Unions File Complaints Over Social Security's Failure To Implement Emergency Paid Leave

     From Government Executive:

Officials at three federal employee unions have filed formal complaints against the Social Security Administration for refusing to fully implement a law providing emergency paid sick leave to workers related to the coronavirus pandemic.

The American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union both filed internal grievances this week accusing the agency of not complying with the sick leave law and refusing its collective bargaining obligations over the implementation of the new leave category. And the Association of Administrative Law Judges has filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

The Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act was signed into law in mid-March as part of Congress' first bill responding to the COVID-19 outbreak. It provides employees in both the public and private sectors with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave, as well as up to 10 weeks of paid leave at two-thirds of their regular pay for workers who have child and dependent care responsibilities due to school and daycare closures related to the pandemic.

This new benefit was to take effect April 1, and the Labor Department announced it would give employers a "non-enforcement period" until April 17 to allow employers to make changes to their payroll system to offer the leave. But to date, union officials said the Social Security Administration has dragged its feet.

The agency has faulted the Interior Business Center, which does payroll for Social Security and several other agencies, for being unable to implement the coding changes needed until July. ...

For its part, the Interior Business Center disputes Social Security Administration officials' laying of blame. ...

The Sky Isn't Falling -- At Least For The Social Security Trust Funds

     There has been a fair amount of speculation about the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Social Security trust funds. This mostly comes from people who have always predicted doom for the trust funds even in better times and it's been little more than speculation.

     The first fairly solid projection I've seen is from the Penn Wharton Business School's Budget Model. I don't know how solid their Social Security trust funds projections have been in the past but they're not some think tank cranking out projections designed to either scare or reassure people. The Penn Wharton model had the combined trust funds running dry in 2036, which was one year later than Social Security's actuaries had it. Now, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projects a trust fund exhaustion date between 2032 and 2034. That's not as good but doesn't sound to me like the sky is falling.

     In any case, I'm not worrying about Social Security "running out of money." Even if the trust funds run dry, the agency would still be able to pay 76% of benefits just from FICA payments coming in. However, that scenario is no more than a right wing fantasy. Even members of Congress who are hostile to Social Security would not allow that to happen. There are far too many voters receiving Social Security. There will be tax increases or general fund transfers. The worst that might happen would be some very minor cuts and I'll be surprised if there are any cuts. Ultimately, the Social Security trust funds are an abstraction. What really supports Social Security is the support of the American people. Right wingers make the mistake of thinking that just because they don't like Social Security that it can't really be all that popular. That's wrong. Public support for Social Security is overwhelming and unwavering.

     We've got far more immediate crises to worry about. Relax about the Social Security trust funds.

Wisconsin Not Allowing Social Security Disability Recipients To Receive Pandemic Unemployment Insurance

     From the Sun Prairie Star:

People stopped traveling when the coronavirus pandemic hit, costing Jessica Barrera her job at Groome Transportation, an airport shuttle service with an office in Eau Claire.

So the 40-year-old single mother joined nearly 70,000 other laid-off Wisconsinites during that third week of March: She filed her first weekly unemployment claim. 

She filed another claim the next week. And the next. And the next. She continued until the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development denied her claims in a letter that explained in bold, capital letters:

“THE CLAIMANT CANNOT RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY PAYMENTS AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS CONCURRENTLY.”

“I cried for days,” Barrera said. “I thought (unemployment assistance) was going to be my saving grace to help me get by until my job opened.” 

Barrera has polycythemia vera, a rare disease that causes her body to produce too many red blood cells. The condition can lead to strokes, blood clots, miscarriages and other complications.

She takes a blood thinner and has 16 ounces of blood removed from her body monthly to control her symptoms. She also says she grapples with depression and anxiety following a pair of family tragedies.

All that qualifies Barrera for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), a federally funded program for people who have worked and paid Social Security taxes but can no longer perform “substantially gainful activity.”

SSDI guidelines allow and encourage part-time work so long as she does not earn more than $1,260 per month. “You have to stay poor to keep your health care to stay alive,” Barrera said.

About 175,000 working-age Wisconsinites rely on SSDI to supplement their income. But the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2013 passed a law barring that group from simultaneously receiving unemployment insurance after losing work.

George Wentworth, an unemployment insurance specialist with the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit that supports protections for low-wage workers and the unemployed, said he knows of only one other state — North Carolina — that also explicitly bans tapping both programs. ...

Barrera is appealing with the pro bono help of Victor Forberger, supervising attorney for the University of Wisconsin’s Unemployment Compensation Appeals Clinic, who said he is representing about 20 people with similar cases. Forberger accuses Wisconsin of discriminating against people with disabilities, saying the denials run counter to Congress’ aim. ...

    I live in North Carolina. I have been told that the governor has ordered that Social Security disability recipients will qualify for Pandemic Unemployment Insurance. However, I'm not so sure that there aren't other states with the same issue as Wisconsin.

Some Covid-19 Tidbits From SSA

     I found these recently added items on Social Security's Covid-19 website:

... I received financial assistance under the CARES Act Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund. Will this affect my Supplemental Security Income payment?

Date: June 1, 2020

We do not consider Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund financial assistance as income or a resource for SSI purposes. Receipt of this assistance will not affect your SSI payment. ...

Can I enroll in Medicare?

Date: June 2, 2020

If you already have Medicare Part A and wish to sign up for Medicare Part B under the Special Enrollment Period (SEP) due to a loss of employment or group health coverage, please complete form CMS 40-B, Application for Enrollment in Medicare - Part B (Medical Insurance) along with the CMS L564-Request for Employment Information and gather proof of employment, Group Health Plan (GHP), or Large Group Health Plan (LGHP).

