Hospitals & Asylums
Health and Welfare
To amend Chapter 3 National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers: to pay for a 3%
COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) with a Free DIRT (Disability Insurance Reallocation
Tax) and 3% COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) Act of January 1, 2016. To amend the
DI tax rate from 1.80% to 2.40% in 2016, 2.30% in 2017 and 2.20% in 2018; from 0.90%
to 1.20% in 2016, 1.15% in 2017 and 1.10% in 2018 for employees and from 0.90% to
1.20% in 2016, 1.15% in 2017 and 1.10% in 2018 for employers under Sec. 201(b)(1)(S)
of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)II§401. To amend the OASI tax rate from 10.60% to
10.0% in 2016, 10.10% in 2017, and 10.20% in 2018; from 5.30% to 5.00% in 2016, to
5.05% in 2017, to 5.10% in 2018 for employees under 26USC(C)(21)(A)§3101 (a) and
from 5.30% to 5.00% in 2016, 5.05% in 2017, and 5.10% in 2018 for employers under
26USC(C)(21)(A)§3111 (a) to avoid depletion of the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust
Fund in 2016 without increasing the overall 12.4% OASDI or 15.3% OASDI and
Hospital Insurance (HI) Federal Insurance Contribution Act tax-rate under
26USC(A)(2)§1401, to pass a Without Income Limit Law (WILL): To abolish the
maximum taxable limit on DI contributions on January 1, 2016 and OASI contributions
January 1, 2017 and repeal Adjustment of the contribution and benefit base Section 230
of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)§430. To require the Social Security Administration
to pay for SSI Costs beginning January 1, 2017. To share profits in excess of social
security program costs to the general fund of the U.S Treasury on a sliding scale
beginning year end 2016 DI 50/50 with the USPS, and OASI 10/90 to eliminate the
federal budget deficit. In 2020 OASI would share at negotiated rates an estimated 25/75,
by 2025 OASDI would share 50/50 and by 2030 OASDI would save to pay for the peak
in costs of Baby Boomer generation in 2035 that might raise the overall OASDI tax rate
from 12.4%. To repeal Sec.215(i) of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)§415(i) and
legislate a 3% annual COLA. To open disability insurance (DI) to voluntary contributions
by teachers and other state workers. To limit Health and Human Services spending to less
than $1 trillion. To require the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to hire an actuary to
sustain Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) growth in an annual report
to Congress. To abolish the fictitious Allowances and Other Defense Civil Programs
rows from OMB outlays by agency table. To replace welfare Administrative Law Judges
(ALJs) with licensed social workers and non-social worker representatives under Sec.
206 of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)§406. To provide Medicaid for free to everyone
earning less than 150% of the poverty line and open Medicaid to reasonably priced
premiums for everyone else. To prohibit medical billing. To ratify ILO Conventions 132,
156 and 183. To volunteer today to levy a 1% UN FICA and corporate income tax for
world-wide welfare in 2020.
Be the Democratic-Republican (DR) two party system Abolished, Referred to the
Actuary, Commissioner and Trustees (ACT)
1st ed. 15 Sep. 2004, 2nd 1 June ‘05, 3rd 18 June ‘06, 4th 17 June ‘07. 5th 12 June ‘09, 6th 31
July ‘10, 7th 17 Aug. ‘11, 8th 14 July ‘12, 9th 26 July ‘15, 10th 7 Sep. ‘15, 11th 7 Feb. '16
1
Table of Contents
Art. 1 Social Insurance
§71
§72
§73
§74
§75
Poverty and Social Security
Right to Social Security
World Wide Welfare
Universal Health Insurance
History of Social Work
Art. 2 Welfare Administration
§76 House Ways and Means Committee
§77 Senate HELP Committee
§77a Office of Personnel Management
§77b Postal Service
§78 Treasury Department
§79 Health and Human Services
§80 Veteran’s Administration
§81 Department of Labor
§82 Education Department
§83 Department of Agriculture
§84 Housing and Urban Development
§84a Federal Emergency Management Administration
§85 Social Security Administration
Art. 3 Social Security Trust Funds
§86 Old Age and Survivor Insurance Trust Fund
§87 Disability Insurance Trust Fund
§88 Unemployment Compensation Trust Funds
Art. 4 Health Insurance
§89 Medicare
§90 Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
§91 Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund
§92 Medicaid
§92a Affordable Care Act
Art. 5 Family and Child Economic Supplements
§93 Supplemental Security Income
§94 Child Welfare
§95 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
2
§96 Child Support
§97 Children’s Health Insurance
§98 Social Services
Art. 6 Other Welfare Programs
§99 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
§99a Food Bank
§100 Rental Assistance
§101 Scholarships
§102 Emergency relief
§103 Utility services payment
§104 Aid in securing employment
§105 Homeless shelters
§106 Camping
§107 Free medical examination
§108 Free dental care
§109 Community gardens and food donations
§110 Funeral and burial or cremation expenses
§111 Freedom
§111a Free Government Cell Phone, Discount Internet and Computer
§111b Public Library
Art. 7 Assistance Applications
§112 Consent; form; filing
§113 Eligibility
§114 Disability Determination
§115 Denial of relief, Reconsideration
§116 Notification of Action
§117 Appeals Council
§118 Representation
§119 Hearing on appeal; written procedures
§120 Equal Access to Justice
§121 No-Residency Requirement and Refugee Assistance
§122 Non Discrimination
Art. 8 Poor Relief
§123
§124
§125
§126
§127
§128
Township, Municipal, County, State, Federal Government Co-operation
County auditor clerical help
Expenditure of Funds
County general fund appropriation
Borrowing to pay claims
County Bonds
3
Art. 9 Non-Profit Corporation
§129
§130
§131
§132
§133
§134
§135
§136
§137
Trustee
Board of Trustees
Corporate Banking
Ratio of supervisors to investigators; compensation
Pay, vacation; sick leave
Paying representatives on a case by case basis
Equitable Contracting by the Trustee
Adequate access ensured; telephone number; office
Group Health Plan
Art. 10 Reports
§138
§139
§140
§141
§142
§143
§144
§145
Records
Copies of yearly budgets filed with Auditor
Census report and recommendation
Quarterly reports
Health corporation reports
Distressed township supplemental poor relief fund
Annual statistical report
Annual reports to congress
Art. 11 System of National Accounts
§146 National accounts
§147 Balanced budget amendment
§148 Accounting fraud
§148a On-budget agency rulings
§148b Off-budget agency revenues
§149 Federal debt debate
§150 Federal Reserve
Art. 12 Battle Mountain Sanitarium Reserve
§151
§152
§153
§154
Battle Mountain Sanitarium Reserve
Name; control, rules and regulations
Perfecting bona fide claims to lands; exchange of private lands
Unlawful intrusion, or violation of rules and regulations
Charts and Tables
Fig. 1 Optimal OASDI Tax Rate Competition in Billions 2015-2022
Fig. 2 Without Income Limit Law OASDI 2016-2020
Fig. 3 DI Trust Fund Depletion with Zero Interest and Negative Balance 2015-2022
Fig. 4 DI Trust Fund: Current, Free DIRT and WILL 2015-2022
4
Fig. 5 OASI Trust Fund; Current, Free Dirt and WILL 2015-2022
Fig. 6 OASDI Trust Funds: Current, Free DIRT and WILL 2015-2022
Fig. 7 Poverty Status of Various Groups 1959-2004
Fig. 8 Poverty Thresholds, Weighted Average, Annual and Monthly 2004, 2011
Fig. 9 State Poverty and Unemployment Rates, 2004 & 2010
Fig. 10 MDGs for 2015 Progress Report 1990 & 2005
Fig. 11 International Assistance 1990-2010
Fig. 12 US International Assistance 2000-2020
Fig. 13 Health Expenditures Per Capita 1970, 1980, 1990, 2003 (inc. % GDP)
Fig. 14 Affordable Care Act Premium Contribution Limits by Income
Fig. 15 Office of Personnel Management Budget 2000-2020
Fig. 16 Postal Service Budget Request
Fig. 17 Total Tax Receipts 1929-2002
Fig. 18 Tax Rates by Income 1979 & 2000
Fig. 19 HHS Spending in billions 2000, 2008, 2014-15
Fig. 20 Mandatory HHS Spending 2000, 2008, 2014-15
Fig. 21 Veterans Affairs Spending 2000-2020
Fig. 22 Occupations by Category 2006
Fig. 23 DOL Spending, UC, Employment and Unemployment 2000-2012
Fig. 24 Education Spending 2000-2020
Fig. 25 USDA Budget 2008, 2000-2020
Fig. 26 State by State Projection of the Number of SNAP Participants 2013
Fig. 27 HUD Spending 2000-2020
Fig. 28 Annual Global Cost of Natural Disasters 1948-2003
Fig. 29 Disaster Relief FY 1990 Though FY 2013
Fig. 30 Major Disaster, Emergency and Fire Management Declarations 1953- 2015
Fig. 30a NOAA Full Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Sep. 7, 2015
Fig. 31 OASDI beneficiaries, by program, April 2006–April 2007
Fig. 32 Current and Proposed OASDI and HI FICA Rates 1937-2018
Fig. 33 Commissioners of Social Security 1946-present
Fig. 34 On-budget Social Security Spending 2008-2013
Fig. 35 Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund 1937-2020
Fig. 36 Number and Average Benefit of DI Beneficiaries by Diagnosis Dec. 2009
Fig. 36a Disability Insurance Trust Fund, 1957-2020
Fig. 37 Wage and Unemployment Data 2005
Fig. 38 Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 1966-2020
Fig. 39 SMI Trust Fund 1967-2020
Fig. 40 Medicaid Population by State July 1, 1999
Fig. 41 Medicaid with Premiums; Deficit Neutral Revenues and Outlays 2013-2020
Fig. 42 SSI Recipients, Cost and Average Benefit by State
Fig. 43 AFDC/TANF Families and Recipients, 1960-2003
Fig. 44 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs 2015
Fig. 45 Change in National Capacity to House Homeless Persons 1996-2005
Fig. 46 Community Reinvestment Act reporting as % of all Loans 1997-2005
5
Fig. 47 Removal of Allowance for Immigration Reform revenue proposal and
Allowances from OMB Outlays by Agency Table, Academic Changes to Total
Outlays 2014-2019
Fig. 48 Changes made Removing of the Other Defense Civil Programs Row from
OMB Table 4.1 Agency Spending 1962-2019: Changes to Undistributed Offsetting
Receipts 1962-2008, Total Outlays, 2009-present
Fig. 49 Reduction to Total Outlays from Abolishing Allowances and Other Defense
Civil Program Rows from the Outlays by Agency Table 2009-2019
Fig. 50 Changes to Total Outlays, On-budget Outlays, Total Deficit, On-budget
Deficit 2009-2019
Fig. 51 Gross Federal Debt and Debt Held by Public, Dangling Debt from
Allowances and Other Defense Civil Programs rows, Revised Debt, Compared as %
of GDP 2009-2019
Fig. 52 Federal Budget FY 2015 2000-2020
Fig. 53 Medicaid with Premiums; Deficit Neutral Revenues and Outlays 2013-2020
Fig. 54 Justice Department Budget Authority by Appropriation FY 2015
Fig. 55 On-budget Social Security and Other Independent Agency rows 2000-2020
Fig. 56 SSA on-budget spending errata 2008-2013
Fig. 57 Receipts by Source Revised for On-budget/Off-budget OASDI Without
Income Limit and with Medicaid Premiums 2013-2020
Fig. 58 Gross Federal Outlays and Revenues, Surplus/Deficit 2000-2020
Fig. 59 Gross Federal Debt, Surplus or Deficit, Debt Held by Public, Compared as
% of GDP 2000-2019
Bibliography
Art. 1 Social Insurance
§74 Poverty and Social Security
A. Chapter 3 National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, Title 24 US Code
Subchapter V Battle Mountain Sanitarium Reserve, §151-154 to settle bona claims to
land; private exchange of lands under §153 and to issue an up to $1,000 fine to redress
the unlawful intrusion of reserves or violation of rules and regulations under §154 are
preserved. Regulation of benefit programs is best understood by the civil rights crime
deprivation of relief benefits under 18USC§246. It is necessary to convict the SSA
Actuary, Commissioner and Treasurer of a misdemeanor “no COLA” offense on January
1 and a felony if disability benefits are cut because the Commissioner was unable to do
the math because SSA will have to be retroactively accounted for, as directed in this
work, to pay back pay to compensate for the benefit loss and legislating a 3% COLA for
all social security beneficiaries in 2016 under Sec. 204 and 225(i) of the Social Security
Act 42USC§404(c) and §425. Although the Constitution bans retroactive laws, the
insolvent Congress predictably failed to get the OASDI tax rate right in time, and it is
because Congress did not pass the law, the OASDI tax rate must be retroactively
accounted for from January 1 to pay the compensation (backpay) and free the year from
the jail of simple civil rights offenders facing heightened penalties for discriminating
6
against elders and the disabled. The political solution is to abolish the incompetent
Actuary and hold the Commissioner responsible for accounting for this underpayment
Sec. 204 of the Social Security Act 42USC§404(c) from January 1, 2016 as directed in
this work. The federal government could have a budget surplus if only the $118,500
(2015) OASDI limit on taxable income were eliminated and revenues were shared with
the federal government, as directed in the end of this work - the true accounting of the
federal budget. SSA must however get the OASDI tax rate right for accounting purposes.
