Inflation And Social Security Disability Recipients

     From The Bulletin on Retirement and Disability:

... Social Security Disability (SSD) program beneficiaries, like other consumers, have been negatively affected by inflation over the past several years. In a survey from June of 2023, more than half (59 percent) of SSD program beneficiaries reported higher prices for the disability-related goods and services they need to purchase, and more than one-quarter reported reducing food spending to cover disability-related costs, Zachary Morris and Stephanie Rennane found in Examining the Impact of Inflation on the Economic Security of Disability Program Beneficiaries (NBER RDRC Paper NB23-08).

Using new survey data, the researchers found that 82 percent of beneficiaries reported out-of-pocket expenses related to their disability, with average annual spending of $4,412 and median spending of $384 as of June 2023. Fifty-nine percent of beneficiaries reported higher spending on disability-related goods and services compared to two years earlier. In response to these rising costs, 25 percent of beneficiaries indicated they went into debt; 43 percent found recent COLA adjustments insufficient to maintain their standard of living. ...

Happy Halloween!

 

Dad In Freezer Case

    The title of this New York Post article says it all:  Twisted son left dad’s corpse in backyard freezer for years — so he could keep cashing his Social Security check. 

    You might think this is such a bizarre story that it must be without precedent. No, this happens semi-regularly at Social Security. As I've posted before, they've even made a movie about one such case -- Bernie.

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.