You have three options to submit your enrollment request under the Special Enrollment Period. You can do one of the following:

• Go to Apply Online for Medicare Part B During a Special Enrollment Period and complete CMS-40B and CMS-L564. Then upload your evidence of Group Health Plan or Large Group Health Plan.
• Fax your forms to 1-833-914-2016.
• Mail your CMS-40B, CMS-L564, and evidence to your local Social Security field office.

Note When completing the CMS-L564

• State on the form “I want Part B coverage to begin (MM/YY)”
• If possible, your employer should complete Section B.
• If your employer is unable to complete Section B, please complete that portion on behalf of your employer without your employers signature and submit one of the following forms of secondary evidence:
• income tax form that shows health insurance premiums paid;
• W-2s reflecting pre-tax medical contributions;
• pay stubs that reflect health insurance premium deductions;
• health insurance cards with a policy effective date;
• explanations of benefits paid by the GHP or LGHP; or

• statements or receipts that reflect payment of health insurance premiums. ...

Impostor Scams Eating Up Man Hours

     From The Social Security Administration’s Response to Telephone Imposter Scams, a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

... The rise in SSA-related imposter scams primarily affected its field office and national 800-Number teleservice center staff. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, SSA estimated its 800-Number staff handled about 854,000 scam-related calls. Also, in FY 2019, the OIG received about 65,000 scam-related allegations from SSA staff—an over 1,000-percent increase over the number of similar allegations SSA staff sent in FY 2018.

Time spent responding to scam-related inquiries and making fraud referrals deflected staff from completing their normal workloads. SSA estimated it spent over 100 workyears in FY 2019 on these and other scam-related activities at a cost of $8.4 million. Per SSA, it takes 100 workyears to process 6,000 initial disability claims, 43,000 retirement claims, or 270,000 Social Security number card requests. ...

SSI Annual Report

     From the Annual Report of the Supplemental Security Income Program just filed:

• By 2044, the end of the 25-year projection period, we estimate that the Federal SSI recipient population will reach 8.4 million. The projected growth in the SSI program over the 25-year period is largely due to the overall growth in the Social Security area population, though the growth in the SSI recipient population is projected to be somewhat slower than the growth in the Social Security area population.

• As a percentage of the total Social Security area population, the number of Federal SSI recipients decreased slightly from 2.40 percent in 2018 to 2.37 percent in 2019. We project this percentage to gradually decline throughout the 25-year projection period, reaching 2.17 percent of the population in2044. This occurs for several reasons, including that the percent of the population potentially eligible for SSI based on their citizenship and residency status is projected to decline slightly in the future.

• We estimate that Federal expenditures for SSI payments in calendar year 2020 will increase by $0.7billion to $56.9 billion, an increase of 1.2 percent from 2019 levels.

• In dollars adjusted by the Consumer Price Index to 2020 levels, we project that Federal expendituresfor SSI payments will increase to $61.2 billion in 2044, a real increase of 0.3 percent per year.

• Federal SSI expenditures expressed as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) were 0.26 percent in 2019. We project that expenditures as a percentage of GDP will decrease to 0.25 percent of GDP in 2020, and continue to decline thereafter to 0.18 percent of GDP by 2044. Federal SSI expenditures are projected to grow more slowly than GDP both because the share of the population that will be potentially eligible for SSI will decline and because the maximum federal SSI benefit is projected to grow more slowly on average than the growth in average income in the future.

A Good Granny On Ice Story

     Here's a good "granny on ice" story. I haven't seen one of these in a while or, perhaps I should say, in a minute. Granny was "on ice" so someone could continue taking her Social Security benefits. This sort of story comes up more often than you might think. 

     By the time this crime was discovered, granny would have been about 112 years old if she had still been alive. The Social Security Administration used to send an employee to make an in-person visit to anyone turning 100, purportedly to congratulate them but really to make sure they were still alive. That hasn't been done in many years. Other efforts are made to prevent the concealment of deaths but, as this case demonstrates, those efforts aren't always successful.

     Did you know that a real life "granny on ice" story inspired the movie Bernie, starring Jack Black and Shirley McLain? There was a lot more going on in that fascinating movie than just Social Security, however.

I Wouldn't Bet On This Holding Up

     From the Arizona Capitol Times:

A federal magistrate has voided policies of the Social Security Administration that deny benefits to the survivors of some gay marriages.

In a precedent-setting decision, Bruce Macdonald said it was wrong for the government to conclude that Michael Ely did not meet the legal requirements to be considered the legal survivor of James A. Taylor.

Macdonald acknowledged that the policy requires that couples have been married for at least nine months for the survivor to get benefits. And that was not the case here, as Taylor died within six months of their wedding.

But the judge said that Ely was legally precluded from marrying Taylor in Arizona until October 2014 when a federal judge voided the state’s ban on same-sex nuptials. They wed the following month, with Taylor dying six months later.

And Macdonald said the government cannot use that unconstitutional ban to now penalize Ely. ...

     The Magistrate Judge has issued only a recommended decision that must be reviewed by the actual District Judge, assuming that the parties didn't consent to jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge, which seems unlikely. After the District Judge decides, the case is likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeals and it could go to the Supreme Court after that. I certainly agree that denying benefits in this situation is unfair but I'm doubtful that the Courts will find it unconstitutional. Not everything that is unfair is unconstitutional.

     Update: I am told that the parties did consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. I don’t know why either would have consented in this case. There can be an appeal to the District Court Judge and discretionary review in the Court of Appeals but no appeal of right to the Court of Appeals if the parties consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.