former Social Security Administration employee was sentenced Friday to 21 months in federal prison for accessing the agency’s electronic databases to steal government money, the U.S. attorney’s office said. 

Carwin Shaw, 33, of Arlington, was also ordered to pay $78,165 in restitution for his role in the scheme.  ... 

He also caused unauthorized payments to be issued and to have duplicate payments issued for his conspirators. Shaw had more checks sent to his accomplices by reporting that their initial checks were lost or stolen. He then split the money with them, authorities said.