Today, the trustees of the Social Security system will issue their annual report card on the trust funds that pay retirement, survivor, and disability benefits to millions of Americans. For the last few years, these reports have typically noted shortfalls, which the media in turn, have often portrayed as gloom-and-doom scenarios of impending disaster.
If the past is a guide, a full discussion of the options for closing those shortfalls will again be missing. Stories will tend to reinforce the belief among many Americans that these programs will not be there for them, which is most likely dead wrong. Full context, in short, will be missing.
I hope that’s not the case this time around, but we don’t have to look far for recent examples of missing context when it comes to Social Security. Take “Unfit for Work—the startling rise of disability in America.” Please. The program was produced by This American Life and Planet Money, and aired on public radio at the end of March.
That piece left the impression that freeloaders are gaming Social Security’s disability program, that disability benefits are becoming welfare payments to support those out-of-work, and that the disability program is fast becoming an increasingly expensive safety net. In preparation for this year’s trustees’ annual report, it’s worth taking a second look at “Unfit for Work,” which generated zillions of comments in the blogosphere and serious pushback from knowledgeable people that challenged its premises. Reviewing where that piece went off the track should be a big help to reporters trying to get this year’s trustees’ story right.
The piece resonated widely, particularly with those already open to the Social Security-is-going-bankrupt story. At a recent Medicare workshop for journalists in St. Petersberg, I pushed Judith Lave, a University of Pittsburgh health economics professor, for her sources of information about disability. “My source of information is NPR,” she replied. Back home, a dinner guest, a smart professional woman I know, happened to mention how dismayed she was that disability benefits had become the new welfare checks. Her source: the Planet Money/This American Life piece, which had run the day before.
In his column on Time’s Swampland blog, Joe Klein wrote:
“Welfare abuse has shifted to Social Security.” Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane acknowledged that some of the program growth comes from an aging workforce but added:
A growing body of economic and journalistic evidence suggests that SSDI reduces work incentives, because of its permissive eligibility criteria and relatively high benefits, as compared to low-wage workers’ potential earnings.
The reporter of “Unfit for Work,” Chana Joffe-Walt, seemed to omit crucial information on her way to passing on unfavorable impressions about the program, gleaned in part from a visit to one of the poorest counties in the US, Hale County, Alabama, where one in four residents are on Social Security disability and where Joffe-Walt says the definitions of who gets on and who doesn’t are “squishy.”
Throughout her piece, she seems to suggest it’s easy to qualify for benefits. It isn’t. To qualify, a person must have a disability so severe that it prevents him or her from doing any significant work anywhere in the country. The disability must be expected to last at least a year or result in death. The process requires extensive medical documentation. The Social Security Administration makes the final determination, which can take months, if not years.
Less than half of applicants for disability get it. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, whose analyses often focus on the impact of federal policies on low-income people, only about 400 Social Security disability applicants out of 1,000 are successful, and two-thirds of those get benefits only after an appeal. And the successful ones get benefits only after a five-month waiting period. None of this made it into her report.
Nor did she note the ratio of people who are disabled to people who get disability benefits, important context. According to the neutral, non-partisan National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI), 8.8 million workers received disability benefits at the beginning of this year. In 2010, 29.5 million adult Americans reported having some kind of disability.
Driving through flyover land recently I saw a large billboard touting a law firm's ability to "Get You Your SS Disability!" just like those sleazy ambulance chasers.
It's a scam, Trudy. You'd have to be willfully blind not to realize that.
#1 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 31 May 2013 at 09:32 AM
I work for SS Disability attorneys and I can tell you that it is more difficult now more than ever to get approved for disability. Rarely is anyone under the age of 55 approved unless they are half dead or paraplegic or worse. Recently we have turned away people filing for disability that we used to be able to represent due to their disabilities, age was not the factor then as it is now.
Yes, there are some out there who know how to work the system. If you know of any of these people who are receiving SSDI or SSI, then it should be reported. They do get caught eventually, but SSA can rarely recoup the monies that are owed them from those fraudulent claims.
#2 Posted by Gail, CJR on Fri 31 May 2013 at 09:38 AM
It's a shame that such a trusted newsource as NPR would come out with a half-baked article about Social Security disability. As the previous comment pointed out, it's harder than ever to get approved for disability. It's so hard that most people need to hire a disability attorney or disability representative to be able to receive the payments for which they are eligible. Of course, this situation came about because so many people scammed the system, then the system became harder and harder to access. Unfortunately every government program ever created suffers from this kind of problem. Confronted with fraud, the system tightens access, perpetrators find away around new rules, the system tightens access again- eventually those who the program was created to help find it extremely difficult to access benefits.
#3 Posted by Rick Crawford, CJR on Fri 31 May 2013 at 10:24 AM
The process is so thorough that i am being solicited by a SSDI administrator to answer questions about my disability that i don't have.........Yep, its a great process!
