Seems when minds are made up, they won’t be confused by facts. Consider, for example, Senator (and Presidential-hopeful) Rand Paul (R-KY) on the subject of SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance).
“[W]hen you look like me and hop out of your truck, you shouldn’t be getting your disability check. Over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts. Join the club.”
Blogger Steve Benen refutes Paul’s “over half” and the barely-submerged allegation of fraud with hard data from the Social Security Administration’s Inspector General, which, as he says, are basically the same as findings by the Government Accountability Office.
What’s so depressing is that we’ve been round this barn over and over again. Someone — an NPR reporter, for example, or a Fox News talking head — asserts that a lot of SSDI recipients could work if they wanted to, but instead have managed to get disability benefits based on “squishy” diagnoses or out-in-out fraud.
Analysts, advocates and responsible bloggers cite data showing, among other things, how stringent SSDI eligibility standards are, how few recipients can work at all, let alone ever earn enough to support themselves again, and how modest the benefits are — far too low for someone to choose them over gainful work.
Rebecca Vallas, whose post I linked to above, has written substantially the same thing so often I believe she could probably do it in her sleep.
What’s even more depressing is that the House Republican majority has now put SSDI recipients in unnecessary peril, relying, it seems, on the oft-debunked claims.
As I’ve written before, the trust fund that helps pay for SSDI benefits will run out of reserves in 2016. This has long been expected. And it has nothing to do with freeloaders, fraudsters or the difficulties jobless workers have had finding new employment due to the Great Recession.
Instead, the number of SSDI beneficiaries has grown in part because baby boomers are getting to the age where disabilities become more common and in part because more women are working — and working enough — to qualify.
A third factor — ironic in this context — is that Congress raised the eligibility age for full retirement benefits to help stave off a shortfall in the Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund, i.e., the one intended to ensure those benefits get paid in full.
In ordinary times, Congress would simply shift some payroll taxes that go to the OASI trust fund to the DI trust fund. It’s made such shifts 11 times — sometimes in one direction, sometimes the other.
Doing that now to protect disability benefits would have little effect on the OASI trust fund. It would merely run out of reserves one year earlier, while the DI trust fund would have enough to pay full benefits until the same year — this assuming Congress adopted the Social Security actuaries’ solvency scheme.
None of this matters a whit to Congressman Tom Reed (R-NY), who cosponsored a change in the House rules that effectively prevents any such shoring up of what he calls “a failing federal program.” You see how these unfounded attacks take hold in receptive minds?
No one, I think, questions the need to ensure that the OASI trust fund doesn’t run dry in about 20 years. But the long-term solution for both trust funds, which Reed claims he wants to force, will surely not emerge as law before 2016.
So the House rule, in effect, sets the stage for SSDI benefit cuts estimated at 19% in less than two years. These benefits now average $1,165 a month — less than $200 above the poverty level for a one-person household. Benefits for disabled workers’ spouses and children are far less.
Not surprising then that 44% of younger SSDI recipients, i.e., those 31-49 years old, are poor or near-poor, mostly the former. These are hardly people who can afford to lose close to a fifth of what’s probably their only source of cash income. And they’re many years away from eligibility for retirement benefits — even the reduced benefits they could get at 62.
Monique Morrissey at the Economic Policy Institute views the House rule as “largely symbolic,” since a simple majority can overturn it. And indeed it may if the benefit cuts become an immediate reality — in an election year too, she adds.
But in the meantime, the Republicans have leverage for any of a range of Social Security “reforms.” Morrissey notes recent references to such old warhorses as raising the retirement age (again), replacing social insurance altogether with private investment accounts and/or further means testing — perhaps a phase-out to zero for high-income seniors.
Will seniors, workers who hope they’ll live to be and organizations representing them take kindly to any of these? Faced with the possibilities, will they be told that the only alternative is to keep those other folks from draining the trust fund, as Morrissey predicts?
We’ve already got framing that pits the old against the young. Last thing we need is a spin-off into a conflict between the legitimate needs of seniors and those of younger people with severe disabilities.
And as I, joining many others, have said, it’s wholly unnecessary.
UPDATE: Shortly after I posted this, I came, somewhat belatedly, upon a post by Josh Marshall, the top dog at Talking Points Memo. He foresees the sort of conflict I refer to and calls it a deliberate “plan to set different classes of Social Security recipients against each other in a zero sum for scarce dollars when in fact the scarcity is manufactured.”