The correct OASDI tax rate, that must be retroactively accounted for from January 1,
2016, to afford the back payments due faultless beneficiaries, are – 2.4% DI 10.0%
OASI in 2016, 2.3% DI 10.1% OASI in 2017, and 2.2% DI and 10.2% OASI in 2018.
a. Social security is the largest, most important and most loved social program in modern
governments. More than 50 million people receive the majority of their income from
social security. More than 6 million people who receive disability insurance benefits face
wrongful benefit cuts sometime this 2016 when the DI trust fund is predicted to be
exhausted, because the Obama Administration didn't get the OASDI tax rate math right in
time to prevent the causation of criminal damage. The United States must get the OASDI
tax rate right to save the DI trust fund and free 2016 from jail. Furthermore, the United
States must survey the racial theory that the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) discriminate against poor African-Americans, of
both sexes, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Blacks seem to be cruelly
expected to survive until retirement, without equal access to disability insurance or SSI.
Blacks are reported, by numerous black SSA employees, to enjoy limited access to
survivor benefits, for the few who pass the ALJs murder test; Obama failed before he was
even elected. Blacks in power must stop discriminating against disability and start suing
for 'extremely poor African-American or half African-American' to be a 'qualifying
disability' if, after surveying, it is corroborated, that there are a disproportionately small
number of African-American disability and SSI beneficiaries under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
1. Since 2000 when the 1.8% rate was legislated the OASDI tax rate has not been
changed and it is projected that the DI trust fund is going to be depleted this 2016
although OASI makes enough revenues to pay for DI without an OASI deficit until 2019
if optimally adjusted. In 2008, just before costs first exceeded revenues, it became
apparent that the DI trust fund was going to be depleted much sooner than the OASI trust
fund and the DI tax rate should have been increased. In 2000 the DI Trust Fund
disbursed $60.2 billion, the balance was $55 billion. Since 2009 DI program costs have
exceeded combined payroll tax and interest income by -$12.2 in 2009, -$23.6 in 2010 and
-$25.8 in 2011. The trust fund ratio began its inexorable decline from a high of 199% in
2008 to 183% in 2009. DI costs continued to rise but revenues declined to a low of
$105.5 billion in 2010. Growth was slow and by 2012 DI total revenues were $108.8 but
program cost had risen to $138.5 billion and the trust fund had fallen to $132 billion
117% of annual benefit payments. (Tables VI. C5, VI.G2 Disability Benefit Disbursement
under the OASDI Program 2013 Annual Report). By 2015 total revenues were projected
to increase to $121.2 but the early retirement of the baby boomers had swollen payments
to $151 billion and there was only $28.4 billion left, at the end of the year the trust fund
7
ratio was 39% and in 2016 the trust fund is expected to be entirely depleted and would
cease functioning, reduced benefits would continue to be paid with tax revenues. (Table
IV.A2 Operations of the DI Trust Fund 2014 Annual Report). It is unfair that SSA is
considering cutting benefits as low as 80% of current value when the trust fund is
depleted sometime in 2016 when all they need to do is adjust the tax rate.
2. In 2016 total revenues are estimated to be $129.3 billion, payroll tax contributions are
estimated to be $125..7 billion and total expenses $159.4 billion. To quickly estimate the
minimum tax rate that the DI trust fund needs with the ratio 1.8 / 125.7 = x / 159.4 where
x yields a DI tax rate of 2.3%. The DI trust fund has however been operating on a deficit
since 2009 and is nearly depleted at year end 2015. It is therefore necessary to adjust the
OASDI tax rate to an emergency rate of 2.4% to avoid depleting the trust fun. Using the
same equation 1.8 / 125.7 = 2.4 / x the 2.4% rate would generate $167.6 billion in
revenues, saving $8.2 billion for a trust fund balance of $44.2 billion, including about
$1.5 billion in interest income at year end 2016. The United States must legislate the
2.4% DI and 10.0% OASI tax rate immediately. In 2017 the 2.3% tax rate is estimated to
bring in $170.5 billion and expenses are estimated at $165.2 billion saving the DI trust
fund $5.7 billion, bringing the trust fund balance to $51.6 billion, including about $1.7
billion interest income. In 2018 so many baby boomers are expected to have retired from
disability that the actual DI tax rate should be adjusted to 2.2%, to prevent an early deficit
in the OASI trust fund, making $185 billion and costing $171.2 billion, saving $13.8
billion. The DI tax rate of 2.2% and OASI tax rate of 10.2% is expected to be the
intermediate rate from 2018 to at least 2022, that holds even when the OASI trust fund
begins to show a deficit around 2020 to protect the smaller DI trust fund. The OASI trust
fund is much larger and can better afford to lobby SSA to eliminate the maximum taxable
limit on income and tax the richest to increase OASDI tax revenues by 130%, increase
welfare spending and balance the federal budget, the year the new tax goes into effect.
The 2.4% DI and 10.0% OASI OASDI tax rate estimates for 2016 must be legislated
right away by unanimous roll-call vote:
Free Disability Insurance Reallocation Tax (DIRT) and 3% COLA Social Security
Amendment of January 1, 2016
To amend the DI tax rate from 1.80% to 2.40% in 2016, 2.30% in 2017 and 2.20% in
2018; from 0.90% to 1.20% in 2016, 1.15% in 2017 and 1.10% in 2018 for employees
and from 0.90% to 1.20% in 2016, 1.15% in 2017 and 1.10% in 2018 for employers
under Sec. 201(b)(1)(S) of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)II§401.
To amend the OASI tax rate from 10.60% to 10.0% in 2016, 10.10% in 2017, and
10.20% in 2018; from 5.30% to 5.00% in 2016, to 5.05% in 2017, to 5.10% in 2018 for
employees under 26USC(C)(21)(A)§3101 (a) and from 5.30% to 5.00% in 2016, 5.05%
in 2017, and 5.10% in 2018 for employers under 26USC(C)(21)(A)§3111 (a) to avoid
depletion of the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund in 2016 without increasing the
overall 12.4% OASDI or 15.3% OASDI and Hospital Insurance (HI) Federal Insurance
Contribution Act tax-rate under 26USC(A)(2)§1401.
8
To legislate a 3% annual COLA at Sec. 225(i) 42USC425(i) retroactive to January 1,
2016 under Sec. 204(c) 42USC§404(c).
Be it enacted by the House and Senate Assembled, referred to the
Actuary, Commissioner and Treasurer (ACT)
B. The United States is tired of being toyed with by the Actuary's real or feigned inability
to perform the his OASDI tax rate calculation duties and refuses to fall prey again to
fraudulent Harvard welfare advisors. Getting the OASDI tax rate right has been a
priority every fiscal year since the baby boomers first incurred costs in excess of DI
revenues in 2009, the tyranny was unable to account for, Harvard having opted to kill
Osama bin Laden instead of being responsible for the supporting documents, whose math
and laws, were ignored to lose the race for Commissioner Social Security Caucus of
2011s for case-lessness. The Actuary’s letter to the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) titled, ‘Potential Reallocation of the Payroll Tax Rate Between the
Disability Insurance (DI) Program and the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI)
Program’ dated February 5, 2015 was wrong to use the actuarial DI shortfall statistic of
2.7% proposed by the President as the result of a misleading intermediate estimate the
fine print explains cannot be used to estimate the tax rate, after being informed of the
correct 2.3% DI tax rate at the end of 2014 and then perpetuating the wrong answer. On
September 30, 2015 Estimate of the Effects on the OASI and DI Trust Funds of enacting
the temporary reallocation of the payroll tax rate proposed in S. 2090 and H.R. 3621, was
published by the Actuary regarding legislation introduced on September 28, 2015 by
Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Sandy Levin. The proposal would increase the
total (employee plus employer) payroll tax rate for the DI Trust Fund by 0.85 percentage
point, from 1.8 to 2.65 percent, for calendar years 2016 through 2020. The financial
status of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is essentially the same as under present
law. The combined asset reserves of the OASI and DI Trust Funds would become
depleted in 2034. After reserve depletion in 2034, tax income would be sufficient to cover
79 percent of cost. This percent drops to 73 by 2089. The asset reserves of the OASI
Trust Fund would become depleted in 2034. After reserve depletion in 2034, tax income
would cover 77 percent of cost. This percent drops to 71 by 2088. The asset reserves of
the DI Trust Fund would become depleted in 2034. After reserve depletion in 2034, noninterest income would cover 89 percent of cost. This percent drops to 81 by 2089. This
bill is adequate but does not get the math exactly right and would accelerate the moment
at which the OASI trust would begin to exhibit an unpleasant deficit. Every tenth of a
percent of DI tax rate adjustment is billions of dollars from the OASI tax. In fact at a
2.65% rate, it can be calculated that the OASI trust fund would have a deficit of about
$300 million at the end of 2016.
1. Having been informed of the 2.4% rate, the current Congressional DI tax rate estimate
is basically correct, but perpetuating the Paperwork Reduction Act, that politely asks to
be abolished, was estimated at $10 million, and the Actuary paid no mind to the $30
billion dollar social security amendment that requires proper legislative citation, as done
above, and none of the propaganda for the hiring of civil rights criminals, nor infinite
complexity of an insolvent balanced budget act that has plagiarized the answer to the
9
Actuary's calculation from the disability beneficiary who actually balances their budget,
and not their own unusually difficult task to find the citations needed to amend the
OASDI tax rate in the United States Code. On October 27 2015 John Boehner received a
memorandum from the Actuary titled Estimate of the Effects on the OASI and DI Trust
Funds of enacting the temporary reallocation of a portion of the OASDI payroll tax rate
proposed in H.R. 1314, the "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015," introduced on September
27, 2015 Section 833. Reallocation of payroll tax revenue. For earnings in calendar years
2016 through 2018, increase from 1.80 percent to 2.37 percent the portion of the total
12.40 percent OASDI payroll tax that is directed to the DI Trust Fund. This reallocation
of the payroll tax rates is projected to change the date for DI reserve depletion from the
fourth quarter of 2016 to approximately the third quarter of 2022. The 2.37 percent rate
estimated by Congress is not the 2.4% rate self-employed taxpayers might see on their
paystubs. Nor does a flat 2.4% rate account for the retirement of the large class of baby
boomers in 2018 that is expected to reduce the rate of disability to 2.2%. Nor does the
Actuary estimate the $35.4 billion a 2.37% DI tax rate, rounded up to 2.4% of the taxable
payroll, that would save his DI trust fund from certain depletion sometime in 2016.
C. Social Security is the primary social safety net for the poor, aged and disabled. 165
million working Americans, 93 percent of all workers, earn Social Security’s disability,
survivor, and retirement protections for themselves and their families. In 2016 Social
Security paid $834 billion in benefits to more than 58 million beneficiaries – nearly one
in five Americans. 38 million retired workers, 9 million disabled workers. Of the
nation’s 74 million children under age 18. Each month, 4.4 million dependent children –
about 3.4 million under age 19 and 2 million adults disabled before age 22 – receive
Social Security checks totaling about $2.5 billion. Operating on a such a large and
growing deficit the DI trust fund is predicted to be totally depleted sometime in 2016, at
which time the Social Security Trustees conspire to cut benefits to around 80% of current
value. Under the current intermediate assumptions, the Social Security Trustees project
that annual cost for the OASDI program will exceed non-interest income in 2014 and
remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period. The projected
theoretical combined OASI and DI Trust Fund asset reserves increase through 2019,
begin to decline in 2020, and become depleted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in
full on a timely basis in 2033. At the time of reserve depletion, continuing income to the
combined trust funds would be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.
However, the DI Trust Fund reserves become depleted in 2016, at which time continuing
income to the DI Trust Fund would be sufficient to pay 81 percent of DI benefits.
Therefore, legislative action is needed as soon as possible to address the DI program’s
financial imbalance. Lawmakers may consider responding to the impending DI Trust
Fund reserve depletion as they did in 1994, solely by reallocating the payroll tax rate
between OASI and DI. Such a response might serve to delay DI reforms and much
needed corrections for OASDI as a whole. However, enactment of a more permanent
solution could (must) include a tax reallocation in the short-run. Although the annual rate
can be calculated fairly quickly, to navigate the extremely dynamic surge of retiring baby
boomers, currently at the peak of their disability years, it is necessary to put different
rates in a table to make an informed decision to have variable rates. This “pain in the
10
OASDI” tax rate calculation takes a week of full time sedentary work certain to cause
sciatica or heart disease.
