Just when you think that the federal government could not be more moronic in the spending of money, you read a story like this. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has been approving disability benefits for hundreds of Puerto Ricans because they do not speak English. However, these “disabled” individuals are living in a predominantly Spanish-speaking territory. Having worked for the Puerto Rico House of Representatives years ago, the story seemed to me a belated April Fool’s joke but it appears to be true.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that the SSA was misapplying a rule that is intended to provide financial assistance to individuals who are illiterate or cannot speak English in the United States. Under the rules, Puerto Ricans are allowed to receive disability benefits for their inability to speak English as well. I am not sure of the basis for the original rule as a form of disability, but speaking Spanish in Puerto Rico should have been obvious to anyone as not a disability — even in the often twisted logic of bureaucrats. However, the SSA decided that a person applying for disability in Puerto Rico who cannot speak English “may increase his/her likelihood of receiving disability benefits.” What is equally bizarre is that the agency does not even keep track of how many beneficiaries who receive disability insurance for not being able to speak English.
The OIG located 218 such cases of Puerto Ricans were awarded disability due to “an inability to communicate in English.” This included hearings where people were asked to speak, read, write, and understand English. (That itself would appear a curious hearing since the person needs only fail to respond to English and not read or write in English to presumably show this particular “disability.”).
Once again, however, there is no indication that anyone will be fired or disciplined in any way for this waste of money.
Wade, this seemed like an attempt to portray this as something that was new, initiated under Obama, when in reality as you and I both pointed out it was something that was initiated in the 1970’s. I’d like to know if there is data showing all the years before Obama’s administration that this grid credit for non English speakers in Puerto Rico and Miami was in effect. Why wasn’t it brought in front of a House hearing before the Obama administration?
It is also interesting that Prof. Turley is interested in firing or disciplining someone.
Gee, should it be the guys that wrote the rules in the 70s? Maybe the guys who built the grid system in 1978?
Oh no. I’m sure it should be some poor schmuck that is just following the same polices that everyone has been doing FOR THIRTY-FIVE YEARS.
That Turley….he’s a regular King Solomon, he is.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/cgi-bin/currentpay.cgi
Happy, yep, here is the info from the SSA with numbers of people on SSI, SSDI and SS from 2014.
Paul C. Schulte said…
… my healthcare was always part perq, part mine so basically it was part of my salary.
Not exactly on topic, but note worthy none the less. You are correct. BOTH the perquisite part and the personal part are part of your salary or wages…and no business, and no federal agency, accounts for it as anything else. It is part of GAAP. Various “perqs” are pre-tax or post-tax, but all are part of the budgeted salary or wage. Period. All perquisite costs are budgeted as salary or wage, even if you never see it directly. I’m speaking as someone who prepared his unit/organization’s portion of the Executive Budget for a couple decades. Vacations, sick days, and any other “perq” is counted the same way…as the cost of the employee on top of salary or wages paid….e.g., the salary of Joe XX is direct paid salary plus costs. In my federal submissions the average “salary” figure was 1.31 times the actual salary paid in cash…up to 1.5 times for those with high bonus potential. Probably higher now. It was exactly the same during my sojourn in the private sector as a CFO.
On topic…the whole modern SSD issue, as expanded now, is beyond my comprehension…and prone to anger me when I try to discuss it. So I won’t.
on 1, April 8, 2015 at 6:57 pmWadewilliams
But it is more fun to just set people’s hair on fire by saying, “my brother got SSI for being a drunk.
************************
Yes Wade I know that what she was trying to do. Pretty despicable, but not surprising.
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/416/416-0935.htm
§ 416.935. How we will determine whether your drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability.
(a) General. If we find that you are disabled and have medical evidence of your drug addiction or alcoholism, we must determine whether your drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability, unless we find that you are eligible for benefits because of your age or blindness.
(b) Process we will follow when we have medical evidence of your drug addiction or alcoholism. (1) The key factor we will examine in determining whether drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability is whether we would still find you disabled if you stopped using drugs or alcohol.
(2) In making this determination, we will evaluate which of your current physical and mental limitations, upon which we based our current disability determination, would remain if you stopped using drugs or alcohol and then determine whether any or all of your remaining limitations would be disabling.
(i) If we determine that your remaining limitations would not be disabling, we will find that your drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability.
(ii) If we determine that your remaining limitations are disabling, you are disabled independent of your drug addiction or alcoholism and we will find that your drug addiction or alcoholism is not a contributing factor material to the determination of disability.
[60 FR 8151, Feb. 10, 1995]
*********************
I have to say that The SSA has an excellent website, very easy to find what you’re looking for.
Annie
Agree.
But it is more fun to just set people’s hair on fire by saying, “my brother got SSI for being a drunk.
And YES people in Puerto Rico or Miami where Spanish is the dominant language should not be given credit in the grid system for being non English speakers.
It best when you get the whole story…
You can’t get social security benefits for alcoholism.
You MAY get social security benefits for alcohol related medical conditions.
So maybe your ex BIL was disabled by illness or he was a lying cheat.
Probably not a cheat though because if he was, you as an upstanding citizen and watchdog of our tax dollars, would have reported him posthaste.
Wade, yes this article made it appear as IF people were getting Disabilty benefits soley because they couldn’t speak English. It was very misleading, hopefully it was just sloppy.
