In Person Service Matters

    From Effects Of Suspending In-Person Services At Social Security Administration Field Offices On Disability Applications And Allowances by Monica Farid, Michael T. Anderson, Gina Freeman, and Christopher Earles, a study for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

In this study, we examine the effect of the suspension of in-person services at Social Security Administration (SSA) field offices during the COVID-19 pandemic on applications ...

The paper found that:

• There were systematic differences in the characteristics of applicants by mode of application. In-person applicants were older, less likely to have completed high school, and less likely to speak English compared to phone or online applicants.
  

• The suspension caused a 6-percent decrease in the volume of applications, implying that not everyone who wanted to apply in-person was able to apply using other modes. The effect was larger for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) applications compared to Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) applications.
  

• The suspension of in-person services caused some would-be in-person applicants to apply by phone, but it did not cause an increase in the volume of online applications.
  

• We did not find evidence that the suspension disproportionately affected groups of applicants defined by educational attainment, age, or English-speaking status.
  

• Our estimates imply that in-person service suspensions explain more than 50 percent of the decline in SSI and DI applications during the pandemic. ...
  

    The first and fourth points above seem to be in tension with each other.

Prove Me Wrong

 

    Let’s imagine a scenario. Donald Trump is elected President.  A year later Trump issues an “executive order” (he’s big on those) saying that henceforth only U.S. citizens are eligible for Social Security benefits. This is to “save” Social Security. The order is blatantly illegal. Statutes and U.S. treaties make legal immigrants eligible for benefits.  The order is no great surprise. Trump has already ordered the arrest of political opponents and ordered the Department of Justice to ignore court orders for their release. He’s already ordered a complete end to refugee admissions across the U.S. borders, which also violates U.S. law and treaties and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to ignore court orders to admit refugees. He’s ordered the Army to suppress peaceful demonstrations. Court orders, even habeas corpus, are routinely ignored in the second Trump Administration. If you don’t know what habeas corpus is, just take it from a lawyer, if there’s no habeas corpus, no one has any rights whatsoever. When government employees have protested all the illegality, the Trump Administration has had two responses. First, don’t worry, I’ll give everyone involved a pardon so you won't get into trouble. Second, either do it or you’re fired since Civil Service protections will have long since been removed from all federal employees.

     So, what are you going to do if you’re a Social Security employee ordered to implement a blatantly illegal order? Pretend that if the President orders it, that it can’t be that illegal? Try to drag your feet? Tell yourself that you only have a small role in the process so what you do doesn't matter. Refuse to be concerned about it since you have no non-citizen friends or family? Implement the order because you like the policy even if it's illegal? Refuse to implement the order and get fired? Quit your job so you don’t have to implement the illegal order? 

     In general, I have enormous sympathy for Social Security employees but on this I expect that few of you will have the courage to quit or court firing.  Prove me wrong but I can hear you now. “I’ve got a family to feed.” “Refusing to implement the illegal order will do no good. If I don’t do it, someone else will.” “I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know what the law is.” “I was just following orders.”

     I doubt this exact scenario will happen but somewhat less dramatic illegality is almost certain. Trump is already saying he'll end citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the U.S. illegally. That's a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. The obvious first step in ending birthright citizenship would be to deny Social Security cards to children born in the U.S. to those present in the country illegally. Would you want to implement a cruel policy that's clearly illegal?

NADE Newsletter

     The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), whose members work at state agencies making disability determinations at the initial and reconsideration levels for Social Security, has released its most current newsletter, concerning its National Training Conference in Oklahoma City in August. Presentations by John Owen, Associate Commissioner of the Office of Disability Determinations, Hope Grunberg, Associate Commissioner of the Office of Disability Policy (ODP), Ben Gurga, Deputy Associate Commissioner of ODP, Kasey Torres, Director of the Division of Disability Quality and Kevin Huse, Deputy Assistant Inspector General For Cooperative Disability Investigations are summarized.

Ways And Means Republicans Oppose Recent Decisions By Commissioner Of Social Security

     From a press release issued by the Republican majority on the House Ways and Means Committee:

Four recently finalized rules from the Social Security Administration (SSA) are the latest examples of the Biden-Harris Administration’s expansion of federal power at a substantial cost to taxpayers, write House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO), Work and Welfare Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-IL), Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Drew Ferguson (R-GA), Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX), and Budget Committee Oversight Task Force Chair Jack Bergman (R-MI) in a new letter to Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley.

Over the next decade, these Biden-Harris rules from the SSA, which circumvent the fiscal accountability requirements of the bipartisan Fiscal Res    ponsibility Act, will add $37 billion in new, unpaid-for spending within the Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI) programs. 

The Biden-Harris Administration’s failure to offset the costs of these rules will both run up the already unsustainable national debt and further harm the financial health of the Social Security programs. Further, these rules were finalized at a time when the combined Social Security Trust Funds are expected to go bankrupt and be unable to pay full benefits in the next decade. ...

