SSI Resource Limits Are Brutal

     From National Public Radio:

The thing that got Karen Williams into trouble was that she tried to do the responsible thing and bought a life insurance policy that would pay for her funeral. ...

Williams, who is disabled and doesn’t work, relied upon a little-known federal assistance program — Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, run by the Social Security Administration. ...

Williams, 63, thought her life insurance wouldn’t be used until after she died. She didn’t understand it had a cash value and that she could turn it in and collect $1,900. That was far less than the $10,000 in funeral expenses she bought the policy to cover when she died.

For Williams, the cash value of her policy along with the $260 she had saved in her checking account pushed her over SSI’s $2,000 limit on how much a recipient is allowed in savings and other assets. ...

That $2,000 asset limit hasn’t changed since 1989. If it had kept up over 51 years with inflation, it would be $10,000 today.

“I would have definitely went by the rules,” Williams says. “I didn’t know I was breaking them.”

The penalty was stiff: Williams was kicked off SSI, her primary source of income, and told by Social Security to pay back two years of benefits totaling $20,385. ...

“You’re telling me I owe you $20,000?” Williams remembers thinking in the Social Security office. “I can’t even pay my bills. … Where am I going to live?” ...

Ultimately, she sought out the help of Gregory Burrell, president and CEO of the Terry Funeral Home, an institution in West Philadelphia that has served Black families for generations.

Burrell let Williams turn the policy over to the funeral home.

“We see that all the time,” Burrell, a former president of the National Funeral Directors and Morticians Association, the largest group of Black funeral directors, said of the confusion that caught Williams. “Unfortunately, people don’t know any better. And they’re stressing, and these insurance policies — they’re considered assets.” ...

 

800 Number Answering Time In FY 2024

 

From Social Security

NADE Newsletter

     The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE) has posted its Spring 2024 Newsletter. NADE's members make initial and reconsideration determinations on Social Security disability claims.

About That Footnote

     Social Security is trying to worm its way out of the federal courts applying the new rule changing past relevant work from 15 years to 5 by saying in a footnote to a Social Security ruling that it expected the courts to apply the law in effect at the time of the administrative decision. 

    I wrote earlier that I didn't think that Social Security was getting out of this problem with a simple footnote.

    Here's a quote that may be of interest:

It is in the general true that the province of an appellate court is only to enquire whether a judgment when rendered was erroneous or not. But if subsequent to the judgment and before the decision of the appellate court, a law intervenes and positively changes the rule which governs, the law must be obeyed, or its obligation denied. If the law be constitutional . . . I know of no court which can contest its obligation. It is true that in mere private cases between individuals, a court will and ought to struggle hard against a construction which will, by a retrospective operation, affect the rights of parties, but in great national concerns . . . the court must decide according to existing laws, and if it be necessary to set aside a judgment, rightful when rendered, but which cannot be affirmed but in violation of law, the judgment must be set aside.

    Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that in United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. 1 (1801). You don't have to go back that far to find the same principle applied. Try Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696 (1974). Want a case where this was applied to Social Security? See Hicks v. Califano, 600 F.2d 1048 (4th Cir. 1979). That one is especially applicable because it was a case arising from the initial adoption of the grid regulations.

    There won't be that many cases where the difference between 15 years and 5 years is outcome determinative,  I don't know why Social Security wants to fight over these few cases. Get it over with and accept the voluntary remands.

    For that matter, apply this at the Appeals Council. Don't apply res judicata to cases affected and grant reopenings within the two and four time periods allowed by law when requested.

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.