#4 Posted by PhilMont, CJR on Fri 31 May 2013 at 01:01 PM
Trudy,
Excellent post on a widely misunderstood subject.
Sadly, anecdotes mixed with assumptions produce awful misinformation, as with the first response to your piece above.
#5 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Fri 31 May 2013 at 03:56 PM
"It's a shame that such a trusted news source as NPR would come out with a half-baked article about Social Security disability." Rick Crawford
Trusted news source? NPR may broadcast some well researched programs, but often does a hatchet job on anything that resembles a liberal social agenda. The story on SSDI is only one example. Their business reporting has a strong corporate bias possibly as a result of NPR's significant corporate sponsors.
#6 Posted by Jack, CJR on Fri 31 May 2013 at 06:00 PM
I was forced to apply for SSDI by my LTD carrier even though my condition clearly did not qualify. The company I was forced to cooperate with could not understand why I did not want to participate in what I clearly believed was fraud. My claim was denied (happily for me) and they have continued to harass me, even filing for reconsideration without my permission.
SSDI is presented as a win/win situation with nothing but wonderful benefits, never mind that the taxpayer is being stuck with the bill that the insurance carrier should pay. I earned my benefits from working myself into the miserable condition I find myself in and nobody but my company and their insurance carrier should pay for my care.
#7 Posted by Karen, CJR on Fri 31 May 2013 at 08:30 PM
Thanks for helping to set the record straight re: the outrageously inaccurate NPR series and similarly misguided articles that have mysteriously (or not) appeared in recent months. As an SSDI recipient, I'm amazed at how completely wrong "This American Life's" series was, as well as saddened by NPR's apparent cowardice in refusing to correct this noxious attempt at reporting.
With so much misinformation being presented by formerly reliable media outlets, it's no wonder that idiotic comments of the sort that appear above this one should be posted. I don't know what is sadder: the misunderstanding of the way that SSDI works (hey, folks, I paid my own premiums every month for 40 years that I worked!) or the obvious lack of compassion that is woven through their bitter words.
Thanks again for a much-needed correction to yet another farcical attempt at reporting by "This American Life."
#8 Posted by Dawson, CJR on Sat 1 Jun 2013 at 05:12 AM
It's amusing to hear Lieberman complaining about what the piece "seemed" to say and "seemed to suggest." In other words, it got the facts right, but didn't apply the correct political spin.
#9 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Sat 1 Jun 2013 at 12:43 PM
Thank you for this thoughtful analysis. I am an attorney who represents disability claimants. It pains me to watch my clients suffer, losing their homes and sometimes even their lives while they spend years and years having to fight for the benefits they are entitled to and that they need to survive. Joffe-Walt did not acknowledge how hard it has become to get Social Security to approve benefits even for claimants who are obviously disabled. Many of the administrative law judges (ALJs) who consider these appeals seem to be prejudiced against all disability claimants; they act like their job is to come up with an excuse for denying every claim, when their actual job is to fairly apply the law to the facts of the case. Social Security even releases statistics that confirm just how unfair some of these ALJs are. Although they are supposed to be impartial, the bad ALJs hold hearings where they bully the claimants and their attorneys, with the obvious goal of tricking the claimant into saying something that can be used against them. The bad ALJs then write decisions in which they call every claimant a liar, and every family member or friend who describes their observations of the claimant's problems is also lying. And the physicians who have examined and treated the claimant? Liars all. The only person telling the truth is a non-physician Social Security employee who completes medical assessment forms for a physician employed by Social Security who electronically "signs" his name on the forms. These arbitrary and dishonest decisions by bad ALJs are hurting the disabled and resulting in untold suffering. Now that's a story that needs telling. But instead of reporting on a disability adjudication system that is stacked against the disabled, Joffe-Walt provided inaccurate information that is being used to support and justify increased demonizing of this fragile population.
#10 Posted by Eitan Yanich, CJR on Sat 1 Jun 2013 at 03:23 PM
I had a very tough time getting disability coverage for a "bad" back. They denied me for no clear reason and simply gave me a long list of approved attorneys to pick from if I wanted to appeal. I called a guy at random from the list and got lucky - he was smart and dedicated and two years later we won the appeal. I was 52 when I was denied. That was 8 years ago. The bad news is that I really was and still am disabled and the money from SS doesn't even cover the cost of my family's Blue Shield insurance policy, which has soared 43% just since ACA passed.
#11 Posted by Ed Franks, CJR on Sat 1 Jun 2013 at 04:23 PM
Thanks for battling the propaganda. With all of the planted stories I am curious what the angle is on trying to cut disability and social security (a self funded stable program). Do they think they can eliminate paying back the trust funds and keep the money? I have a friend who lives with me that has been trying to get disability for a few years. Moving and a non responsive advocate delayed the case which was approved at the old address and then denied at the new address.
