CUFF That Impulse

     From a press release issued by the Coalition for Citizens with Disablities (CCD), the major umbrella group of nonprofits working to help the disabled:

On Wednesday, September 13, 2017, the House Ways and Means Committee passed an amended version of H.R. 2792, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons [CUFF] Act of 2017. This bill would cut off Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits entirely for certain people with disabilities, as well as seniors. The proposed cut would bar payment of SSI benefits to people with an outstanding arrest warrant for an alleged felony or for an alleged violation of probation or parole. 

H.R. 2792 would revive an old, failed policy that had catastrophic effects for many people with disabilities and seniors, employing procedures that did not withstand judicial scrutiny. This proposal would not help law enforcement secure arrests. The Social Security Act already prohibits payments to people fleeing from law enforcement to avoid prosecution or imprisonment. The Social Security Administration (SSA) currently notifies law enforcement of the whereabouts of every person with a warrant for an alleged felony or an alleged violation of probation or parole who turns up in SSA’s databases. This bill would not change these policies and procedures.

Based on prior experience with SSA’s failed former policy, the people who would be affected are those whose cases are inactive and whom law enforcement is not pursuing. Most of the warrants in question are decades old and involve minor infractions, including warrants routinely issued when a person was unable to pay a fine or court fee, or a probation supervision fee. Many people are not even aware that a warrant was issued for them, as warrants are often not served on the individual. Some people will be swept up as a result of mistaken identity, or paperwork errors, which can take months or even years to resolve.

Resolving these warrants can be extremely hard and costly: people often must go before a judge in the issuing jurisdiction, and typically need counsel to assist them in navigating the process. Often, people have moved in the intervening years and live far from the issuing jurisdiction. ...

     Having seen this before, I definitely agree with CCD. This is the sort of thing that looks good from 30,000 feet. However, at ground level it's obviously unfair. People are deprived of their income over minor matters from many years earlier and sometimes they've done nothing wrong. They have to persuade prosecutors to dismiss ancient charges that couldn't possibly be prosecuted. Prosecutors are sometimes cooperative, sometimes hostile. It just depends upon the prosecutor. It's not fighting crime. It's not achieving any worthy goal. It's just harsh.

Equifax And Social Security

     Dave Lindorff at Salon wonders "How badly did Equifax breach damage the Social Security system?" The question arises because Equifax, which has suffered a massive hacking breach, has a contract with Social Security to help with security for the mySocialSecurity system that allows Americans to have some degree of access to their Social Security records.

     It's a reasonable question to ask. Unfortunately, when Lindorff asked Social Security, he got nothing. Their public affairs office refused to answer questions.

     Let my try to give the answer that Social Security should have given. Social Security obtains information from Equifax to verify identities but gives none to Equifax in return. For example, Social Security would ask Equifax for information on a person who is attempting to establish a mySocialSecurity account and those records might show that the person had recently purchased a car. Social Security would ask the person what brand of car they purchased. If the person attempting to open the mySocialSecurity account is the true number holder, they'd be able to answer the question and open the account. The key fact is that there is no information exchange. All of the information goes in one direction, from Equifax to Social Security. Equifax gets no information in return apart from the knowledge that Social Security was asking for information on that person.

     If there is a problem, it would be that the information hacked from Equifax could be used to open mySocialSecurity accounts but that risk quickly disappears assuming Equifax has stopped the data breach since Social Security is only using recent information to verify identity. Also, even apart from the Equifax hack, identity thieves have been able to access mySocialSecurity accounts to change bank deposit information to divert payments made to claimants. So far, Social Security has regarded this as a low level problem. To some extent that's true. It doesn't take long for people to complain about not receiving their Social Security benefits so little money is stolen and it's all eventually restored to the rightful people. However, it's a big problem for those who are deprived of their Social Security benefits for a month or two or three. Social Security seems to prefer that this not be publicized since it undermines their effort to get people to open mySocialSecurity accounts.
     I should say that Social Security eventually got its act together and was able to give a terse but accurate response when the Wall Street Journal asked the same question. The Wall Street Journal article is behind a pay wall.
     Update: Social Security really should have put out a statement on this as soon as possible after the Equifax breach became public. Two Senators have written a letter to  the Acting Commissioner asking about Equifax.

Brilliant Analysis

     The Scranton, Pennsylvania Times-Tribune has published an editorial saying that the Social Security disability "system is disabled and in need to rapid rehabilitation" It then goes on to cite the extensive backlogs at the agency. So what "rehabilitation" does this newspaper think is needed? They don't say. They just wonder why key staff shortages developed at Social Security and think someone needs to take a look at "whether the system’s earlier stages need to be improved to prevent so many appeals." 