Fig. 1 Optimal OASDI Tax Rate Competition in Billions 2015-2022
OASDI Tax
2015
OASDI
12.4%
10.6/1.8
OASI 10.6%
DI 1.8%
2015 OASDI
12.4%
10.0/2.4
OASI 10.0%
DI 2.4%
2015 OASDI
12.4%
10.1/2.3
OASI 10.1%
DI 2.3%
2015 OASDI
12.4%
10.2/2.2
OASI 10.2%
DI 2.2%
2016 OASDI
12.4%
10.6/1.8
OASI 10.6%
DI 1.8%
2016 OASDI
12.4%
10.0/2.4
OASI 10.0%
2015
OASI 10.0%
2016
DI 2.4%
2015
DI 2.4%
2016
2016 OASDI
12.4%
Payroll
Revenues
808.4
Total
Revenues
938.0
Total
Costs
909.7
Change
in Fund
28.3
691.1
117.3
808.4
Fund
816.8
121.2
938.0
758.7
151.0
909.7
58.1
-29.8
28.3
2,783.7
28.4
2,812.1
651.7
156.7
808.4
777.4
161.6
938.0
758.7
151.0
909.7
18.7
10.6
28.3
2,744.2
68.8
2,812.1
658.5
149.9
808.4
784.2
153.8
938.0
758.7
151.0
909.7
25.5
2.8
28.3
2,751
61.0
2,812.1
665.0
143.4
853.0
789.5
148.5
985.3
758.7
151.0
963.3
30.8
-3.7
22.0
2,811.6
54.5
2,834.1
729.2
123.8
853.0
858.8
125.8
985.3
807.5
155.8
963.3
51.3
-30
22.0
2,835.0
-1.6
2,834.1
687.9
817.5
807.5
10.0
2,793.7
687.9
817.5
807.5
10.0
2,754.2
165.1
168.0
155.8
13.8
73.6
165.1
167.1
155.8
12.9
9.3
853.0
985.3
963.3
22.0
2,834.1
2,812.1
11
10.1/2.3
OASI 10.1%
2015
OASI 10.1%
2016
DI 2.3%
2015
DI 2.3%
2016
2017 OASDI
12.4%
10.6/1.8
OASI 10.6%
DI 1.8%
2017 OASDI
12.4%
10.0/2.4
OASI 10.0%
2015
OASI 10.0%
2016
DI 2.4%
2015
DI 2.4%
2016
2017 OASDI
12.4%
10.1/2.3
OASI 10.1%
2015
OASI 10.1%
2016
DI 2.3%
2015
DI 2.3%
2016
2018 OASDI
12.4%
10.6/1.8
OASI 10.6%
DI 1.8%
2018 OASDI
12.4%
10.0/2.4
OASI 10.0%
2015
694.8
823.4
807.5
15.9
2,766.9
694.8
824.4
807.5
16.9
2,800.6
158.2
161.2
155.8
5.4
67.4
158.2
160.2
155.8
4.4
32.6
904.9
1,042.7
1,022.3
20.4
2,854.4
773.5
131.4
904.9
909.7
133.6
1,042.7
861.1
161.2
1,022.3
48.6
-17.6
20.4
2,883.6
-22.2
2,854.4
729.7
863.9
861.1
2.8
2,796.5
729.7
865.9
861.1
4.8
2,759
175.2
179.4
161.2
18.2
85.6
175.2
177.4
161.2
16.2
48.8
904.9
1,042.7
1,022.3
20.4
2,854.4
737.0
873.2
861.1
12.1
2,779
737.0
874.2
861.1
13.1
2,813.7
171.4
175.9
161.2
14.7
81.1
171.4
174.9
161.2
13.7
46.3
960
1,105
1,087.6
17.4
2,871.8
820.7
139.4
960
965.3
141.9
1,105
920.5
167.1
1,087.6
44.7
-25.2
17.4
2,928.3
-47.4
2,871.8
774.3
917.2
920.5
-3.3
2,793.2
12
OASI 10.0%
2016
DI 2.4%
2015
DI 2.4%
2016
2018 OASDI
12.4%
10.1/2.3
OASI 10.1%
2015
OASI 10.1%
2016
DI 2.3%
2015
DI 2.3%
2016
2018 OASDI
12.4%
10.2/2.2
OASI 10.2%
10.1 2015
OASI 10.2%
10.1 2016
DI 2.2% 2.3
2015
DI 2.2% 2.3
2016
2018 OASDI
12.4%
10.3/2.1
OASI 10.3%
10.1 2015
OASI 10.3%
10.1 2015
DI 2.1% 2.3
2015
DI 2.1% 2.3
2016
2019 OASDI
12.4%
10.6/1.8
OASI 10.6%
DI 1.8%
2019 OASDI
12.4%
774.3
918.2
920.5
-2.3
2,756.7
185.9
190.0
167.1
22.9
108.5
185.9
188.6
167.1
21.5
67.8
960
1,105
1,087.6
17.4
2,871.8
782
925.6
920.5
5.1
2,784.1
782
926.6
920.5
6.1
2,819.8
178.1
182.6
167.1
15.5
96.6
178.1
181.6
167.1
14.5
60.8
960
1,105
1,087.6
17.4
2,871.8
789.7
934.3
920.5
13.8
2,792.8
789.7
933.3
920.5
12.8
2,832.6
170.4
176.9
167.1
9.8
90.9
170.4
175.9
167.1
8.8
55.1
960
1,105
1,087.6
17.4
2,871.8
797.5
939.1
920.5
18.6
2,795.6
797.5
940.1
920.5
19.6
2,837.4
162.6
168.1
167.1
1
82.1
162.6
167.1
167.1
0
46.3
1,012.9
1,165.1
1,158.7
6.4
2,878.3
865.8
147.0
1,012.9
1,019
149.7
1,165.1
985.1
173.6
1,158.7
33.9
-23.9
6.4
2,962.2
-71.3
2,878.3
13
10.2/2.2
OASI 10.2
10.1 2015
OASI 10.2
10.1 2016
DI 2.2% 2.3
2015
DI 2.2% 2.3
2015
2019 OASDI
12.4%
10.1/2.3
OASI 10.1%
2015
OASI 10.1%
2016
DI 2.3%
2015
DI 2.3%
2016
2020 OASDI
12.4%
10.6/1.8
OASI 10.6%
DI 1.8%
2020 OASDI
12.4%
10.2/2.2
OASI 10.2
10.1 2015
OASI 10.2
10.1 2016
DI 2.2% 2.3
2015
DI 2.2% 2.3
2016
2020 OASDI
12.4%
10.1/2.3
OASI 10.1%
2015
OASI 10.1%
2016
DI 2.3%
2015
DI 2.3%
833.1
981.3
985.1
-3.8
2,789
833.1
982.3
985.1
-2.8
2,829.8
179.7
186.4
173.6
12.8
103.7
179.7
185.4
173.6
11.8
56.9
1,012.9
1,165.1
1,158.7
6.4
2,878.3
825.0
976
985.1
-9.1
2,754.6
825.0
977
985.1
-8.1
2,812.7
187.8
193.5
173.6
19.9
128.4
187.8
192.4
173.6
18.8
85.6
1,065.5
1,224.5
1,235.2
-10.7
2,867.6
910.9
154.7
1,065.5
1,072.0
157.6
1,224.5
1,054.6
180.6
1,235.2
17.4
-23
-10.7
2,979.5
-94.3
2,867.6
876.5
1,032.6
1,054.6
-22
2,767
876.5
1,033.6
1,054.6
-21
2,808.8
189.1
197
180.6
16.4
120.1
189.1
196
180.6
15.4
72.3
1,065.5
1,224.5
1,235.2
-10.7
2,867.6
867.9
1,025
1,054.6
-29.6
2,725
867.9
1,026
1,054.6
-28.6
2,784.1
197.7
205.6
180.6
25.0
153.4
197.7
204.6
180.6
24.0
109.6
14
2016
1,065.5
1,224.5
1,312.3
-29.1
2,838.4
2021 OASDI
12.4%
10.6/1.8
OASI 10.6%
956.5
1,124.3
1,122.9
1.4
2,980.9
DI 1.8%
162.4
165.5
189.4
-23.9
-118.2
1,065.5
1,224.5
1,312.3
-29.1
2,838.4
2021 OASDI
12.4%
10.2/2.2
OASI 10.2%
920.4
1,082.2
1,122.9
-34.7
2,732.3
10.3 2015
OASI 10.2%
920.4
1,083.2
1,122.9
-33.7
2,775.1
10.3 2016
DI 2.2% 2.3
198.5
207.6
189.4
18.2
138.3
2015
DI 2.2% 2.3
198.5
206.6
189.4
17.2
89.5
2016
1,065.5
1,224.5
1,312.3
-29.1
2,838.4
2021 OASDI
12.4%
10.1/2.3
OASI 10.1
911.4
1,079.2
1,122.9
-43.7
2,681.3
DI 2.3
207.5
210.6
189.4
21.2
174.6
1,172.0
1,341.4
1,395.8
-54.4
2,784.1
2022 OASDI
12.4%
10.6/1.8
OASI 10.6%
1,001.8
1,176.3
1,197.3
-21
2,959.9
DI 1.8%
170.1
173.2
198.5
-25.3
-143.5
1,172.0
1,341.4
1,395.8
-54.4
2,784.1
2022 OASDI
12.4%
10.2/2.2
OASI 10.2%
964
1,131.5
1,197.3
-65.8
2,666.5
10.3 2015
OASI 10.2%
964
1,132.5
1,197.3
-64.8
2,710.3
10.3 2016
DI 2.2% 2.3
207.9
218
198.5
19.5
157.8
2015
DI 2.2% 2.3
207.9
217
198.5
18.5
108
2016
1,172.0
1,341.4
1,395.8
-54.4
2,784.1
2022 OASDI
12.4%
10.1/2.3
OASI 10.1
954.5
1,120
1,197.3
-77
2,604.3
DI 2.3
217.4
229.5
198.5
40.0
214.6
Source: Goss ’14 Tables IV.A1-3 Intermediate Projections, this differential equation
comparing the effectiveness of different rates in dollar amounts takes a week the first
15
time. It is possible that the Actuary could agree with the optimal rates of 2.3% DI and
10.1% OASI until 2018 when the optimal rate goes to 2.2% DI and 10.2% OASI.
1. Whereas the hard work has been done, it is now simply the matter of an hour to
corroborate the adequacy of the current year, and a day for the SSA Commissioner to
corroborate the right answer by methodically update Tables IV pertaining to the dollars
figures of the OASI and DI trust funds, without making any actuarial errors. Two errors
were detected in OASI Trust Fund Table IV.A.1, and at least one more is suspected
before Table IV.A.3 OASDI in the 2015 Annual Report of the OASDI Trustees 2014.
First a uniform rate of interest must be declared – 3.4% is standard. Second, the high
expenditure figures are misplaced in the low-cost projection. To correct the 2014 Annual
Report the Actuaries must first redo the DI Trust Fund Table A.2 using Arabic numeral 0
and negative numbers, in order to negotiate with the OASI trust fund. Second, the
expenditure projections in the OASI Trust Fund Table A.1 must be properly arranged
from high cost to low cost. Third, from a credible starting date, the Actuary must redo the
OASI Trust Fund Table IV A.1 at an interest rate of their own declaration, the 3.4% rate
is the norm. Fourth, the Actuary must recalculate the combined OASDI Trust Fund
Table IV A.3. Fifth, the Actuaries redo the tables with the 2.4% DI 10.0% OASI rate of
taxation in 2016, 2.3% DI 10.1% OASI in 2017 and 2.2% DI 10.2% OASI in 2018.
Sixth, having an accurate baseline the Actuary must estimate the 130% increase in
revenues that would result from the Without Income Limit Law (WILL). The WILL
would prevent the OASI trust fund from developing a modest deficit in 2019 and possibly
from needing to raise the overall OASDI tax rate in 2035 at the height of baby boomer
costs. Taxing the rich would also make it possible to balance the true federal budget.
Fig. 2 DI Trust Fund Depletion with Zero Interest and Negative Balance 2015-2022
Year
Total
Revenue
Payroll
Tax
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
121.2
125.8
133.6
141.9
149.7
157.6
165.5
173.5
117.3
123.8
131.4
139.4
147.0
154.7
162.4
170.1
Other
Revenue
Net
Interest
Total
Spending
1.9
2.0
151.0
2.0
0
155.8
2.2
0
161.2
2.5
0
167.1
2.7
0
173.6
2.9
0
180.6
3.1
0
189.4
3.4
0
198.5
Source: Goss '15 Table IV.A.2.
Net
Increase
Year
End
-29.8
-30.0
-27.6
-25.2
-23.9
-23
-23.9
-25
Year End
Balance
28.4
-1.6
-29.2
-54.4
-78.3
-101.3
-125.2
-150.2
2. To begin calculating the OASDI tax reallocation DI Table IV.A.2 must be filled out.
The Actuary left it to the reader to add other revenues, meaning the taxation of benefits,
contributions from the General Fund and net interest, to come up with total revenue.
Because there are no interest revenues, insignificant to nothing contributions from the
General Fund are combined with the taxation of benefits to come up with Other Revenue.
16
There is no interest after 2015 because the Trust fund will be depleted under current law.
Net Interest is conservatively estimated at 3% for DIRT and WILL projections. Total
spending is estimated using the Actuary’s intermediate projections for the current law.
Administrative and Railroad Benefits are affordable and do not raise any questions. Net
increase at year end is total revenues minus total spending. The total net increase is
added to previous number, or subtracted if that number happens to be negative. At the
end of 2015 the DI Trust Fund is estimated to have a balanced of $28.4 billion, however
due to the ongoing deficit, the trust fund will be depleted sometime in 2016 and at the end
of the year the balance will be -$1.6 billion, in 2017 it will -$29.2 billion and by 2020 it
will reach -$101.3. The OASI Trust Fund could pay the deficit as a reduction in assets at
the end of the year and there would be no DI trust fund, only a payroll tax and some
taxation of benefits for revenues and benefit payments, administration and Railroad
benefits for expenses. This is the easiest solution, it is sloppy accounting, but not
criminally so, because no-one’s benefits would be unnecessarily cut, nor trust fund
depleted. The right way to transfer revenues from one trust fund to the other is however
to adjust the tax rate. SSA has previously always been able to perform the OASDI
reallocation math. Now we are ready to begin calculating the optimal OASDI tax rate;
2.4% DI and 10.0% OASI in 20-16, 2.3% DI and 10.1% OASI in 2017 and 2.2% DI and
10.2% OASI in 2018, after which time the rate is expected to stabilize with the retirement
of the baby boomers, giving the DI trust a slight advantage that would cause deficits to
show first in the OASI trust fund, but the DI trust fund is small and disability rates can
change disastrously, wherefore the adequacy of the tax rate must be regularly checked.
The 2.4% DI tax rate of 2016 increases the trust fund balance by $5.3 billion over a 2.3%
rate and $35.4 billion over the inadequate 1.8% rate.
Fig. 3 DI Trust Fund: Current, Free DIRT and WILL 2015-2022
(billions)
Year
Total
Rev.
Payroll
Tax
Other
Rev.
