Discussion for article #235781
Just another pointless workaround of the Republican inability/unwillingness to govern competently.
4 Likes
“He argued that merging the two funds would effectively encourage fiscal irresponsibility.”
Much like the merger of a couple of large banks.
5 Likes
“Once the principle of self-financing is abandoned for individual
components of Social Security it becomes less clear where the line of
fiscal responsibility will remain drawn.”
In other words, “Combining the two funds in law, the way they’re effectively combined in practice, would make it harder for us to chip away at each program individually. That in turn would delay the day when we can kill Social Security entirely.”
8 Likes
I say, keep the funds separate.
I worked my way up from Mail Clerk to Claims Representative over 8 years with Social Security so I know the local level from top to bottom.
They call it something else now, but basically a claims rep takes applications, requests proofs, evaluates the application and the proofs, and then either approves the application or denies it. The case goes from district to region and beyond, but for a full level claims rep, only a small percentage of their cases are reviewed.
That is an awful lot of power to put into the hands of hundreds of mid-grade federal employees. (The pay grade runs from GS-7, GS-9, then GS-11, or did back then.) Also, they have some very difficult working conditions. They are always understaffed and overworked.
To receive regular social security is rather simple and straight forward. With public records so readily available, there are few gray areas.
Disability is a far more complicated issue. In one small office it became apparent to me that there was disparity in administering this program. One rep had a much higher denial rate than others. He seemed to think that everyone was freeloading. However, he was able to justify every claim he denied
A disability claim requires a lot of input of observations and conclusions from the interviewer (claims rep). These narratives leave a lot of room for manipulation. When I became a claims rep I soon realized that my observation skills and descriptive skills could make the difference of whether I could justify approving or denying an application. Also, I could decide what proofs to collect, and I also got to evaluate those proofs. All of this after a 6-week intensive course of study.
No, there’s too much room for error in disability… Let it stand on it’s own so that it can have the scrutiny it needs.
3 Likes
There is so much the Democrats could do if they would get off their collective asses and remember that their job is to serve the citizens of this country rather than those who are filling their collective pockets with profits.
I am so disillusioned and disappointed in the entire Democratic Party they dither and dance around the issues and cower in the corners of their offices while the craven and crazy take over the country.
They have become deaf mutes.
3 Likes
You can combine the underlying trust funds without combining any of the other administrative parts. All this would do is get rid of the accounting games that congress has to play.
7 Likes
Unless they’ve changed, that’s my point. It is all administered by the same entity. The only distinction between them now is the trust funds. If I remember correctly, the main reason they set up a separate trust fund when disability was added to Social Security was due to fears that the disability program would bankrupt the rest of the program. It is appears those fears were well founded.
The problem isn’t in the trust funds. It is in the disability program itself. It is set up in a way that can only fail. At least it seems that way to me and it does seem to be failing, so…
1 Like
This effort by the GOP might play well with the billionaire funders who want to get their mitts on the program’s funds but how will messing with social security play with the rank and file senior citizen GOPer?
The Republican (and some Democratic) Social Security haters have always been careful to reassure current recipients (their base) that nothing will be done to their entitlements when they implement their “reforms” (drastic cuts). Denying the transfer directly affects current recipients on one side or the other of the transfer. Democrats should trumpet that the Republicans wanted to disrupt the payments to current recipients without regard for their financial or physical well-being, and that only Democrats were strong enough to stand up to that nonsense. See how that plays.
“… get rid of some of the stigma about the disability program.”
No, this would attach the stigma to the retirement program and make it an easier target; so when news stories come up about some outrageous cheat, the retirement program would take the blame.
Combining the two funds would change Social Security from a pay-as-you-go retirement program into a welfare program. You can responsibly and accurately estimate the funds needed for a healthy retirement fund; the cost of a disability program is much tougher to estimate – so many judgement calls.
Giving disability access to all the funds would also reduce the incentive to be careful about awards and promote the idea that there’s lots of money, so don’t worry about awarding disability benefits for a hang-nail. Obviously, without even a transfer to worry about, Congress would be happy to ignore abuses – until Republicans can use them to eliminate the whole program; disability and retirement.
1 Like
You misunderstand Social Security. It isn’t a retirement program, it is an insurance program designed to reduce poverty for workers who become disabled, for a spouse and minor children if a worker dies, and for workers who have retired.
1 Like
Either way, legislation combining the two funds is unlikely to advance far in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
I am glad both sides are getting paid to engage in such worthwhile trolling endeavors. Nothing like using time to design legislation that will never pass.
1 Like
Social Security is a retirement program that every working American expects to get a pension from. The only people who push the “it’s an insurance program” bullshit are those who want to means test Social Security; cheat the people who paid the most into the system, and make Social Security a welfare program.
Lets play games with Social Security.
Yes, after George W. Bush mismanaged the economy so badly that many working Americans lost their retirement savings, their homes, and their jobs, leaving them with Social Security as the one ray of hope left to them, lets kill that, too.
1 Like
And Paul Krugman, that sly privatizer.
Calling it insurance pushes it in the opposite direction of means testing. It also recognizes the benefits provided. Even if you set aside the disability insurance, the retirement portion of SS is very unlike a pension in several ways. Among those are the benefits to minor children and the benefits to and rights of the spouse of a non-deceased SS enrollee.
1 Like
Right, just like Obama wants to “strengthen” Social Security by cutting benefits or making a “grand bargain” where he’ll trade cuts to our Social Security benefits for something he wants. Calling it an insurance program makes it a means tested program; the “deserving” get benefits, others get nothing.
SSDI has become an extension of unemployment benefits in rural America. In Harlan County, Kentucky, 17% of working age adults are on disability.
http://www.dailyyonder.com/geography-disability/2011/11/29/3619
1 Like
Defined benefit pensions and Social Security are two examples of lifetime guaranteed annuities that pay retirees a steady cash flow until they pass. Social Security is a social insurance program, but structurally it is a government administered annuity. This, of course, is why Republicans hate it and have been trying to destroy it for almost a century.
2 Likes