Photo credit: www.govexec.com
A proposal is under consideration within the Social Security Administration (SSA) that would prohibit payments to individuals who do not possess Social Security numbers. If enacted, this policy could impact numerous beneficiaries, including those receiving benefits for retirement, disability, and low-income assistance.
According to Kathleen Romig, the director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, there are instances where individuals without Social Security numbers serve as “representative payees” for eligible beneficiaries. This scenario often involves disabled children, as well as elderly or disabled adults.
An internal SSA memo, obtained by Government Executive, reveals that the agency currently has the latitude to appoint individuals as representative payees, even if they lack an SSN. Romig pointed out that these payees are not required to meet the same eligibility criteria as beneficiaries.
The proposed change would effectively dismiss over 170,000 current payees who do not have Social Security numbers from receiving any payments. The SSA had not provided a comment regarding this matter as of the latest inquiries.
Among those likely to be impacted by this new policy are children receiving Supplemental Security Income or disability benefits when their parents do not possess SSNs. Additionally, widows and other survivors of deceased Americans residing abroad may also be affected.
Some SSA employees speculate that this proposal aligns with current immigration policy discussions. One employee noted, “The only time we pay someone who is here illegally is when they are a payee. By barring non-SSN payees, they can claim they have stopped compensating illegal immigrants with Social Security. However, this poses a crisis, especially for families with severely disabled children.”
Response to Misinformation
Former SSA Commissioner Martin O’Malley linked this policy change to misinformation propagated during last year’s campaign by President Trump, which suggested that Democrats were allowing undocumented immigrants to collect benefits. He criticized those advocating against benefits for disabled children of immigrants as “cruel hearted jerks.”
“Campaigns spent significant resources on mailers across key states that falsely accused [then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris] of allowing illegal immigrants to burden Social Security,” O’Malley remarked to Government Executive. “This appears to be another effort to undermine the program and erode public confidence in it.” O’Malley noted that the misleading campaign led to a surge in public inquiries, necessitating a disclaimer on the agency’s website to address accusations regarding payments to illegal immigrants.
The SSA must verify its authority to implement this change, as highlighted in the memo. If the SSA decides to proceed, it will be necessary to reach out to numerous payees to either provide a Social Security number or transition the payee role to someone who has one.
This undertaking may prove challenging, given that locating payees can be difficult; the agency occasionally resorts to institutional payees like child welfare organizations, Romig explained. It also involves evaluating the suitability of these payees.
“If a child is left without a payee, their benefits might be put on hold while the situation is resolved,” Romig noted, underscoring the potential for disruptions in benefit payments.
Looking ahead, this potential regulation could complicate the process of identifying appropriate payees for beneficiaries, especially as the most suitable payee (i.e., parents or spouses) may not have a Social Security number. Consequently, concerns rise regarding the risk of fraud or misuse if alternative payees, such as friends or other relatives, are selected instead.
Additionally, foreign payees who have legally entered the United States and earned eligibility for benefits may find themselves in a similar predicament if their designated payee does not possess an SSN, as shared by another SSA employee.
Disruption and Future Implications
This proposal emerges shortly after the SSA declared its intent to resume efforts to recoup 100% of a beneficiary’s monthly payment in cases of overpayment, a practice that had been halted amid bipartisan outcry.
Acting Commissioner Leland Dudek emphasized the agency’s commitment to being accountable custodians of taxpayer funds. He reinforced the need to revert the overpayment repayment policy to a stringent model, reminiscent of practices during the Obama and Trump administrations.
Furthermore, the SSA recently announced that it would disallow changes to direct deposit information over the phone due to fraud concerns. This marks a reversal of earlier proposals which sought to eliminate telephone services entirely.
During a panel hosted by the National Academy of Social Insurance, former SSA commissioners from both parties expressed outrage regarding Dudek’s decisions and the broader operational trends at the agency.
Former Commissioner Michael Astrue articulated a need for constructive improvements within the SSA, rather than the current path of disruption, comparing the agency’s plight to the tactics of high-tech disruptors. Astrue argued that while innovation has its place, recklessly dismantling established systems can yield destructive outcomes.
O’Malley criticized plans to reduce the SSA workforce by 7,000 employees through voluntary early retirement, highlighting the questionable funding source for such moves—Americans’ payroll taxes. He expressed concern that these actions deprive citizens of necessary services while misallocating funds intended for public service.
Astrue further warned of rising cybersecurity risks due to unqualified personnel accessing sensitive SSA databases, urging swift Senate action on Frank Bisignano’s nomination for agency leadership, as it was underscored that Dudek’s conduct has raised serious concerns regarding operational integrity.
“I do not want to label these individuals as traitors,” he remarked. “Rather, I believe their incompetence and lack of experience threaten the security of sensitive information, and it is critical that we address this issue promptly.”
Source
www.govexec.com