Net
Interest
Gross
Cost
Gross
Increase
Year End
Balance
-29.8
-30.0
11.3
USPS
Fed
2020
0
0
0
2015
2016
DIRT
2.4
WILL
2017
DIRT
WILL
2018
DIRT
2.2
WILL
2019
DIRT
WILL
121.2
125.8
167.1
117.3
123.8
165.1
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
0
1.0
151.0
155.8
155.8
216.7
133.6
171.3
222.4
141.9
174.4
214.7
131.4
167.9
218.3
139.4
170.3
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.5
1.0
0
1.2
1.9
0
1.5
161.0
161.2
161.2
167.3
167.1
167.1
55.7
-27.6
10.1
55.1
-25.2
7.3
21.4
0
0
21.9
0
0
62.7
-29.2
44.9
88.9
-54.4
52.2
226.9
149.7
184
240.2
221.4
147.0
179.6
233.5
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.0
0
1.7
4.0
173.9
173.6
173.6
180.9
53
-23.9
10.4
59.3
22.3
0
0
22.8
119.6
-78.3
62.6
156.1
28.4
-1.6
34.8
17
2020
DIRT
WILL
2021
DIRT
WILL
2022
DIRT
WILL
157.6
194.1
254.0
165.5
204.2
267.6
173.5
214.4
281.3
154.7
189.1
245.8
162.4
198.5
258.1
170.1
207.9
270.3
2.9
0
180.6
2.9
2.1
180.6
2.9
5.3
188.2
3.1
0
189.4
3.1
2.6
189.4
3.1
6.4
197.2
3.4
0
198.5
3.4
3.1
198.5
3.4
7.6
206.3
Source: Goss '15 Table IV.A.2.
-23
13.5
65.8
-23.9
14.8
70.4
-25
15.9
75.0
0
0
32.9
0
0
35.2
0
0
37.5
-101.3
76.1
189
-125.2
90.9
224.2
-150.2
106.8
261.7
3. To calculate the free DIRT estimates for DI is necessary to multiply payroll tax
revenues times 2.4/1.8 = 1.333 in 2016, 2.3/1.8 = 1.278 in 2017 and 2.2/1.8 = 1.222 in
2018 and add other revenues and net interest for the total revenues. Total spending uses
the intermediate projection. The gross increase at end of year is total revenues minus
total spending. The Year End Balance is the net increase at end of year, (less the postal
service in WILL), plus the previous Year’s End Balance. The WILL is calculated by
multiplying the free DIRT payroll tax revenues by 1.3. Medicare is estimated to have a
taxbase 1.33 times the size of SSA’s because Medicare doesn’t have a maximum taxable
limit and has some other minor sources of taxbase that are not readily available to SSA.
Wherefore, the estimate of 1.3 times the free DIRT payroll tax is made and total revenues
are recalculated. Not to lose all the people’s money to the federal deficit the high cost
scenario is used in the WILL total spending projections to benefit the poor, while the
intermediate revenue projections continue to be used as a baseline for revenues, to ensure
a conservative estimate. Interest is estimated at 3.4% of the previous year’s Year-end
balance. Revenues from the DI WILL are expected to be so high that the surplus
revenues must be shared. Therefore, after paying the high cost projection and sharing
with the US Postal Service $20 billion (2014) + 2% annual growth until 2020, if revenues
allow, when the General Fund would share the surplus 50/50 and pay for USPS. In
deciding on the optimal free DIRT tax rate one must adjust the rate in 2018 to prevent a
deficit in the OASI account. In the WILL OASI shall become responsible for paying for
SSI in 2017. SSI growth should be estimated highly, at around 5% annual growth from
$70 billion in 2017. The cost of SSI is added to the high estimate that happens to be in
the low-cost future in Table IV.A.1. Interest is estimated at 3.4% of previous Year-end
Balance. OASI high cost projections and SSI costs are added in the WILL to create
Gross Cost. Total revenues are subtracted by gross costs to give gross increase at end of
year. There is a 90% federal share until 2020 when it will be renegotiated from this 75%
share through 2022. The Year-end Balance is sum of gross increase year end, less the
federal share plus the previous year’s Year-end Balance. The free DIRT Act reduces
OASI revenues by multiplying current payroll taxes times 10.0/10.6= 0.944, 10.1/10.6 =
0.953 in 2017, 10.2/10.6 = 0.962 in 2018, and adding other revenues and net interest.
Fig. 4 OASI Trust Fund; Current, Free Dirt and WILL 2015-2022
Year
Total
Rev.
Payroll
Other Net
Rev. Int.
OASI SSI Gross Gross
Federal Year End
Cost Cost Cost Increase Share
Balance
18
Tax
691.1
729.2
687.9
2015 816.8
31
94.7 758.7 0
758.7 58.1
0
2,783.7
2016 858.8
33.9 95.7 807.5 0
807.5 51.3
0
2,835.0
DIRT 817.5
33.9 95.7 807.5 0
807.5 10
0
2,793.7
10.0
2017 907.4
773.5
37.5 96.4 861.1 0
861.1 46.3
0
2,881.3
DIRT 869.7
737.0
37.5 95.2 861.1 0
861.1 8.6
0
2,802.3
10.1
WILL 1,090.8 958.1
37.5 95.2 880.2 70
950.2 140.6
126.5
2,807.8
2018 959.6
820.7
40.9 98.0 920.5 0
920.5 39.1
0
2,920.4
DIRT 926.1
789.7
40.9 95.5 920.5 0
920.5 5.6
0
2,793.9
10.2
WILL 1,163.2 1,027
40.9 95.7 949.7 73.5 1,023 140.2
126.2
2,821.8
2019 1,009.8 865.8
44.7 99.3 985.1 0
985.1 24.7
0
2,945.1
DIRT 973.5
833.1
44.7 95.7 985.1 0
985.1 -11.6
0
2,796.3
WILL 1,223.9 1,083
44.7 96.2 1,024 77.2 1,101 122.9
110.6
2,834.1
2020 1,059.6 910.9
48.6 100.1 1,055 0
1,055 4.6
0
2,949.7
DIRT 1,020.4 876.5
48.6 95.3 1.055 0
1,055 -34.6
0
2,761.7
WILL 1,284.7 1,140
48.6 96.6 1,103 81.0 1,184 100.7
50.3
2,884.4
2021 1,109.4 956.5
52.6 100.3 1,123 0
1,123 -13.6
0
2,936.1
DIRT 1,067.1 920.4
52.6 94.1 1,123 0
1,123 -55.9
0
2,705.8
WILL 1,347.4 1,196.5 52.6 98.3 1,183 85.1 1,268 79.4
39.7
2,924.1
2022 1,158.5 1,001.8 56.9 99.8 1,197 0
1,197 -38.5
0
2,897.6
DIRT 1.113.1 964.0
56.9 92.2 1,197 0
1,197 -83.9
0
2,621.9
WILL 1,409.8 1,253.2 56.9 99.7 1,270 89.3 1,359 50.8
25.4
2,949.5
Source: Goss '15 Table IV.A.1. Correction: (1) Interest is recalculated at a uniform 3.4%
rate. (2) High cost estimated for the WILL are found in the low-cost projections.
3. Two errors have been detected, in the 2014 OASI Trust Fund Table IV.A.1, and at
least one more is suspected. First, the rate of interest had to be normalized at the
arbitrary net interest rate of 3.4%, thus changing future total OASI revenues, gross
increase and Year-end balance; so as not to be overly pessimistic about the Free DIRT
Act, that seems to be more accurately projected than that of the 2014 Annual Report.
Second, the high expenditure figures are misplaced in the low-cost projection. Because
they are higher than the intermediate projections these low-cost projections are used to
describe expanded SSA spending under the WILL Act. This is the first time that any
hacking has been detected in the Annual Report of the OASDI Trustees. This is very
trying on the mental health of the analyst swayed by high OASI and feudal DI estimates.
Comprehension at the moment of the publication has so far been at absolute zero, a
number that hasn’t even yet been invested by our non-Palestine Supreme Court
compensating Actuary. SSA Actuaries must first redo the DI Trust Fund Table A.2 using
Arabic numeral 0 and negative numbers. Second, from a credible starting date, the
Actuary must redo the OASI Trust Fund Table IV A.1 at an interest rate of their own
declaration. Third, they must recalculate the combined OASDI Trust Fund Table IV A.3.
Fourth, the SSA Actuaries must come to agreement with the 2.3% DI 10.1% rate of
taxation until 2018 when it changes to 2.2% DI and 10.1%, under penalty of having to
19
calculate, for the sake of comparison, half a dozen “pain in the OASDI tax rates” that
takes a week, so make sure to sit up straight on a soft cushion. Under the proposed OASI
tax rate a deficit would not appear in the OASI account until 2019. Saving the DI trust
fund, at no cost to taxpayers, by reallocating the FICA, moves the first expected deficit in
the OASI account from 2022 to 2019. Although the 10.2 OASI 2.2 DI rate seems to be a
better expression from 2018 there is no half a percent that can save both OASI and DI
from a deficit in 2019. OASI is much better able to bear the costs of a deficit than the
much smaller DI Trust Fund.
Fig. 5 OASDI Trust Funds: Current, Free DIRT and WILL 2015-2022
OASI
DI
OASDI
Year
Total
Gross Gross
Total Gross Gross
Total
Gross
Gross
Rev.
Cost Increase Rev. Cost Increase Rev.
Cost
Increase
2015 816.8
758.7 58.1
121.2 151.0 -29.8
938.0
909.7
28.3
2016 858.8
807.5 51.3
125.8 155.8 -30.0
984.6
963.3
21.3
DIRT 824.5
807.5 17
161.2 155.8 5.4
985.7
963.3
22.4
WILL 824.5
807.5 17
208.7 161.0 47.7
1,033.2 968.5
64.7
2017 907.4
861.1 46.3
133.6 161.2 -27.6
1,041
1,022
18.7
DIRT 869.7
861.1 8.6
171.3 161.2 10.1
1,041
1,022
18.7
WILL 1,090.8 950.2 140.6
222.4 167.3 55.1
1,313.2 1,117.5 195.7
2018 959.6
920.5 39.1
141.9 167.1 -25.2
1,101.5 1,087.6 13.9
DIRT 926.1
920.5 5.6
174.4 167.1 7.3
1,100.5 1,087.6 12.9
WILL 1,163.2 1,023 140.2
226.9 173.9 53
1,390.1 1,196.9 193.2
2019 1,009.8 985.1 24.7
149.7 173.6 -23.9
1,159.5 1,158.7 0.8
DIRT 973.5
985.1 -11.6
184
173.6 10.4
1,157.5 1,158.7 -1.2
WILL 1,223.9 1,101 122.9
240.2 180.9 59.3
1,464.1 1,281.9 182.2
2020 1,059.6 1,055 4.6
157.6 180.6 -23
1,217.2 1,235.6 -18.4
DIRT 1,020.4 1,055 -34.6
194.1 180.6 13.5
1,214.5 1,235.6 -31.1
WILL 1,284.7 1,184 100.7
254.0 188.2 65.8
1,538.7 1,372.2 166.5
2021 1,109.4 1,123 -13.6
165.5 189.4 -23.9
1,274.9 1,312.4 -37.5
DIRT 1,067.1 1,123 -55.9
204.2 189.4 14.8
1,271.3 1,312.4 -41.1
WILL 1,347.4 1,268 79.4
267.6 197.2 70.4
1,615
1,465.2 149.8
2022 1,158.5 1,197 -38.5
173.5 198.5 -25
1,332
1,395.5 -63.5
DIRT 1.113.1 1,197 -83.9
214.4 198.5 15.9
1,327.5 1,395.5 -68
WILL 1,409.8 1,359 50.8
281.3 206.3 75.0
1,691.1 1,565.3 125.8
Source: 2014 Annual Report of the Trustees Table IV.A1 recalculated at 3.4% interest
rate plus DI Table IV.A2 independent of the one year retardation of OASDI Table A3.
4. Even adjusting for a uniform 3.4% rate of interest, OASI high estimates defy logic.
According to math derived from 2015 Annual Report data, keeping the DI trust fund
solvent to sustain interest earnings causes OASDI a slight loss, although adjusting the
OASDI tax rate is obviously a zero sum game. The free DIRT Act alone will cause an
OASDI deficit in 2019 instead of 2020 by a margin of error less than $2 billion. The
OASDI tax reallocation equation will need to be re-addressed in 2020, if Congress wishes
20
to grant their own tax evasion immunity, despite the damage retroactive taxation might
cause the rich, if the legislative insolvency continues to rob the poor. Although everyone
today knows the need for a Without Income Limit Law (WILL). Because the OASI Trust
Fund balance is so much larger than the DI Trust Fund balance, the tax rate must be
biased to protect the DI Trust Fund against deficit. Ultimately, everyone agrees that by
2020 we are going to need to raise the rate of OASDI taxation. Why we haven’t already
abolished the maximum taxable limit on OASDI contributions is that it is more than SSA
needs to expand OASDI and SSI benefits to support ILO Holidays with Pay Convention
132 of 1970, Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention 156 of 1981 and
Maternity Protection Convention 183 of 2000. Provided that certain accounting errors
are corrected, the WILL would provide enough for the United States to produce a longterm budget surplus to honor legitimate debts and erase fraudulent ones. In summary
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (1) must abolish both Allowances and Other
Defense Civil Programs rows from OMB Table 4.1; (2) must limit military spending to
less than $500 billion since 2012 as reported by the FY 2015 defense budget, (3) Health
and Human Services and ACA spending must be limited to less than $1 trillion since
2015, at least until 2020, but possibly forever. (4) Agency spending growth, in all other
departments, must be stabilized at not more than 3% annually, aiming for 2% agency
spending growth that provides 3% income growth.
