The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (12 comments)

  1. GoneWithTheWind

    Could this dramatic increase in SSI recipients possibly have anything to do with the constant stream of lawyer advertising to get their clients the SSI they deserve? Hmmmm?

    1. No, but nice try. According to SSA, the rise in disability rolls was anticipated due to aging of the populace (one is more likely to get disability if one is 50 or older). SSA WANTS lawyers involved, because the lawyers take over preparing the cases for hearing, meaning SSA does not have to hire the people to do so

      1. Charlie

        So Lawyers are ill advised to have ad campaigns? SSA “judges” are SSA employees. There is no one at the hearings that “represent” the government(read:taxpayers)
        But nice try.

        1. A judge in the room, but his staff does not have to prepare the case for hearing by contacting employers and medical sources.

          As for the rest of your comment: lawyers advertise all the time to distinguish themselves for others and create brand recognition, just like any other business.

          Your second sentence and third sentence don’t make sense. I answered the second question above. As for the third sentence, you answered it already, i.e., in every hearing an SSA lawyer is in the room and that lawyer is also called a judge. Since they approve less than 50% of their applicants, the mind boggles at the expense of putting ANOTHER government lawyer in the room

  2. This just in, Jimmy cares about poor people.

    I mean, not enough to help them with their medical problems (see massive Jim opposition to Obamacare and Medicare) or their economic problems (see Jim’s opposition to higher taxes and hatred of government programs), but enough to want to cut the poor with medical conditions off of the massive 1000/month they receive.

    Mr. Pethokoukis’s smug condescension toward to the ill and unemployed would have been so appropriate in Dickensian times. Keep helping Art and AEI create this New Gilded Age, Jim, and maybe you can go to the orphanage and kick Oliver Twist Redux yourself.

    1. Charlie

      I think Mr. P’s interest is in the quality of life for future generations, something that liberals have little interest in.

      1. Bill rap. If he cared about “future” generations, he would be in favor of eliminating tax breaks for off-shore operations and taxing capital gains like income, which would help balance his precious deficit. Jim cares about rich people becoming more rich and him being one of their rent-boys, so he can cash a nice check.

  3. marmico

    In the 2008-2012 period (deep, long recession and sluggish recovery), the SSDI worker beneficiary count rose 1.7 million (24%) and the participation rate dropped 2.7% to 63.3%. In the prior 5 year period (average recovery), the SSDI worker beneficiary count rose 1.6 million (29%) and the participation rate dropped 0.3% to 66%. It’s demographics. Feroli has a conundrum. He needs to explain the 2 discrete periods.

    Back in 1995 when there were 4.2 million disabled workers on SSDI, the Social Security Administration predicted (intermediate assumption) that the SSDI worker count would be 7.9 million in 2010. The actual count was 8.2 million. Pretty good call on the demographics considering that the 2007-09 recession was the longest and deepest since SSDI was implemented and that there is some correlation between the unemployment rate and SSDI applications/awards.

    1. Pethokoukis’s reply will be something about letting them eat cake

    2. Charlie

      You fail to account for the loss of manufacturing jobs, a primary source of disability claims

      1. He did, however, account for the fact that the increase in claims was predicted by SSA twenty years ago…

      2. marmico

        What’s the relevance of the occupation of a disabled worker?

        The point is simple. How do you square the material change in the participation rate with the non-material change in the SSDI rolls during the 2 periods? The SSA prediction is just a bonus fact for Feroli.

        Oh, and Jimmy P. conveniently forgot about the DI payroll tax revenues of $109 billion. Tsk…tsk. So I suppose that $80 billion outlay in Medicare would be an $80 billion outlay in Medicaid if the worker was not disabled, eh?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content