#12 Posted by John_V, CJR on Sat 1 Jun 2013 at 06:43 PM
How does a nation sovereign in the issue of its own currency, involuntarily become insolvent? How do any of its funding needs face insolvency? It is a contradiction in monetary operations to assert that Social Security, Defense, or any other Federal Government expenditure cannot be funded in dollars. All the Federal government needs to fund its budget are appropriations. A monetarily sovereign government is never dependent upon revenue per se to spend.
The monetary premise of the Trustee's Report is grievously flawed. Moreover, the report exclude a funding already solution provided in current law. And, under reports the prospects for economic growth as an obvious source revenue growth.
Fact: The United States abandoned gold standard rubrics 42 years ago and emerged a fiat currency issuing nation where there was no currency convertibility and a flexible, not fixed exchange rate. The paradigm shift to fiat currency meant that the U.S. as the sole issuer of its own currency would never be dependent upon revenue per se to spend. Therefore, taxation would serve as a tool to force acceptance of the otherwise worthless paper currency and to manage inflation.
Fact: Excessive income and payroll taxation are not needed to fund Social Safety net programs. Why would the sole issuer of the currency need to take some of it back to spend? Nor does the sole issuer of the dollar need to borrow to spend. It borrows to maintain the term structure of interest rates.
Because the Trustees are unaware of the operational realities of America's monetary processes it will issue false and misleading results which only exacerbate the already dysfunctional economic conditions now burdening 140 million Americans.
#13 Posted by Potomac Oracle, CJR on Sun 2 Jun 2013 at 01:05 PM
How does a nation sovereign in the issue of its own currency, involuntarily become insolvent? How do any of its funding needs face insolvency? It is a contradiction in monetary operations to assert that Social Security, Defense, or any other Federal Government expenditure cannot be funded in dollars. All the Federal government needs to fund its budget are appropriations. A monetarily sovereign government is never dependent upon revenue per se to spend.
The fiscal policy premise of the Trustee's Report is grievously flawed. Moreover, the report excludes an alternative funding solution provided in current law.
Fact: The United States abandoned gold standard rubrics 42 years ago and emerged a fiat currency issuing nation where there was no currency convertibility and a flexible, not fixed exchange rate. The paradigm shift to fiat currency meant that the U.S. as the sole issuer of its own currency would never be dependent upon revenue per se to spend. Therefore, taxation would serve as a tool to force acceptance of the otherwise worthless paper currency and, to manage inflation. Under fiat currency systems debt ceilings have, until recently, been ignored since, government can issue unlimited amounts of its currency until it reaches a politically acceptable level of full employment.
Fact: Excessive income and payroll taxation are not needed to fund Social Safety net programs. Why would the sole issuer of the currency need to take some of it back to spend? Nor does the sole issuer of the dollar need to borrow to spend. Borrowing operations between the Treasury and the Fed maintain the term structure of interest rates they don't generate revenue for government spending.
Because the Trustees are unaware of these operational realities of America's monetary processes it will issue false and misleading results which only exacerbate the already dysfunctional economic conditions now burdening 140 million Americans.
Social Security checks can always be issued for their full amount no matter the balances in trusts funds, or Treasury/Fed checking accounts. When you issue your own fiat currency you can never, involuntarily,run out of it.
#14 Posted by Potomac Oracle, CJR on Sun 2 Jun 2013 at 04:18 PM
Thank you for this article. I have decided to stop donating funds to my local NPR station after this fiasco. I have expressed my deep concerns about this series to my local station, NPR's ombudsman, PRI, and Lincoln Financial (Planet Money's underwriter, which sells...private disability insurance). Got a cursory response from my local station and no responses from the others. This series was unfit to air.
#15 Posted by Marie, CJR on Tue 4 Jun 2013 at 07:03 PM
It is sad for people to say that Social Security is a scam, what would people do without a supportive system? Those who disagree should start a group that looks for fraud in Social Security and report it. However, that would be to hard for them to do, since they really don't care about helping the system but thwarting Obama. This piece is a political piece, manipulated, placed news, brought to you by the Tea Party.
#16 Posted by Paul Bucklaw, CJR on Wed 5 Jun 2013 at 01:00 PM
I think the biggest problem with Social Security today, is the money that Congress borrowed and never paid back. Those were good faith money paid by workers and their employers to be paid to workers at their retirement. This way workers had a retirement to carry them through the golden years without having to depend on their children to provide for them. More here, http://personalmoneynetwork.com.
#17 Posted by stevedamon, CJR on Thu 4 Jul 2013 at 02:26 AM
Different people in all countries get the loan in different banks, just because that's easy.
#18 Posted by AdkinsKerry21, CJR on Thu 1 Aug 2013 at 02:47 PM