D. Having legislated the OASDI tax rate to 2.4% DI and 10.0% OASI in 2016, 2.3% DI
and 10.1% OASI I 2017 and 2.2% DI and 10.2% OASI in 2018; a new social security tax
on the rich is the only logical legal way for the United States to earn a budget surplus.
SSA must prove their independence, their ability to account, but the public is well aware
that OASDI can pay all the bills - SSI and the federal budget - taxing the rich, if OMB
would also allow the accounting errors of the Obama administration to be fixed. Why
wait? The accuracy of Social security accounting has newly been breeched by the
inability of the Actuary to adjust the OASDI tax rate in time to save the DI trust fund
from certain depletion in 2016. Even people who don't take a week to do the OASDI tax
rate math know, in terms of the Social Security fund, if it needs shoring up, currently
there’s a cap. It’s around $118,500 (2015), above which no OASDI taxes are paid. By
abolishing the OASDI Income Cap on Contributions the United States OASDI could save
and the federal budget could be balanced with up to 90% of surplus revenues going to
balance the federal budget until 2020 when 75% would. Solvency at any point in time
requires that sufficient financial resources are available to pay all scheduled benefits at
that time. Solvency is generally indicated by a positive trust fund ratio. “Sustainable
solvency” for the financing of the program under a specified set of assumptions has been
achieved when the projected trust fund ratio is positive throughout the 75-year projection
period and is either stable or rising at the end of the period. For the combined OASI and
DI Trust Funds to remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection period it is estimated:
(1) revenues would have to increase by an amount equivalent to an immediate and
permanent payroll tax rate increase of 2.83 percentage points (from its current level of
12.40 percent to 15.23 percent; a relative increase of 22.8 percent). With a WILL
OASDI may or may not need to raise taxes in 2035 and is estimated to rise to only
13.58% of the expanded taxable payroll in 2090.
21
Without Income Limit Law (WILL) Act:
To abolish the maximum taxable limit on DI contributions on January 1, 2016 and OASI
contributions January 1, 2017 and repeal Adjustment of the contribution and benefit base
Section 230 of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)§430.To require the Social Security
Administration to pay for SSI Costs beginning January 1, 2017.
To share profits in excess of social security program costs to the general fund of the U.S
Treasury on a sliding scale beginning in 2017 DI 50/50 prioritizing the $22 billion + 2%
annual growth cost of USPS, and OASI 10/90 to eliminate the federal budget deficit. In
2020 OASI would share at negotiated rates an estimated 25/75, in 2025 OASDI would
share 50/50 and by 2030 75/25 and at 2035 OASDI would take all to pay for the peak in
costs of Baby Boomer generation and might need to raise the overall OASDI tax rate.
The rich must be taxed 33 percent of their income to benefit the poor without any new
OASDI taxes for the middle and working classes, ever. Direct profit-sharing with the
General Fund from an OASDI FICA tax without maximum taxable limit must only be
allowed if it is scientifically proven, as it is in this document, that profit sharing with the
General Fund would both completely balance the federal budget, producing a federal onbudget surplus and finance SSA, including SSI and administration, with at least 10% of
surplus profit, so the OASDI trust funds and beneficiary population are guaranteed to
grow off-budget. There is no need to delay taxing the rich 33 percent of their income.
Instead of a maximum taxable limit there should be a maximum allowable on-budget
federal deficit.
Fig. 6 Without Income Limit Law OASDI 2016-2020
(in billions of dollars)
Payroll
Tax
Estimat
e
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Without Total
Income New
Limit
Rev.
Law
New Net
Max.
OMB
SSI
Rev.
Deficit
Budget
and
Deficit
Ad.
costs
853.0
1,143.0
n/a
-531
904.9
1,212.6 307.7
75.7 232
-208.8
-458
960.0
1,286.4 326.4
78.7 247.7
-222.9
-413
1,012.9 1,357.3 344.4
81.9 262.5
-236.3
-503
1,065.5 1,427.8 362.3
85.2 277.1
-249.4
-550
Source: SSA ’14 Table IV.A3 Pg. 46 Intermediate Projection
2. The WILL would expand the taxbase by 130% without increasing the overall 12.4%
rate of taxation simply by taxing the rich. The time to tax the rich is now. The federal
government needs revenues to balance the budget. It is necessary that the rich have time
to revise their budgets. Congress must not delay taxing people as rich as themselves the
adjusted 2.4% DI tax on their entire income all calendar year 2016 beginning January 1,
2016. In FY2017 Congress could begin to tax the rich the full 12.4% OASDI tax on all
of their income and SSA would pay for SSI and their own administrative costs. For
22
Congressmembers whose base wage has been $174,000 without increase since Obama
took office that comes to nearly $1,300 for the DI trust fund and $6,900 for OASDI.
E. SSA was corrupted by the $674 SSI payments without COLA from 2009-2011.
Overpayment decisions of 2011 were ruled illegal by the Social Security Caucus. An
underpayment must be made to return social security disability and state retirement
beneficiaries the benefits that were wrongfully taken from them under color of law. In no
circumstance should a person be threatened with $600-$699 a month for more than 42
months (Revelation 13:10) when their benefits automatically increase to $700 from
whence the Cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) accrues. That Commissioner left SSA
with a profound respect for the communist violence of lawyers in social office, without
exercising the UN Charter right of all peoples, including social-workers, to selfdetermination, and losing every case to the conspiracy civil rights criminals
disempowering both the Social Security Act and the Constitution with mathematically
proven mental disability that would be severe, as in grounds for dismissal, if there were
any justice in the Obama administration that killed Osama bin Laden to allow a Harvard
criminal to keep office instead of be replaced by a black regional commissioner in the
privately cased Social Security Caucus of 2011 when the optimal 2.4% rate of disability
taxation was first calculated, before being forgotten by the Actuarial 2.7% propaganda,
and remembered at a 2.3% rate in December 2014 before going up to 2.4% when
Congress failed to pass the 2.3% Free DIRT Act.
1. SSA is familiar with retroactive accounting for overpayments and underpayments
resulting from erroneous decisions under Sec. 204 of the Social Security Act
42USC(7)II§404. This law has become one of SSA's favorite methods of deprivation of
rights under color of law against beneficiary underpayment complaints and attempts at
unionization, whom they are threaten to kill or capture without any regard for the 42
month limit on such persecutions regarding the 'number of the beast' 666 (Revelation
13:10). Sec. 204(c) of the Social Security Act 42USC§404(c) logically provides the
economic law that unlike the faultless beneficiaries they rob, officials who make
wrongful overpayment decisions are not entitled to immunity like officials who find for
underpayment. Not even the stare decisis of the Supreme Court is immune from the error
they made attempting to legitimize the robbing of the one-time $200 emergency
supplement in 2009 from beneficiaries to pay any outstanding student loans, without their
permission, in classic Harvard overeducated treatment of backpay for litigious
underpayment in Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security v. Ratliff No. 08-1322 (2010).
To better understand the legal meaning of Art. I Section 9 Clause 3 of the U.S.
Constitution that states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed” that
bans retroactive laws, it may be necessary to understand both how grudgingly back taxes
are collected from tax evaders and how free and easy it is for SSA to make
underpayments to redress wrongful overpayment decisions under Sec. 204(c) of the
Social Securty Act 42USC§404(c). Tax fraud is a general term which can trigger many
different laws found in Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) and Title 18 of the United
States Code (or “USC”). The core distinguishing feature of tax fraud is a taxpayer’s
intent to defraud the government by not paying taxes the taxpayer knows are lawfully
due. Tax fraud can be punishable by both civil (i.e. money) and criminal (i.e. jail time
23
and money) penalties, with the civil violations primarily in Title 26 and the criminal
violations principally in Title 18, respectively, of the USC. For example, a taxpayer can
commit tax fraud and be punished with civil penalties under 26USC§6663, without being
charged with criminal tax evasion. (a) Imposition of penalty; If any part of any
underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return is due to fraud, there shall be added
to the tax an amount equal to 75 percent of the portion of the underpayment which is
attributable to fraud. Attempts to evade or defeat tax under 26USC§7201 occur when;
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by
this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be
guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000
($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both,
together with the costs of prosecution. Going to prison for tax evasion it obviously the
cheapest way for US constitutional officials whose starting pay is pegged to the $174,000
Congressional salary that is so dishonorable they have insanely voted down a COLA for
themselves every year since the federal budget was retroactively defrauded in 2009. It
could be said that tax evasion became law on October 1, 2015 when SSA conspired with
Congress to evade the Free DIRT Act 2.3% DI and the new tax rate that must be
retroactively accounted for in calendar year 2016 is 2.4% DI and 10.0% OASI.
G. Having treated SSA's looming felony conviction regarding the depletion of the DI
trust fund, it is necessary to treat upon the misdemeanor “no COLA” civil rights crime of
deprivation of relief benefits to prevent any reenactment of Astrue's notorious Three
Years Without COLA. Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) peg to the CPI, or even the
Elderly CPI, has too badly abused the General Fund with SSI $674 (2009-2011) for three
years without COLA, that henceforth no one shall have to suffer the cruel and unusual
punishment or treatment of $600-$699 for more than 42 months (Revelation 13:10) when
benefits automatically increase to $700, and all beneficiaries and government workers
would get a 3% annual COLA. Computation of Benefits to the Social Security Act at
Section 215(i) as codified at 42USC(7)§415(i) has been so badly abused it must be
amended. Deprivation of COLA constitutes deprivation of relief benefits against all
beneficiaries. Section 215(i)(1)(F) of the Social Security Act becomes Section
215(i)(1)(A). The CPI linkage is not skillfully written and the meaningless labor statistic
has not only been hacked to justify cruel and unusual punishment or treatment regarding
the number of the beast but none of the “no COLA” decisions followed the letter of the
law. The fall of 2015 no COLA decision failed to be justified because the combined
OASDI trust fund has a trust fund ratio, somewhere between 295% and 300%, is
considerably over 20%, and the wrongly sampled CPI did not take into consideration the
much higher price of Apple computers people are saving for after so many of their senile
Windows computers died from deleted restore points in their pursuit of sentencing the
entire year of 2016 to their jail term. It is not an excuse that SSA can't do the OASI and
DI trust fund tax rate calculus. The amended text, in its entirety to the end of Section
215(i) as codified at 42USC(7)§415(i) as it pertain to the Computation of Benefits, states;
(i) Cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) increases in benefits (1) for the purposes of this
section (A) the term "OASDI fund ratio", with respect to any calendar year, means the
ratio of - (i) the combined balance in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
24
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund as of the beginning of such year,
including the taxes transferred under section 401(a) of this title on the first day of such
year and reduced by the outstanding amount of any loan (including interest thereon)
theretofore made to either such Fund from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
under section 401(l) of this title, to (ii) the total amount which (as estimated by the
Commissioner of Social Security) will be paid from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund during such
calendar year for all purposes authorized by section 401 of this title (other than payments
of interest on, or repayments of, loans from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
under section 401(l) of this title), but excluding any transfer payments between such trust
funds and reducing the amount of any transfers to the Railroad Retirement Account by
the amount of any transfers into either such trust fund from that Account; in any calendar
year for which the OASDI fund ratio is more than 20.0 percent. (B) provided there is a
combined trust fund ratio greater than 20.0 percent (i) If the Consumer Price Index for the
Elderly exceeds for the previous year exceeds 3% retirees shall receive a percentage
increase equal to the CPI for the Elderly, for the previous year, or (ii) if the Consumer
Price Index for the previous year exceeds 3% the disabled shall receive a percentage
increase equal to the CPI for the previous year. (C) If the Commissioner of Social
Security determines that a calendar year is also a cost-of-living computation year, the
Commissioner shall publish a determination that a benefit increase is resultantly required
and the percentage thereof. (D) In all normal years since the 1980s inflation has been
around 3% and therefore the COLA shall be 3%.
Be it enacted in the House and Senate Assembled
2. The free DIRT Act will cause an OASDI deficit in 2019 instead of 2020 by a margin
of error less than $2 billion. The OASDI tax reallocation equation will need to be readdressed in 2020. There must be more scientific ways to calculate optimal rates other
than dire necessity of the disability beneficiary. Because the OASI Trust Fund balance is
so much larger than the DI Trust Fund balance, the tax rate must be biased to protect the
DI Trust Fund against deficit. Ultimately, everyone agrees that by 2020 we are going to
need to raise the rate of OASDI taxation. Why we haven’t already abolished the
maximum taxable limit on OASDI contributions is probably that it is more than SSA
demands. SSA could expand OASDI and SSI benefits in support of ILO Holidays with
Pay Convention 132 of 1970, Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention 156 of
1981 and Maternity Protection Convention 183 of 2000.At this time the projected OASDI
surplus from a WILL is not enough to satisfy official demands regarding the federal
deficit. However, it is enough for a disability beneficiary to sustainably balance the
federal budget, if only the Allowances and Other Defense Civil Programs rows were
abolished from OMB Table 4.1; military spending was limited to less than $500 billion
and Health and Human Services spending to less than $1 trillion, at least until 2020.
Agency spending growth, in all other departments, is limited to no more than 3%
annually, aiming for 2% agency growth that provides 3% income growth. Agencies that
benefit the poor may grow more rapidly, or may slow down growth to 2% or even zero in
dire emergency, but welfare benefits must never go down.