     I don't expect a newspaper's editorial writers to have detailed Social Security knowledge but the research behind this piece must have taken less than a minute. I'm going to miss newspapers when they're gone but I'm not going to miss worthless editorials like this.
     Update: Here's a much better editorial on the same subject from a much smaller paper in Council Bluffs, Iowa showing what you can do if you put a little time into it.

People Want Smaller Government -- But Not For Themselves

     From Tom Margenau's column in the Arizona Daily Star: 

 I sure am glad President Trump isn’t considering me to be the new head of the Social Security Administration. What a thankless job! As about 10,000 people retire every day, and as thousands more file for disability and survivor benefits, the agency’s workforce keeps dwindling. And it’s going to get worse. ... 

The Trump administration has ordered the Social Security Administration (and almost all other government agencies) to downsize. At SSA, early retirement incentives have been offered to about 15,000 employees. That’s one-fourth of the agency’s total workforce of 62,000.That’s going to mean the closure of more local Social Security offices, which means fewer people available to answer the thousands of calls the agency gets every day. By far, the No. 1 complaint I hear from my readers is the overly long wait times when they call SSA’s 800 number. Well, all I can say is: Get used to it.

I’ve made this following point many times in this column. So many Americans claim they want smaller government. But if my e-mails are any indication, what they really mean is they want smaller government for everyone else — but not for themselves. ...

And if you also think that SSA, just like any other government agency , has a bloated administrative budget that could stand some trimming, well, think again. Out of every dollar collected in Social Security taxes, less than one penny goes toward running the agency that maintains earnings records for almost every American and pays monthly benefits to 1 out of every 6 Americans. ...

And if you think that these Trump cuts will merely be reversing all the growth in government that happened during the Obama years, you’re wrong. Between 2010 and 2016, SSA’s budget dropped by more than 10 percent. During that same period, its beneficiary base went up by 12 percent and its fixed costs increased by about $300 million each year....

You Can't Make Bricks Without Straw

     From the Associated Press:

More than 1 million Americans await a hearing to see whether they qualify for disability benefits from Social Security, with the average wait nearly two years -- longer than some of them will live. ... 

Last year, the agency's budget was $12.6 billion, roughly the same as it was in 2011, even though an additional 6 million people receive either retirement or disability benefits from Social Security. ...  

"No search for efficiencies, reprioritization of tasks or technological improvements can substitute for adequate resources," said Lisa Ekman of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives.

There"s No Mailing List For This Blog

     I keep getting e-mails asking from people asking me to add their e-mail address to the mailing list for this blog. There isn't a mailing list for this blog. There used to be but technical changes at Blogger made that impossible. If you want to access this blog, you have to come to this website on a regular basis.

I Don't Think You'll Get Any Argument From The Social Security Administration

     From an op ed in the New York Times:

... Consumers are asked for their Social Security number perhaps dozens of times each year: by banks, by utility companies, by their health care providers, by government agencies, even by websites. Every time the number is given, the odds go up that it will fall into the wrong hands. Still, America’s identification system relies on the fantasy that these nine digits are a secret. Publication of the full Social Security number list would shatter that fantasy and force the banking industry to invent new and genuinely effective ways to protect consumers from identity thieves. 

It seems that has finally occurred. The Equifax credit-reporting agency is being terribly, dangerously vague about its stunning loss of “potentially” 143 million Social Security numbers. The data belong to roughly three-quarters of Americans with a credit report. Might as well be everyone. 

Whatever the company finally admits to, this much is certain: Social Security numbers are no longer a secret. 

These numbers were created for a single purpose: to track worker contributions to a national retirement fund. Until the 1970s, the cards even arrived printed with the warning “Not for identification.” It’s time we heeded that warning and stopped using the number for applications of any kind. For loans, for jobs, for cellphones. It’s going to be very expensive, but the jig is up. 

Identity theft is an unfair shifting of costs. It has always been cheaper to avoid investment in security upgrades and instead push the real costs of this system onto victims, who spend hours cleaning up the messes left behind. They sometimes even pay a monthly fee for protection from a system they never asked to be a part of in the first place. 

This fragile authentication arrangement based on Social Security numbers persists so that retailers and banks can offer easy credit. Walk in with a number and a name, walk out with a new TV and a credit card. As long as a credit score attached to the Social Security number listed on the application is high enough, many creditors are more than happy to make that snap decision and take the risk. ... 

Social Security numbers were never designed to be a security tool, and their usefulness for that purpose has run its course. 

     Just please let the Social Security Administration continue using Social Security numbers. 

New Ruling On Sickle Cell

     The Social Security Administration is publishing a new Ruling on sickle cell disease tomorrow but you can read it today.