    The rules in question are:

• Expand the Definition of Public Assistance Household: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $15 billion
• Omitting Food from In-Kind Support and Maintenance Calculations: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $1.6 billion
• Expansion of the Rental Subsidy Policy for SSI Applicants and Recipients: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $837 million
• Intermediate Improvement to the Disability Adjudication Process: Including How We Consider Past Work: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $19.7 billion

Some Pics

     The Commissioner of Social Security, Martin O'Malley, visited Raleigh yesterday for an event at the Governor's Mansion to celebrate the 70th anniversary of North Carolina's Disability Determination Service (DDS). My partner and I received an invitation to the event. Here are a few pictures. 

    First, me with Commissioner O'Malley:

    Second, a picture of my partner, Crystal Rouse, with the Commissioner:

    Next, a picture of Rose Mary Buehler, the Regional Commissioner for the Atlanta Region, myself, Joseph Lytle, the Deputy Commissioner for Hearings Operations and Crystal.

    Finally, a picture of the NC DDS employees in attendance.

    The venue was not large enough to accommodate the entire workforce at NC DDS.

A Little Help From GSA

     From a press release issued by the General Services Administration (GSA):

The Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) announced its latest round of investments totaling $50.2 million, aimed at modernizing critical services across two federal agencies. ...

With $19.5 million in TMF support, SSA aims to transition to a more efficient, user-friendly service featuring electronic signature capabilities and a robust online document upload platform. By 2028, SSA anticipates reducing paper mail volume by roughly half and saving over 600 staff work years annually. For the public, this could potentially save customers up to 1.3 million hours in travel time. ...

SSA plans to use $9 million in TMF support to create user-centered design guidance, build new digital tools, and modernize current backend systems for an enhanced customer experience. This effort aims to simplify notice language, create more digital options for receiving notices, and transform how SSA connects with applicants and beneficiaries. ...

As medical records grow increasingly complex and staff resources remain limited, SSA faces challenges in processing disability claims efficiently. To address this, SSA intends to use $1.9 million in TMF support to enhance several key systems, including the National Case Processing System and the Intelligent Medical-Language Analysis Generation tool. ...

    I don't see an explanation for the other $10 million.

NOSSCR Files RICO Suit Against La Grada

     From the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR):

NOSSCR filed suit on Friday, October 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a Spanish company for misleading Social Security beneficiaries and unnecessarily clogging SSA’s phone lines. The complaint alleges that La Grada Online published articles with sensationalized headlines about Social Security benefits, including a false report of a $600 payment increase in June 2024. This misinformation caused a surge in calls to SSA, overwhelming the agency's phone lines and costing NOSSCR members considerable time and money. The complaint further alleges that La Grada Online published another misleading article in August 2024, falsely claiming a "Social Security benefit boost."

The lawsuit accuses Kapital Media Productions of violating the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, and Illinois common law. NOSSCR seeks treble damages, attorneys' fees, and an injunction to prevent La Grada Online from publishing further false information about Social Security benefits.  ...

    I see it daily but never post the crap that La Grada puts out. It's obnoxious stuff that unquestionably misleads the public for the purpose of gaining clicks. The problem is titles such as these:

Total change in Social Security checks as of this date – How do I claim the new benefits?

Social Security makes new payment schedule official – List of checks to be paid in November

Last Social Security payment of October for retirees who born between this dates – $4,873 check to be paid this week

Goodbye to Social Security benefits – List of retirees who will no longer receive payments

     I'm not going to help these sleezes by giving links.

    I know just about nothing about RICO. Does NOSSCR have standing?

 

 

Drain The Trust Funds

     From the Washington Post:

A new report projects that the Social Security Trust Fund might run out of money within six years under a Donald Trump presidency, while Vice President Kamala Harris’s proposed policies would not meaningfully change the current trajectory.

Social Security faces a looming funding crisis in an aging country, with trustees most recently predicting that the retirement and disability program’s trust fund will become insolvent in 2035. Many of Trump’s campaign proposals would accelerate that timeline, potentially by years, said the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that opposes large federal deficits.

In a report released Monday, the organization concluded that many of Trump’s proposed second-term agenda items all work in the same direction when it comes to the Social Security Trust Fund. The budget group did not produce a similar report on Harris’s policies because they would have a negligible effect measured only in weeks or months rather than years, said Marc Goldwein, CRFB’s senior policy director. ...

Most directly, Trump has promised that no Social Security recipients should have to pay federal income taxes on their benefits. Under current law, 40 percent of beneficiaries pay taxes on some portion of their Social Security. The tax they pay on their benefits goes directly back to the trust fund, and getting rid of it could cost the program almost $1 trillion over 10 years, the report forecast.

Other Trump policies might have indirect effects. Trump’s pledge to deport millions of undocumented workers could cost the trust fund hundreds of millions of dollars, the CRFB said. Many undocumented immigrants have payroll taxes taken out of their paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, but never become eligible to claim benefits, so they are a net positive for the program. ...