The Great “Entitlements” Ripoff
By Paul R. Hollrah
One of the most debilitating aspects of contemporary American society is the entitlement mentality… the attitude that, just because a government program exists, it is permissible to stretch the rules a bit to take advantage of it.
The two most widely abused
welfare programs of the current era are the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP),
the Food Stamp Program, and the Social Security
Administration’s
Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) program, intended to
provide a monthly stipend to low income people and
to the aged, blind, or disabled.
The
Food Stamp Program is administered by the
Food and Nutrition Service of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, with benefits
distributed by state governments.
The original food stamp program was enacted
in 1939 and disbanded in 1943.
The program was reestablished in 1961-1964
under JFK’s New Frontier and was made a permanent
part of LBJ’s Great Society with the signing of the
Food Stamp Act of 1964.
In
1984, as more and more recipients reported
embarrassing indignities in super market checkout
lines, the Department of Agriculture implemented an
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system, utilizing
a plastic card similar to a bank debit card.
After expanding to some 28 million families
by the mid-1990s, the program experienced a major
decline in the wake of welfare reform proposals
enacted by a Republican Congress and signed into law
by Bill Clinton.
From
the Kennedy era in the early ‘60s through the turn
of the century, the program grew from 400,000
recipients to 46.4 million recipients as of March
2012, each receiving an average of $133 per month in
food subsidies.
In fiscal year 2011, $76.7 billion in food
stamp subsidies were distributed, compared to $17
billion in fiscal year 2000.
Now, in the final year of the Obama
administration, which works very hard at creating
dependency among the poor and middle class, the
Agriculture Department has implemented an outreach
program to promote and expand the use of food stamps
as a means of solidifying the Democratic Party’s
voter base.
But the favorite target of rip-off artists currently is the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI), administered by the Social Security Administration and funded with U.S. Treasury funds. According to a July 2, 2012 report by Terrence P. Jeffrey of CNSNews.com, the Social Security Administration reported a record 8.73 million workers, along with some 165,470 spouses and 1.9 million children, received SSI payments during the month of June 2012, with each worker receiving an average monthly check of $1,111.42… a major increase from the 3.33 million workers receiving benefits as recently as June 1992.
According to the CNSNews.com report, the Social Security System’s Disability Insurance Fund has run deficits in each of the last three fiscal years and the administration has found it necessary to borrow money to pay benefits. In fiscal 2009, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund deficit was $8.5 billion. In fiscal 2010, it was $20.8 billion. And in fiscal 2011 it was $25.3 billion.
Jeffrey explains that, “To be eligible for federal disability insurance payments, a person must have worked long enough to have qualified for the benefits (funded by a 1.8 percent payroll tax) and must meet the Social Security Administration’s definition of ‘disabled.’ ”
But it is in the definition of
“disabled ” that the system breaks down and the
means of access to SSI benefits becomes a major
taxpayer rip-off.
According to the Social Security
Administration website, an individual may be
considered “disabled” if they are 18 years of age,
or older, have a medically determined physical or
mental impairment which results in the inability to
do any substantial gainful activity, and can be
expected to result in death, or, has lasted or can
be expected to last for a continuous period of not
less than 12 months.
A great many of the newly approved SSI recipients are able-bodied men and women who have used up their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, claiming “emotional stress” from nearly two full years of being unemployed. It is this latter specification… embracing any physical or mental impairment that can be expected to last for a period of at least 12 months… that has created a massive loophole for SSI abuse.
Since the SSI program was
discovered by professional freeloaders, an entire
new field of law has evolved.
According to a December 22, 2011
Wall Street
Journal expose, “In
2004, Congress made it easier for non-lawyers to
represent applicants for Social Security disability
benefits…
One firm, in particular, has enjoyed enormous
success. Last
year, Binder & Binder collected $88 million in fees,
making it the nation’s largest Social Security
disability advocate.”
Anyone who watches TV regularly is familiar with ads for the Binder & Binder firm which classifies itself, not as a law firm, but as a “national social security disability advocate.” It maintains offices in 24 major cities across the country.
I know of two individuals who have been awarded lifetime SSI benefits. The first, a male,
approximately 55 years of age, has been an SSI recipient since his mid-40s. His disability? He
finds it impossible to maintain
meaningful employment because he is an alcoholic, is
addicted to hard drugs, and has a gambling
addiction.
During those periods when he has held full
time employment he found it difficult to bring home
a regular paycheck because he could not resist the
lure of alcohol, drugs, and the gambling casinos.
He has four children, by three different
women, and each of those children received a monthly
SSI check until their 18th birthday.
His SSI benefits were won with the assistance of an attorney who specializes in Social Security disability cases, a field of law in which attorneys win at least 80 percent of their cases before administrative law judges… an incestuous relationship that demands the attention of the IRS, the FBI, and/or congressional oversight committees.
The other individual is a female, 49 years of age, who has been an SSI recipient for just over a year. Her disability? She claims to suffer from periodic fits of depression, making it impossible for her to maintain full time employment. She too won her case with the assistance of a Social Security advocacy lawyer who won benefits for her retroactive to the day a mental health professional advised her that she suffered from depression.
According to the
Wall Street
Journal, “Following the 2004 law, Binder hired
lower-paid non-lawyers to handle cases, ramped up
advertising, and began processing far greater
numbers of clients. But
now former employees are raising questions about
whether the firm has been fair to the government.”
They report that, “The
firms collect fees only if they win, and at the
hearings where decisions are made, there are no
government lawyers pushing back against applicant
claims, leaving it solely up to an administrative
law judge to sniff out misleading applications.
In interviews with the
Journal,
five former Binder employees said staffers routinely
withheld from government submissions medical records
that they believed to be potentially damaging to
client claims. The
firm had a system, they said, that used red stickers
to highlight unfavorable information in client
files, and that material often would be left out of
court submissions.”
Of course, Binder & Binder is not the only
bad actor in the SSI rip-off business.
Hundreds of other firms across the country
are equally as guilty of “gaming” the system for fun
and profit.
When
Republicans regain control of Congress, they must
make it a priority to reverse the entitlement
mentality.
One way to do that would be to establish,
county-by-county, entitlement review boards… similar
to the local draft boards of World War II, the
Korean War, and the Vietnam War… with the
responsibility to reevaluate, case-by-case, the
eligibility of food stamp and SSI recipients, the
names being drawn at random much like the juror
selection system.
Food stamp and SSI recipients would be given
the opportunity to avoid fines and the embarrassment
of a public inquiry by declaring themselves
ineligible.
Those who failed to declare themselves
able-bodied and ineligible, but were later found to
be ineligible after board review, would be removed
from the rolls and required to pay fines and/or make
partial restoration of funds.
A 1995 Cato Institute study reported that, between 1990 and 2000, the number of immigrants on SSI was expected to grow fivefold and the number of drug addicts and alcoholics receiving benefits was expected to grow eightfold. That growth has continued and accelerated under the Obama administration. During the 2nd quarter of 2012, the Obama economy created just 225,000 new jobs, while 246,000 workers wangled their way onto the SSI rolls, many of them claiming stress-related ailments related to spending 99 weeks on the unemployment rolls.
The choice the American people
face in November is more than a simple choice
between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
It’s much more than that.
The choice we have to make is whether we want
to be the great country we’ve been since 1787, or do
we want to pattern ourselves after Greece, Italy, or
Spain. The
United States cannot exist as a European-style
social welfare state, the political efforts of
Barack Obama, notwithstanding.
The damage that has been done by liberals and
Democrats must be reversed and repaired.
There is no better time to begin the process
than November 6, 2012.
The choice is ours.