25
H. The trend in the United States is an increasing income gap between the rich and the
poor both domestically and globally. In 2003 the top 1 percent of households owned 57.5
percent of corporate wealth, up from 53.4 percent the year before. The top group’s share
of corporate wealth has grown by half since 1991, when it was 38.7 percent. In 2003,
incomes in the top 1 percent of households ranged from $237,000 to several billion
dollars. For every group below the top 1 percent, shares of corporate wealth have
declined since 1991. These declines ranged from 12.7 percent for those on the 96th to
99th rungs on the income ladder to 57 percent for the poorest fifth of Americans, who
made less than $16,300 and together owned 0.6 percent of corporate wealth in 2003,
down from 1.4 percent in 1991. There appears to be a relationship between unusually
high per capita income and high numbers of people living below the poverty line. For
instance, the District of Columbia claims both the highest per capita income in the nation
and the highest percentage of people living below the poverty line at 20.2 percent and
highest rate of incarceration in the world at 1,500 per 100,000 in 2005. Long-term capital
gains were taxed at 28 percent until 1997, and at 20 percent until 2003, when rates were
cut to 15 percent. The top rate on dividends was cut to 15 percent from 35 percent that
year. The rich must be taxed.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2004, Report P60, n. 229, Tables B-1 and B-2, pp. 46-57.
1. As America slipped into economic depression following the Crash of 1929,
unemployment exceeded 25% and about 10,000 banks failed. The Gross National
Product declined from $105 billion in 1929 to only $55 billion in 1932. In 1934 over half
of the elderly in America lacked sufficient income to be self-supporting. The first social
security identification cards were issued in 1936. Taxes were collected for the first time
in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month.
26
Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. In the past 50 years, the US
has been largely successful at reducing the poverty rate. In the late 1950s, the poverty
rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers
declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1%, or 22.9 million
individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and
12.6%, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor
individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2%. For the next ten years, the
poverty rate remained above 12.8%, increasing to 15.1%, or 39.3 million individuals, by
1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. Since
then, it has risen each year. In 2005 it was estimated that 35 million people live below
the poverty line, 13.2% of the population. The U.S. Census Bureau assessed the impact
of the Great Recession and found income inequality has skyrocketed. The full impact of
the recession of 2008 on poverty is not yet known. The first year of the Great Recession
dealt a sharp blow to middle-class families. In the 1970s the top 1% only made
something like 8% of total income. In the 1980s it rose to 10 to 14%. In the late 1990s it
was 15% to 19%. In 2005 it passed 21%. And in 2007 the top 1% received 23% of all
the income earned in the country. 80% of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 has
gone to the top 1%. The top one percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90%. The
wealthiest 400 Americans now earn an average of $345 million a year and pay an
effective tax rate of 16.6%, on average. In 2003 the top 1 percent of households owned
57.5% of corporate wealth, up from 53.4% the year before, up 200% since 1991, when it
was 38.7% in 1991. In 2003, incomes in the top 1 percent of households ranged from
$237,000 to several billion dollars. During the eight years of President Bush, the
wealthiest 400 American families saw their income more than double while their income
tax rates dropped almost in half from 1995 to 2007. In 2005 one out of every four large
corporations in the US paid no federal income tax on revenues of $1.1 trillion. From
1998 to 2005, two out of every three corporations paid no federal income taxes. Worse
poverty seems to increasing.
2. National poverty is measured as the number of people who live below the poverty line,
below which a person would be expected to suffer from hunger as the result of the market
prices of room and board. Unemployment, the number of people actively looking for
work, is also a significant indicator of national poverty, however the real employment
figures which indicate the percentage of the population that is actually employed is less
arbitrary. In 2005 it was estimated that 35-37 million people lived below the poverty line
in the USA, 12.6-13.2% of the population, 4.7% were unemployed with a labor force
participation rate of 66%. Census data shows that in 2010, 46.2 million Americans lived
below the poverty line, and 63 million lived below 130% of the poverty line, SNAP’s
gross income limit. Since the economic recession the number of people living below the
poverty has increased 13.6%. In 2005 37 million, 13.2% of the population lived below
the poverty line and in 2010 this number rose to 46.3 million, 15.1% of the population.
Fig. 8: Poverty Thresholds, Weighted Average, Annual and Monthly 2004, 2011
Family
Type
Family Type Annual
Monthly
Family
Type
Annual
Monthly
27
Single
Individual
Single
Parent
Under 65
years
$ 9,827
$ 819
1 person
$11,170 $930
65 years &
older
$ 9,060
$ 756
2 people
$15,130 $1,260
One child
$ 13,020 $ 1,085
3 people
$19,090 $1,590
Two
children
$ 15,219
$ 1,268
4 people
$23,050 $1,920
No children
$ 12,649 $ 1,054
5 people
$27,010 $2,250
One child
$ 15,205 $ 1,267
6 people
$30,970 $2,580
$ 1,596
7 people
$34,930 $2,910
$ 1,879
8 people
$38,890 $3,240
Two Adults Two
children
$ 19,157
Three
children
$ 22,543
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2004, Report P60, n. 229, p. 45. U.S. Census Bureau;
Preliminary Estimates of Weighted Average Poverty Thresholds for 2011
I. There is an emerging view that poverty constitutes a denial or non-fulfillment of human
rights. The capability approach defines poverty as the absence or inadequate realization
of certain basic freedoms, such as the freedoms to avoid hunger, disease, illiteracy, and so
on. Wealth by itself does not promote democracy if the wealth is controlled by the state
or small ruling elite. A resource-rich country can have a relatively high per capita gross
domestic product, but if its natural wealth is centrally held and does not nurture an
autonomous middle class that earns its wealth independently of the state, the prospects
for political pluralism, civil liberties, and democracy are probably no better than in a poor
country without resources. For wealth to cultivate the soil for democracy it must be
produced, retained, and controlled by a broad base of society, and for wealth to be created
in that manner, an economy must be relatively open and free. The reason why the
conception of poverty is concerned with basic freedoms is that these are recognized as
being fundamentally valuable for minimal human dignity. The concern for human dignity
also motivates the human rights approach, which postulates that people have inalienable
rights to these freedoms. Most societies want to enjoy a steadily rising standard of living
while simultaneously protecting their members’ current social and economic status.
Economic growth is the pre-requisite for the former, while social security programs are a
prime mechanism for achieving the latter. In his 1941 State of the Union Speech,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt articulated that “people everywhere in the world have a right
to enjoy the Four Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from
Want and Freedom from Fear”.
1. There is no denying that the United States needs to ratify the International Labor
Organization (ILO) Holidays with Pay Convention (Convention 132) of 1970; Workers
with Family Responsibilities (Convention 156) of 1981, and Maternity Protection
(Convention 183) of 2000. The most important demographic difference between 1984
28
and 1999 was the change in marital status among the total U.S. population. In 1990 the
number of marriages ending in divorce stood at 50%. The number of Temporary
Assistance for NF beneficiaries has declined dramatically from a high of nearly 14.2
million in 1993 to little less than 5 million in 2003 after the Personal Responsibility and
World Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 coerced families with
children to work. People are waiting longer before marriage, the number of people who
never marry has increased, and marriages are more likely to end in divorce. Today the
divorce rate remains stable at around 40 percent of marriages. In 2003 there were 12.9
million children living in poverty, or 17.6% of the under-18 population. That was an
increase of about 800,000 from 2002, when 16.7% of all children were in poverty. Of
18-to-64-year olds 20.5 million, 11.1% were poor and of people 65 and older 3.6 million,
10.1% were poor. In 2011 an estimated 1 in 4 US children, 21%, were growing up in
poverty, the highest rate in the industrialized world. In Finland, the number is about
2.8%; Norway, 3.4%; Sweden, maybe 4.2%, Switzerland, 6.8%, Netherlands in second
place at 9.8 percent.
2. In 2004 in the U.S. an estimated 14 million parents had custody of 21.6 million
children under 21 years of age while the other parent lived somewhere else. 28% of
children live in single parent household as the result of the dramatic increase in divorce
rate to 50% of all marriages in the 1990s. In 1999 there were 2.2 million marriages and
1.1 million divorces. Only 10% of children living with both parents were below the
poverty line whereas 40% living with only one parent were below the poverty line.
Children living only with their mothers were twice as likely to live in poverty as those
living only with their fathers. In 2001, 6.9 million custodial parents were due an average
of $5,000. An aggregate of $34.9 billion of payments were due and about $21.9 billion
(62.6%) were received, averaging $3,200 per custodial-parent family, another $900
million were volunteered by parents without current awards or agreements. Average
income for a family of four in the overall U.S. population, when adjusted for inflation and
put into 1999 dollars, increased from about $50,000 in 1984 to $60,000 in 1999. Real
median household income in the United States rose by 1.1 percent between 2004 and
2005, reaching $46,326. The overall U.S. home ownership rate increased slightly, from
about 64 percent in 1984 to about 67 percent in 1999. There were 7.7 million families in
poverty in 2005, statistically unchanged from 2004. The poverty rate for families
declined from 10.2 percent in 2004 to 9.9 percent in 2005.
3. The poverty rate decreased for non-Hispanic whites (8.3 percent in 2005, down from
8.7 percent in 2004). The poverty rate for all blacks and Hispanics remained near 30%
during the 1980s and mid-1990s. Thereafter it began to fall. In 2000, the rate for blacks
dropped to 22.1-24.9% and for Hispanics to 21.2 percent- the lowest rate for both groups
since the United States began measuring poverty. At the same time the poverty rate
increased for Asians (11.1 percent in 2005, up from 9.8 percent in 2004). For White
families in America, the average median net worth is $87,000. For Hispanic families, it
is $8,000. For African-American families, it is $5,000. That is including home equity, or
home ownership. Without home ownership, the net worth for African-American families
falls to $1,000. In 1979, the average central city poverty rate was 15.7%, at its highest
point, in 1993, it was 21.5%, by 2001 it was 16.5%, but was still over twice the rate for
29
the suburbs, 8.2%. Poverty in rural areas is not negligible either; in 2001, 14.2% of
people living outside metropolitan areas were poor. Among the states, New Mexico had
the largest percentage of individuals in poverty; from 1998 to 2000 it was 19.3%.
Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, and New Hampshire had the lowest poverty
rates among states—below 8% from 1998 to 2000.
