CRFB is officially bipartisan and has Democrats as well as Republicans on its board. However, it is closely affiliated with Pete Peterson who seems to have cutting Social Security as his primary goal in life. Peterson has huge wealth to support his mania.
The book has been out for a month or two but has not been promoted, probably because there's little in the book that would actually bring about cuts in Social Security disability or which is practical.
The book is a mishmash with each chapter by a different author or group of authors. For the most part, I'd say that few, if any, of the authors have ever met a Social Security disability claimant or recipient. It seems to mostly be "blind people describing an elephant" or perhaps describing how they would build a better elephant. I think that if the authors of this book had to actually try to help real, live Social Security disability claimants that they would be likely to say "Who knew disability could be so complicated?"
One of the most important types of recommendation in the book is for "early intervention" to prevent disability. Roughly speaking, the idea is that if people can receive "early intervention" of some type after they become sick or injured, that reliance upon disability benefits can be avoided. I have no idea how this would work. I have no idea what the "early intervention" would consist of. More important, I'm pretty sure the authors don't have much idea how this would work or what the "early intervention" would consist of. I see no reason to believe that such "early intervention" would help any significant group of people. One of the authors is at least honest enough to tell us:
One of the most important types of recommendation in the book is for "early intervention" to prevent disability. Roughly speaking, the idea is that if people can receive "early intervention" of some type after they become sick or injured, that reliance upon disability benefits can be avoided. I have no idea how this would work. I have no idea what the "early intervention" would consist of. More important, I'm pretty sure the authors don't have much idea how this would work or what the "early intervention" would consist of. I see no reason to believe that such "early intervention" would help any significant group of people. One of the authors is at least honest enough to tell us:
What is clear to me from all three papers in this section is that there is neither completed research nor an evidence base upon which to enact nationwide early intervention or work support programs. Additional study and evaluation will be needed to generate this evidence; certainly before making changes to the SSDI program.However, even this statement assumes that such evidence would be forthcoming if the "additional study and evaluation" is done. I think there's strong reason to doubt that.
There already is a good deal of "early intervention" in workers compensation cases, at least where I am. All I've seen from that is heavy-handed pressure on claimants to resume work, even for brief periods of time, not because the injured person achieves any long term benefit but because it helps the employer's insurance company limit what it has to pay. I've seen no evidence that it has done anything to reduce reliance upon Social Security disability benefits. If there were such evidence, I think one of the authors of this book would be touting it.
Otherwise, the book makes recommendations such as eliminating reconsideration, introducing some sort of government representative at hearings, encouraging private long term disability insurance, performing more continuing disability reviews, time limited disability benefits, partial disability benefits and changing the definition of disability. I'm not going to bother to discuss any of this since none of it could possibly be adopted at this time or at any foreseeable time in the future. Yes, for example, doing away with reconsideration would be nice but it would cost a lot of money since far more people would request hearings and hearings are more expensive so it's not going to happen. If you really think this is possible, you fail to understand the problems that Social Security has in getting enough money to continue its current operations much less more money to fund a more expensive version of its operations.
Overall, when I read this book, I keep thinking the authors are nothing more than amateur dilettantes whose "advice" to Social Security policymakers is no more valuable than the "advice" I might give to the head coach of an athletic team I follow.
