The harsh new musculoskeletal Listings are scheduled to go into effect on April 2. The Biden Administration could delay implementation or even kill these changes altogether. However, there has been no sign so far of anything that would derail the new Listings.
I fear that these changes now seems too much like mere housekeeping. I don't think they will seem that way if implemented.
I'm curious. Has Social Security been training staff on the new musculoskeletal Listings?
From a press release:
Today, House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John B. Larson (D-CT), Worker and Family Support Subcommittee Chairman Danny K. Davis (D-IL), and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) called for the immediate removal of the Commissioner of Social Security, Andrew Saul, and the Deputy Commissioner, David Black, who were both appointed by former President Trump. ...
Sending out press releases is nice but any of these Subcommittee heads can hold an oversight hearing and demand that Saul testify so he can be roasted. Firing him is one way of getting rid of him. Pressuring him to quit is another.
I wonder what’s going on behind the scenes. Is the Biden Administration torn about what to do about Saul? Is this press release just a meaningless bow to employee unions?
From WAVY:
The man accused of shooting a 52-year-old security officer Feb. 8 at a U.S. Social Security Administration building in Norfolk has died.
Federal court paperwork says 44-year-old William D. Rankin died Wednesday at a hospital. ...
According to the authorities, Rankin had been taken to a local hospital with life-threatening injuries after the shooting. Staff at the hospital pronounced him deceased Wednesday.
The security guard he injured in the shooting was taken to the hospital as well, but was expected to fully recover.
Can anyone recall any prior fatal shooting at a Social Security office?
Matt Ford has written an interesting piece for TNR on the background of the Supreme Court case on whether it is constitutional to deny SSI benefits to U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico. There's little question about it. This and other distinctions were made in the case of Puerto Rico due to racism. As Ford writes:
... In Dawnes v. Bidwell, the first of the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court described Puerto Rico and other newfound colonial possessions as “inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and modes of thought,” where “the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible.” ...
Yesterday I posted the news about the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case concerning whether it is constitutional to deny SSI benefits to disabled individuals who live in a U.S. territory. That was not the only announcement yesterday of a Social Security case that the Supreme Court would hear. The Court also agreed to hear Babcock v. Saul, which presents an issue of more limited importance, "Whether a civil service pension received for federal civilian employment as a “military technician (dual status)” is “a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” for the purposes of the Social Security Act’s windfall elimination provision."
The Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari, that is it has agreed to hear, the case of U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, which presents the issue of whether it is constitutional to deny SSI benefits to U.S. citizens who reside in the territory of Puerto Rico. I don't know whether this will be argued in this term of Court. If it's too late for this term, it will be heard in the next term, which always begins on the first Monday in October.
Nobody knows what the long term impact of the pandemic will be on Social Security. How much will the trust funds be affected by the economic downturn? Will the trust funds be healthier because of the people dying early from Covid-19? Will there be a surge of disability claims? Will the pandemic combined with the failed Trump presidency have generalized effects upon public attitudes towards government support programs? These are important questions but it will be years before we have answers to all of them. This article in the Philadelphia Inquirer contains some interesting speculation from some well informed sources.