Fig. 9: State Poverty and Unemployment Rates 2004 & 2010
State Law
Population
Per
capita
Federal
2004
2010
Alabama
2004
2010
Alaska
2004
2010
Arizona
2004
2010
Arkansas
2004
2010
California
2004
2010
Colorado
2004
2010
Connecticut
2004
2010
Delaware
2004
2010
District of
Columbia
2004
2010
Florida
2004
2010
Number of
poor
%
Poor
Unemployed
295,882,240
$21,587 33,899,812 12.4%
5.5%
4,500,752
$39,937 46,215,956 15.3%
$18,189
698,097
16.1%
9.6%
5.6%
4,779,736
648,818
$33,504
$22,660
883,078
57,602
18.9
9.4%
9.3%
7.5%
710,231
5,580,811
$44,233
$20,275
76,850
698,669
11.0%
13.9%
7.9%
5.0%
6,392,017
2,725,714
$34,539
$16,904
1,105,075
411,777
17.6%
15.8%
10.0%
5.7%
2,915,918
35,484,453
$32,805
$22,711
529,710
4,706,130
18.7%
14.2%
7.8%
6.2%
37,253,956
4,550,688
$42,514
$24,049
5,785,036
388,952
15.8%
9.3%
12.4%
5.5%
5,029,196
3,483,372
$42,295
$28,766
651,744
259,514
13.2%
7.9%
8.8%
4.9%
3,574,097
817,491
$54,239
$23,305
348,881
69,901
10.1%
9.2%
9.1%
4.1%
897,934
563,384
$40,097
$28,659
104,456
109,500
11.9
20.2%
601,723
17,019,068
$70,710
$21,557
107,279
1,952,629
18.8%
12.5%
9.8%
4.8%
18,801,310
$38,210
3,048,621
16.5%
11.4%
308,745,538
8.3%
30
Georgia
2004
2010
Hawaii
2004
2010
Idaho
2004
2010
Illinois
2004
2010
Indiana
2004
2010
Iowa
2004
2010
Kansas
2004
2010
Kentucky
2004
2010
Louisiana
2004
2010
Maine
2004
2010
Maryland
2004
2010
Massachusetts
2004
2010
Michigan
2004
2010
Minnesota
2004
2010
Mississippi
2004
2010
8,684,715
$21,154
1,033,793
13%
4.6%
9,687,653
1,257,608
$34,747
$21,525
1,698,004
126,154
18.0%
10.7%
10.0%
3.3%
1,360,301
1,366,332
$41,550
$17,841
146,923
148,732
11.1%
11.8%
6.6%
4.7%
1,567,582
12,653,544
$31,897
$23,104
244,009
1,291,958
15.8%
10.7%
9.3%
6.2%
12,830,632
6,195,643
$42,040
$20,397
1,732,129
559,484
13.8%
9.5%
10.3%
5.2%
6,483,802
2,944,062
$33,981
$19,674
960,402
258,008
15.3%
9.1%
10.3%
4.8%
3,046,355
2,723,507
$38,039
$20,506
368,965
257,829
12.5%
9.9%
6.1%
5.5%
2,853,118
4,117,827
$38,977
$18,093
374,677
621,096
13.5%
15.8%
7.0%
5.3%
4,339,367
4,496,334
$32,316
$16,912
796,208
851,113
18.9%
19.6%
10.3%
5.7%
4,533,372
1,305,728
$37,039
$19,533
831,512
135,501
18.8%
10.9%
7.5%
4.6%
1,328,361
5,508,909
$36,763
$25,614
169,076
438,676
13.1%
8.5%
7.9%
4.2%
5,773,552
6,433,422
$49,023
$25,952
559,937
573,421
9.9%
9.3%
7.4%
5.1%
6,547,629
10,079,985
$51,304
$22,168
724,845
1,021,605
11.4%
10.5%
8.4%
7.1%
9,883,640
5,059,375
$34,714
$23,198
1,614,110
380,476
16.7%
7.9%
12.6%
4.7%
5,303,925
2,881,281
$42,798
$15,853
595,485
548,079
11.5%
19.9%
7.3%
6.2%
2,967,297
$31,071
644,156
22.4%
10.3%
31
Missouri
2004
2010
Montana
2004
2010
Nebraska
2004
2010
Nevada
2004
2010
New
Hampshire
2004
2010
New Jersey
2004
2010
New Mexico
2004
2010
New York
2004
2010
North
Carolina 2004
2010
North Dakota
2004
2010
Ohio 2004
2010
Oklahoma
2004
2010
Oregon 2004
2010
Pennsylvania
2004
2010
Rhode Island
2004
2010
South
5,704,484
$19,936
637,891
11.7%
5.7%
5,988,927
917,621
$36,799
$17,151
888,471
128,355
15.3%
14.6%
9.5%
4.4%
989,415
1,739,291
$35,053
$19,613
146,257
161,269
15.2%
9.7%
7.2%
3.8%
1,826,341
2,241,154
$39,534
$21,989
224,530
205,685
12.6%
10.5%
4.6%
4.3%
2,700,551
1,287,687
$36,938
$23,844
393,605
78,530
14.8%
6.5%
14.9%
3.8%
1,316,470
8,638,396
$43,698
$27,006
110,096
699,668
8.6%
8.5%
6.0%
4.8%
8,791,894
1,874,614
$51,139
$17,261
883,643
328,933
10.2%
18.4%
9.5%
5.7%
2,059,179
19,190,115
$33,342
$23,389
400,779
2,692,202
19.8%
14.6%
8.4%
5.8%
19,378,102
8,407,248
$48,596
$20,307
2,840,564
958,667
15.0%
12.3%
8.6%
5.5%
9,535,483
633,837
$35,007
$17,769
1,618,597
73,457
17.4%
11.9%
10.5%
3.4%
672,591
11,435,798
11,536,504
3,511,532
$42,890
$21,003
$36,162
$17,646
81,176
1,170,698
1,771,404
491,235
12.5%
10.6%
15.8%
14.7%
3.9%
6.1%
10.1%
4.8%
3,751,351
3,559,596
3,831,074
12,365,455
$35,389
$20,940
$36,317
$20,880
613,067
388,740
596,649
1,304,117
16.8%
11.6%
15.8%
11%
7.0%
7.4%
10.8%
5.5%
12,702,379
1,076,164
$40,604
$21,688
1,645,097
120,548
13.4%
11.9%
8.7%
5.2%
1,052,567
4,147,152
$41,995
$18,795
143,132
547,869
14.1%
14.1%
11.6%
6.8%
32
Carolina 2004
2010
4,625,364 $32,462
813,939
18.1% 11.0%
South Dakota
764,309
$17,562
95,900
13.2%
3.5%
2004
2010
814,180
$39,519
114,798
14.6%
4.7%
Tennessee
5,841,748 $19,393
746,789
13.5%
5.4%
2004
2010
6,346,105 $34,921 1,102,643 17.8%
9.6%
Texas 2004
22,118,509 $19,617 3,117,609 15.4%
6.1%
2010
25,145,561 $37,747 4,411,273 17.9%
8.1%
Utah 2004
2,351,467 $18,185
206,328
9.4%
5.2%
2010
2,763,885 $32,517
362,689
13.3%
7.7%
Vermont
619,107
$20,625
55,506
9.4%
3.7%
2004
2010
625,741
$40,134
74,720
12.4%
6.2%
Virginia 2004
7,386,330 $23,975
656,641
9.6%
3.7%
2010
8,001,024 $44,267
865,746
11.1%
6.9%
Washington
6,131,445 $22,973
612,370
10.6%
6.2%
2004
2010
6,724,540 $42,589
890,251
13.5%
9.5%
West Virginia 1,810,354 $16,477
315,794
17.9%
5.3%
2004
2010
1,852,994 $32,042
327,459
18.2%
8.9%
Wisconsin
5,472,299 $21,271
451,538
8.7%
4.9%
2004
2010
5,686,986 $38,225
731,564
13.2%
8.3%
Wyoming
501,242
$19,134
54,777
11.4%
3.9%
2004
2010
563,626
$44,961
62,636
11.4%
7.0%
Source: , U.S. Census; Table 1 Population Change for the United States 2000-2010.
Bureau of Economic Analyses Per Capita 2008-2010, U.S. Census Bureau Personal
Income All Ages in Poverty 2010, National Conference of State Legislatures State
Unemployment 2010
4. The poverty rates of persons age 65 and over dropped from 35.1 percent in 1959 to 9.1
percent in 2012, according to the official poverty measure. The median income for
elderly households rose from $23,124 in 1960 to $34,832 in 2013. More than 75 percent
of the income going to the bottom 60 percent of senior households – those with than
$35,393 in income in 2012 – comes from Social Security. Social Security is also, by far,
the most important income source going to the 20 percent of senior households with
incomes between $35,493 and $63,648. An uptick since the mid-1990s in the labor force
participation of seniors, especially those age 65 to 75. Women comprise 56 percent of
Social Security beneficiaries age 62 and over, and almost 67 percent of beneficiaries age
85 and older. Single women age 65 and older received 50.4 percent of their income from
Social Security, compared to 35.9 percent of single men and 32 percent for elderly
couples. Without Social Security the poverty rate in older women would increase from
33
the 11 percent to 48 percent. While the poverty rate for a married couple over the age of
65 is only 5.4 percent, the poverty rate for a woman living alone is 18.9 percent. In 2012
among beneficiary households with at least one person age 65 or over, Social Security
provides at least 90 percent of the income for 46 percent of African Americans, 53
percent of Latinos, and 44 percent of Asians. Without Social Security, the poverty rate
among African American seniors would triple, from 17 to 50 percent, and the poverty
rate among Hispanic American senior would rise from 19 to 50 percent.
5. The vast majority of Social Security retirees in 2009 – 2 million out of 2.7 million –
accepted permanently reduced benefits before reaching the full retirement age of 66.
Nearly half, 1.3 million, accepted these benefits at age 62, when benefit reductions are
the largest. Twenty-seven percent of all workers age 60 to 61 report a “work-limiting
health condition”, with higher percentages reported for minority workers 36.5 percent of
African Americans and 31.5 percent of Latinos. Moreover, 45 percent of workers age 58
and older work in jobs that are either physically demanding or have other difficult
working conditions. Social Security’s companion program, Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) plays an important role in assisting the most low-income elderly persons.
In 2014, SSI provided a federal income guarantee of up to $721 a month for individuals
and $1,082 for couples to roughly 8.4 million low-income, severely disabled, blind or
aged (65 and over) people. Adjusted for inflation, out-of-pocket expenditures of seniors
grew from $3,865 in 1992 to $5,197 in 2010, consuming more than one-third, or 37
percent of the average Social Security benefit by 2010. Since 1984, up to 50 percent of
Social Security benefits have been counted as taxable income for individuals with
incomes in excess of $25,000; $32,000 for couples. Since 1993, additionally, up to 85
percent of Social Security benefits have been taxed for some individuals with incomes in
excess of $34,000; $44,000 for couples.
6. The National Alliance for Caregiving estimates that 65.7 million people provides
unpaid care to functionally disabled children or adults in the course of 2009. In any
given week of 2009, AARP’s Public Policy Institute reports that 42.1 million people age
18 or older provides an average of 18.4 hours of care to functionally disabled adults and
that 61.6 million family caregivers provides such care at some point in 2009.
Subsequently caregiving subsidies suffered massive cuts. Caregivers are predominantly
females (66%). They are 48 years of age, on average. One-third take care of two or
more people (34%). A large majority…provide care for a relative (86%), with over onethird taking are of a parent (36%). One in seven care for their own child (14%).
Caregivers have been in their role for an average of 4.6 years, with three in ten having
given care to their loved one for five years or more (31%.)…Seven in ten caregivers take
care of someone 50 years of age or older, 14% take care of an adult age 18 to 49, while
14% take are of a child under the age of 18. Caregiving is depressing.
J. In 1941, Roosevelt's State of the Union address advanced “four freedoms”: In the
future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon
four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression –
everywhere in the world. The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in
34
his own way – everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want – which,
translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every
nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world. The fourth
is freedom from fear – which, translated into world terms, means worldwide reduction of
armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a
position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor – anywhere in the
world. In his state of the Union address of 1944, Roosevelt expanded on the “freedom
from want” theme by outlining what he called a Second Bill of Rights under which a new
basis of security and prosperity can be established for all – regardless of station, race, or
creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or
shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food
and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a
return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every
businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair
competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family
to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age,
sickness, accident and unemployment; The right to a good education.
1. Inseparable from the goals projected by the historic 1963 March on Washington for
Jobs and Freedom, A Freedom Budget for All Americans was advanced in 1966 by A.
Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, and Martin Luther King Jr., central leaders of the
activist wing of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and '60s. It promised the full and
final triumph of the civil rights movement. This was to be achieved by going beyond
civil rights, linking the goal of racial justice for African-Americans with the goal of
economic justice for Americans. The Freedom budget proposal projected the elimination
of poverty within a ten-year period, the creation of full employment and decent housing,
health care, and education for all people in our society as a matter of right. The Freedom
Budget was an 84- page document, complete with statistics, charts graphs, and a
discussion of methodology. A popularized 20-page summary was prepared that
contained an introduction by Martin Luther King Jr. who believed that “the ultimate
answer tot he Negroes' economic dilemma will be found in a massive federal program for
all the poor along the lines of A. Philip Randolph's Freedom Budget, a kind of Marshall
Plan for the disadvantaged”. At a special conference launching the Freedom budget, the
program was summarized as follows: Restore and maintain full employment. Guarantee
a minimum adequate income to all who cannot be so employed. Assure adequate income
for all employed. Wipe out slum ghettoes and provide a decent home for every American
family. Provide modern medical care for all Americans. Provide educational
opportunities for all within the limits of their ambition, ability and means. Wipe out
other examples of neglect, including air and water pollution, transportation snarls, and
inadequate use of our great natural resources. Correlate full employment with sustained
production and economic growth. The popularized 20- page version was prepared for
even wider distribution. Of the longer version, 50,000 copies were distributed by early
1967, along with 70,000 copies of the more popular version; by the beginning of 1968 the
respective figures were 85,000 and 100,000. Speaking tours were developed.
Keyserling debated conservative Milton Friedman, the icon of laissez-faire capitalist
35
economics, drawing a crowd of 3,000 to UCLA on March 4, 1967, as part of his wing to
promote the Freedom Budget at about twenty different colleges and universities around
the country. In an introduction to a Spanish-language edition of the popularized twentypage edition of the Freedom Budget, Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers
proclaimed: “Now is the time in the history of the United States that the poor people –
Mexican-Americans, Negro or white, the prisoners of poverty – must organize to
overcome and eradicate injustice, prejudice and the inhumanity of man to man”.
2. The Freedom Budget was conceived and constructed in a straight-forward manner. It
operated on the principle that for the political freedoms demanded by the civil rights
movement to be realized fully, there must also be freedom from economic want and
insecurity. Those who suffer poverty, for example, cannot be free, even if they have the
right to vote or if employers cannot discriminate against them because of their race. The
Freedom Budget provides a way for the society to eliminate economic want and
insecurity and thus make real the political freedoms that were the initial goals of the
“struggle” for civil rights. A budget consists of two parts: expenditures and revenues.
Let's look at each one in turn. Obviously, the United States would have to spend more
money to eliminate poverty. Given that we have a capitalist economy, it would be
foolish to imagine that private businesses might take it upon themselves to make a budget
to eliminate poverty. There are economist who believe that the interactions of selfinterested business owners, customers and workers will generate an optimal social
outcome. However, most do not, and few did in the early 1960s. The Freedom Budget
understood that the market fails when it comes to inadequate incomes, unemployment,
good schools, and a host of related social problems. Only governments can tackle such
issues, and though state and local governments can tackle such issues, and though state
and local governments can lend a hand, only the federal government is equipped, through
its powers to levy taxes, issue bonds, and print money, to solve them. Therefore, the
Freedom Budget put the responsibility for ensuring that no one suffered from want and
economic insecurity on the federal government. The budget envisioned was that of the
national government. The budget recommended substantial increases in the funding of
Social Security, so that older men and women could live without deprivation and those
disabled, physically or mentally, must also be guaranteed income, so that they, too, can
survive without deprivation.
3. The Freedom Budget provides seven basic objectives, which taken together will
achieve this great goal within 10 years. They are: (1) to provide full employment for all
who are willing and able to work, including those who need education or training to make
them willing and able. (2) To assure decent and adequate wages to all who work. (3) To
assure a decent standard of living to those who cannot or should not work. (4) To wipe
out slum ghettoes and provide decent homes for all Americans. (5) To provide decent
medical care and adequate educational opportunities to all Americans, at a cost they can
afford. (6) To purify our air and water and develop our transportation and natural
resources on a scale suitable to our growing needs. (7) To unite sustained full
employment with sustained full production and high economic growth.
36
4. Martin Luther King Jr. once explained that “power at its best is love implementing the
demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands
against love”. The Freedom budget was defeated. Full employment was never achieved,
income inequality skyrocketed and there is no universal health insurance. The reason
given for the defeat of the Freedom Budget is the weakness contained in the 'Strategy' of
which the Freedom Budget. The Jim Crow system, politically vulnerable as it was, and
standing in clear violation of the intentions of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution, was the obvious first target for a movement dedicated to the
elimination of racism in the United States. The Freedom Budget 'Strategy' projected (1) a
mass struggle against segregation and second-class citizenship; and (2) tackling issues of
economic justice, channeling the struggle against the Jim Crow system into an even more
massive struggle (through a coming together of the anti-racist and labor movements) for
jobs for all, an end to poverty, and democratic regulation of the economy, which would
involve a transition from capitalism to socialism. In its failure to unanimously condemn
the Vietnam war with Dr. King, the 'strategy' crossed coalition lines using communist
language regarding mass 'struggle' that might be construed as incitement to ethnic
violence and prohibited under law under Art. 20 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights by who of all non-independent parties – the Democratic party.