Do people here know the difference between SSI and SSDI? It seems some folks are using bothe term interchangeably. Paul, that is a claim I’ve heard before, I don’t know, again it would be great to hear Juris’ opinion on this as he is a SSI/ SSDI attorney.
Juris
Annie has linked to a very good citation – an Inspector’s General Report into the complaint. It cites 218 such cases covering the period of 2011 – 2013. With luck there are enough intelligent readers that will take a look at the report in order to understand the issue – an issue that is a stupid bureaucratic error and is being corrected.
For others who have plenty of outrage but little inclination to learn something, let’s keep it simple.
NO ONE IS GETTING SSI SOLELY BECAUSE THEY DON’T SPEAK ENGLISH.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE SUFFERED A DISABILITY. THE RULES THAT COVER A DETERMINATION OF BENEFITS WERE WRITTEN IN THE 70s.
Annie is also correct in noting our aging population. So now it is also true that –
WE HAVE NEVER HAD SO MANY OLD PEOPLE!.
WE HAVE NEVER HAD SO MANY WOMEN!
WE HAVE NEVER HAD SO MANY BILLIONAIRES!
WE HAVE NEVER HAD SO MANY AFRICAN-AMERICANS!
You get the idea…
I sure do hope Turley explores and reports on legal complexities with greater depth than he does in this piece.
People are very ignorant about the criteria it takes to prove disability. Ask Juris, the SSI /SSDI attorney who commented above. There is no way to fake a spinal disabilty in a SS disabilty claim. There are stringent medical diagnostic criteria, medical histories, X rays, MRIs, etc. If a claimant doesn’t have the evidence they will be denied. Even people who have cancer get denied. As I said the attorney “Juris”, who commented above has stated it is MORE DIFFICULT to get approved for SSI or SSDI nowadays. as far as alcoholism or drug abuse, I don’t know what the criteria is, perhaps Juris could shed some light on that.
Inga – a lot of the SSI attempts are being made a psychological. Those are a lot easier to fake.
I moved to France in the seventies with my first wife. We both spent the first year at the university learning French. I started a business and either spoke French well enough or did not survive. I survived and did rather well.
For all you French haters, I have never heard of a French person, even in Paris mistreating an American or Canadian poorly when they make an effort to speak French. What typically results in bad manners is some double knit characters from Kentucky strutting up to a person at a counter and demanding to know, complete with accent, “Ya got any of that white chocolate?”
IF you have worked, are a legal resident or citizen, have paid into the system and you are well and truly disabled you should be able to draw disability benefits.
Disabled meaning….NOT able to work for medical reasons. Not because you are a drug addict. Not because you are faking a back injury. Not because you can’t speak the language of the country…..but really unable to work. My husband’s ex brother in law was on SSI….because he was an alcoholic. ‘Scuse me….that isn’t a disability. He could work…..he would just rather collect money and drink. Fortunately, he was killed in a drunken stupor induced accident that hurt no one else, and saved us all 30 years or more of supporting his worthless butt with SSI, food stamps, medical etc etc etc etc etc.
IF and that is the big IF….you have contributed, you can draw SSI. If you have not too bad.
The rest of us who have paid in for 50 years of working are not obligated to support you for ANY reason. Get charity. The SS system was set up to provide a benefit based on premiums paid in. If you didn’t pay anything you don’t deserve anything.
It is called Social Security INSURANCE for a reason. Basically it is an annuity. A really crappy, underfunded, low interest earning annuity, but an annuity nevertheless.
As I already stated, given the premiums paid in, if I were allowed to invest in even a terrible 3% compounded annually interest rate investment, over my lifetime, I would be a millionaire. Give me my money plus the interest that I would have accrued…….. and I would be glad to sever my ties with Uncle Sam and the SS system.
Karen, WHO here is in favor of non English speaking disability applicants recieving priority over English speaking disabilty applicants? I see NO divide along political lines here. Or are you referring to some other disagreement on disability that commenters have disagreed on along party lines. Where is the disagreement? Did I miss it perhaps?
Personally, if I paid in to SS for decades, and then had my benefits lowered because of all the fraud, I would consider it wasting my money.
Since there is a schedule of benefit reductions due to the insolvency of SS, this statement applies to all of us. Disability fraud affects all of us. Welfare fraud takes food out of the mouths of people who truly need it.
Combating fraud should be the great unifier. But, as per usual, it just divides people up among party lines.
Any discussion about SS and SSDI fraud is clearly not referring to valid recipients. It is a false hare to claim that many people are justified in receive SS benefits. That has nothing to do with a concern about fraud.
It’s like saying it’s racist to oppose illegal immigration.
Nick: Do you mean giveaways like the CA Department of Insurance’s Low Cost Auto Insurance that they promote to illegal aliens, who were able to get drivers’ licenses via AB 60? Taxpayers are now subsidizing their auto insurance, too. Isn’t it lovely?
It takes months to get an appointment now at the DMV, due to the crush of illegal aliens applying for a license. When my appointment finally came up, I still spent over 2 hours just to get called, when typically I’m in and out with an appointment in 20 minutes.
Oh, but wait, isn’t it racist to oppose illegal immigration? Isn’t it a victimless crime that doesn’t cost us anything? Unfortunately, more than 8 people on Earth actually believe that, and even more unhappily, many of those are CA politicians.