Immigrants Help Social Security Trust Funds

     From The Hill writing about Tuesday's hearing before the House Social Security Subcommittee on future funding of Social Security benefits:

“The immigration surge, we project from 2021 to 2026, will result in about $1 trillion in additional revenue” over a ten year period, Dr. Phillip Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) told lawmakers during a Tuesday hearing. ...

Republicans — including former president and presidential candidate Donald Trump — have increasingly pointed to immigration as a drain on social safety nets for the elderly in recent months, including Social Security and Medicare. 

Top budgetary experts bucked those claims during Tuesday’s panel as they argued immigrants could have a positive impact on Social Security.  ...

Rep. Ron Estes (R-Kan.) pressed [Stephen] Goss [Social Security's Chief Actuary] on whether the SSA accounted for the “impact of illegal immigrants” in their yearly report.

“Absolutely, we always have,” Goss responded. “The bottom line really is that immigration of any form is actually a positive in the realm we are now where the birth rates in the country are as low as they are.” ...

    Isn't it obvious that illegal immigrants help the Social Security trust funds? They contribute but can't get anything in return. Of course, this won't be obvious if you believe that illegal immigrants are just "given" Social Security benefits as soon as they arrive but, of course, that's a myth believed only by the credulous.

Two Rulings On PRW

     Social Security will publish two Rulings in the Federal Register tomorrow on How We Apply Medical-Vocational Profiles and How We Evaluate Past Work.

    Here's a footnote from the first of those Rulings:

We will use this SSR beginning on its applicable date. We will apply this SSR to new applications filed on or after the applicable date of the SSR and to claims that are pending on and after the applicable date. This means that we will use this SSR on and after its applicable date in any case in which we make a determination or decision. We expect that Federal courts will review our final decisions using the rules that were in effect at the time we issued the decisions. If a court reverses our final decision and remands a case for further administrative proceedings after the applicable date of this SSR, we will apply this SSR to the entire period at issue in the decision we make after the court’s remand.

    We'll see how this plays out but I doubt they're getting out of this problem with a footnote.

It's Taking Longer To Get An Appointment With Social Security

    From Customer Wait Times in the Social Security Administration’s Field Offices and Card Centers, a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

 

Effective Date Of PRW Change Officially Pushed Back To June 22

     From tomorrow's Federal Register:

We published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2024, a final rule to revise the time period we consider when determining whether an individual’s past work is relevant for the purposes of making disability determinations and decisions under our rules. The preamble of that final rule cited an effective date of June 8, 2024. This rulemaking defers that effective date to June 22, 2024.

Wide Variance Between Regions In Number Of Customers Waiting Outside Field Offices

    From Customer Wait Times in the Social Security Administration’s Field Offices and Card Centers, a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

 

Wait Time To Get Hearing

April 2024 numbers. From Social Security. Click on image to view full size.

 

Ennis Finally Leaving

     Gail Ennis is finally resigning as Social Security’s Inspector General after an investigation determined that she tried to obstruct inquiries into her behavior.

PRW Change Delayed Two Weeks

     The definition of past relevant work for Social Security disability determination was supposed to change from 15 years to 5 years on June 8 but that’s now to come into effect two weeks later, June 22. At least that’s the word on the street. They’ll have to publish something in the Federal Register eventually.  I don’t know what the point is. This shouldn’t require much training. Did they only belatedly notice some policy issues that were quickly apparent to those of us who represent claimants?