Specifically, the Freedom Budget was done in a time of such prosperity that broad
coalitions of politicians could agree upon the math, that is not preserved as a historical
fact, and probably was hugely erroneous, and as now noted technically flawed in the
classic fatal clause of seemingly well-meant Democratic legislation. The problem with
the Freedom Budget was that the Strategy brought incitement to 'struggle' to the forefront
of the Freedom budget that Dr. King furthermore sabotaged with his violent rhetoric to
'wipe out slum ghettoes'. Dr. King made a grave 'Democratic' style technical error in
regards to 'wiping out the ghettoes' that betrayed the right of his American people to
adequate housing, and even more important free rural camping, to the contempt of the
building inspector. Maybe Martin Luther and his wife, Corretta Scott King would be
alive today, despite the extraordinary amount of atherosclerosis found in his arteries
during autopsy, if he, and his hordes of African-American ghetto dwellers, had bought
new camping gear and some vegetables, instead of paying to stay in a motel. After a
$2,000 claim for compensation for forcible relocation under color of “housing authority”,
this edition abolishes and repeals the section on the 'inspection of housing units', that
should never have been considered healthy or welfare, or anything but invasive and
destructive of rights, and replaces it with 'Camping' in Section 106.
5. The Freedom Budget was proposed at a time when unemployment rates were falling.
President Johnson's Great Society spending programs and the war in Vietnam, along with
sharp tax cuts, helped drive unemployment down from 5.2 percent in 1964 to 3.5 percent
in 1969. Between 1970 and 1997, the unemployment rate fell below 5 percent. A severe
recession in the early 1980s drove the rate up to 9.7 and 9.6 percent in 1982 and 1983. In
2010, according to U.S. census data, the richest 20 percent of all households received
50.2 percent of total household income and the poorest 20 percent got 3.3 percent,
representing a gain of 13.8 percent of the most affluent households and a loss of 21.4
percent for the least affluent since 1980. In 1947, the ratio of median black family
income to white family income was 51.1 percent. In 2010, it was 61.0 percent, less than
37
the ratio of 61.3 percent in 1967. In 2010, the median net worth- all assets, including
homes, minus all debts) of black households (a household I snot necessarily a family was
$4,900, 5 percent of that for whites, for whom it was $97,000. The Freedom Budget
made a case for a guaranteed income. The budget's time frame was ten years – 1966 to
1975. Between 1965 and 1968 growth rats were assumed to be higher than the years
between 1968 and 1975. Thus is because in the first year so the plan, unemployment
would be falling, so that output would rise as formerly unproductive ( in the sense of not
producing goods and services) men and women were put to work. Once full employment
was achieved and thereafter maintained, output would grow as a result of new
(net)entrants into the labor force and increases in productivity. Allowing for some
reduction in the length of the workweek, consistent with then current trends, the budget
assumed an annual GDP growth rate of between 4.5 and 5.0 percent for the last six year
and an unspecified higher rate for the first four years. These numbers assumed, therefore,
that the economy would double in size in about fourteen to sixteen years. The official
poverty rate fell sharply from 1959 – the first year for which data are available – until
1973 – roughly when the post-Second World War long wave of prosperity and growth
ended. The national incidence of poverty then rose gradually from a low of 11.1 percent
in 1973 to more than 15 percent today; only broken by a short period of decline during
the second half of the 1990s, when it fell back, to what it had been in 1973.
6. The Great Recession brought sharp increases in the incidence of poverty, and rates
continued to rise through 2011. Poverty now afflicts more than 46 million people.
Worse yet the share of the poor in deep poverty – defined as one-half the official poverty
level of income – has risen steadily since the mid-1970s. In 1975, about 30 percent of the
poor were in deep poverty; in 2010 44.3 percent were. In 2010, the official poverty
income for a family of four was $22,314 (this is a pre-tax number). So, those in deep
poverty must survive, in a family of four, on $11,157. More than 20 million persons live
in what can only be described as destitution. Child poverty is a special curse, and the US
rates of unconscionably high. Using the U.S. government's official definition of poverty,
22.0 percent of children under eighteen and 25.8 percent under six live in poverty in the
richest country on earth. In fact, the United States has far and away the higher incidence
of child poverty of any of the world's wealthy, developed nations. Twenty-eight percent
of all jobs pay a wage that would not, with full-time, year-round labor, support a family
of four at the official poverty level of income. This is a wage rate of $11.06 per hour in
2011. Recently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in conjunction with the U.S. Census
Bureau developed a Supplemental Poverty Measure, which was released in 2011, based
on a basket of goods and services, rather than merely food, that showed the incidence of
poverty is somewhat higher than the official measure. In 2010, the official incidence of
poverty was 15.2 percent, while it was 16 percent using the Supplemental Measure. In
2010, the poverty rate for the elderly was 9 percent officially but 15.9 percent with the
new definition. The increase is due primarily to the much higher medical costs borne by
older men and women.
§72 Right to Social Security
38
A. Social security is a right, for those aged and disabled people who live below the
poverty line, and also for those who have contributed to the fund their entire working
lives. Social security tends to the needs of (1) the sick; (2) those in need; (3) those
without necessary financial resources; and (4) those likely to suffer without aid. The
right to social security is an internationally recognized basis for International Economic
Co-operation under Article 55 of the UN Charter that states, with a view to the creation
of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly
relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of people to achieve: Higher standards of living, full employment, and
conditions of economic and social progress and development; Solutions of economic,
social, health, and related problems; and cultural and educational co-operation; and
Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all
without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
1. Wherefore it is provided in the International Bill of Rights: Art. 22 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights 217 A (III) (1948) that everyone, as a member of society,
has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and
international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each
State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free
development of his personality. Art. 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, 2200A(XXI)(1966) for the right of everyone to social security,
including social insurance Each State Party undertakes to take steps, individually and
through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to
the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full
realization of the rights. Art. 11 of the Declaration on Social Progress and Development
2542 (XXIV) 1969 for the provision of comprehensive social security schemes and social
welfare services; the establishment and improvement of social security and insurance
schemes for all persons who, because of illness, disability or old age, are temporarily or
permanently unable to earn a living, with a view to ensuring a proper standard of living
for such persons and for their families and dependants; by (a) assuring the right to work
and the right of everyone to form trade union and bargain collectively, (b) eliminating
hunger and malnutrition, (c) eliminating poverty, (d) upholding the highest standards of
health, (e) providing housing for low income people.
B. The Economic Security Act, first enacted August 14, 1935 and subsequently amended
numerous times, is compiled as the Social Security Act in 21 Titles, §1-§2110 and
codified at Title 42 of the United States Code Chapter 7 Subchapters I-XXI §301§1397jj. Although not required for legal purposes, reference to social security law should
include both the Act and the Statute for neutral citation. The intention of the original
Economic Security Act P.L. 74-271 was “to provide for the general welfare by
establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to
make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled
children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their
unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue;
and for other purposes”.
39
1. The Economic Security Act was part of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Second New
Deal in response to the economic hardships of the Great Depression. The Social Security
Program that was established was meant to provide a safety net for the nation’s
vulnerable population. Unlike many of the other programs of the New Deal that were
temporary in nature, or subsequently abolished, Social Security was built to last. Social
Security has become a cornerstone of democracy, a means of efficiently redistributing
income from the rich to poor, a system of government that provides people with a
subsistence income. A system of government that renders much of the oppressive
government machinery obsolete. A system of government that properly expanded and
improved upon can completely eliminate the scourge of war and deprivations of poverty
from the nation and ultimately the world.
2. Subsequent to the original Economic Security Act, the two most significant
amendments to the Social Security Act have been the creation of a disability insurance
program in the Amendments of 1956 and P.L. 86-778 of 1960 that removed the age
requirements for disability insurance and the creation of a national medical insurance
program in P.L. 89-97 signed on July 30, 1965.
C. From 1937 through 2003 the US Social Security program has received more than $9.3
trillion in income and expended more than $7.9 trillion. Social Security Administration
(SSA) was founded in the Social Security Act of 1935 [H. R. 7260] by President Franklin
Roosevelt and subsequent underwent four major amendments amongst a total of 17
amendments. As he signed the 1939 Amendments FDR stated: "we must expect a great
program of social legislation, as such as is represented in the Social Security Act, to be
improved and strengthened in the light of additional experience and understanding." He
urged an "active study" of future possibilities.
1. On August 1, 1956 President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the 1956
Amendments to the Social Security Act establishing the Social Security Disability
Insurance program.
2. The Social Security Act of 1965 [H.R. 6675] established both Medicare and Medicaid
with the signature of President Johnson on 30 July 1965.
3. In 1972, Congress enacted the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program to assist
"individuals who have attained age 65 or are blind or disabled" by setting a guaranteed
minimum income level for such persons Public Law 92-603. SSI is currently paid for the
by General Fund, not OASDI. SSI is administrated and accounted for by Social Security.
4. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub.
L. 108-173) makes the most dramatic and innovative changes to the Medicare program
since it began in 1965.
D. Specific Old Age, Survivor, Disability and Health benefits are designed to protect
needy categories of people, the Social Security Act is however designed to provide the
wage earner and the dependent members of his family with protection against the
40
hardship occasioned by his loss of earnings; it is not simply a welfare program generally
benefiting needy persons in Califano v. Jobst 434 US 47 (1977).
1. The right to Old age insurance benefit is set forth in 42USC(7)II§402 (Title II §202
SSA) that establishes eligibility for anybody who has attained the retirement age. Oldage benefits are computed on the basis of a wage earner's "average monthly wage" earned
during his "benefit computation years" during which his covered wages were highest as
explained in Califano v. Webster 430 US 313 (1977). A sum of not less than $225 is
made out to surviving spouse upon death. A married woman under 62 whose husband
retires or becomes disabled is granted monthly benefits under the Act if she has a minor
or other dependent child in her care in Mathews v. DeCastro 429 US 181 (1976).
2. The term ''disability'' means the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity
by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be
expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous
period of not less than 12 months as set forth by Sec. 223 of Title II 42USC(7)II§423. A
person’s disability insurance eligibility status shall not be revoked until such a time when
work earnings exceed, for 9 months, the level of earnings established as “substantial
gainful activity” under Sec. 222 42USC(7)II§422, $900 in 2007.
3. The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is the program whereby the Commissioner of
Social Security ensures that all aged, blind and disabled individuals who are determined
to be eligible on the basis of their income and resources are paid benefits under Sec. 1611
42USC(7)XVI-A§1382. The resource test for federal SSI benefits requires SSI
beneficiaries to have maximum resources (assets) of $2,000 for an individual or $3,000
for a couple in 1999. The maximum monthly federal SSI benefit was $603 for an
individual and $940 for a couple in 2006. In 2015 and 2016 it is a little around $725 for
an individual.
4. Unemployment insurance is administrated weekly by the Governor of any State who
shall certify to the Secretary of Labor every 3 months how many and how much the state
needs to administrate for unemployment compensation under Sec. 1201
42USC(7)XII§1321. Judicial review of unemployment compensation applications must
be conducted at the appellate level and served upon the Governor of the state to be heard
by the Secretary of Labor within 60 days, the court shall grant interim relief as warranted
under Sec. 304 42USC(7)III§504
5. The provision of medical relief to beneficiaries (a) will be provided economically and
only when, and to the extent, medically necessary; (b) will be of a quality which meets
professionally recognized standards of health care; and (c) will be supported by evidence
of medical necessity under Sec. 1156 42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-5. 48 million people, 16%
of the population, are considered uninsured however Part A Hospital Insurance covers
their emergency medical care, hospitalization and hospice care under Sec. 1812
42USC(7)XVIII-A§1395d.
41
6. In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual,
whether or not eligible for benefits, comes to the emergency department and a request is
made on the individual's behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the
hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the
capability of the hospital's emergency department, including ancillary services routinely
available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency
medical condition exists Sec. 1867 42USC(7)XVIII-E§1395dd.
E. The right to social security is an important safety net with which society protects the
poor, aged and disabled, wherefore that right has come to be protected from
discrimination and third party intrusions, through civil rights.
1. The right of any person to payment is not be transferable or assignable, at law or in
equity. None of the moneys shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment
or other legal process, or to bankruptcy or insolvency law under Sec. 207(a)
42USC(7)II§407(a). Exceptions to immunity are found when a person is due substantial
back pay and attorney fees whereby federal sanctioned debt may be disputed and paid
under Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security v. Ratliff No. 08-1322 (2010)
and when an official makes a wrongful overpayment decision against a faultless
beneficiary under Sec. 204(c) of the Social Security Act 42USC§404(c).
2. The deprivation of relief benefits from an otherwise qualified individual is a crime
under 18USC(13)§246. No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race,
color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance under 42USC(21)§2000d.
3. It is provided that any individual after a final decision of the Secretary may obtain
review of such decision by civil action commenced within 60 days by filing a civil action.
The district court; in such action, has the power to enter "a judgment affirming,
modifying, or reversing the decision, with or without remanding the cause for a
rehearing" under Sec. 205(g) 42USC(7)II§405 (g).
F. Everyone has a right to social security, and social insurance without discrimination
under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Americans With
Disabilities (ADA) Act. Discrimination on the basis of disability means any distinction,
exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of
impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with
others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms including the right gain a living by
work freely chosen or accepted by the labor market.
1. The vision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a world free from want
and fear. The right to equality and the principle of non-discrimination are among the
most fundamental elements of international human rights law. All persons are entitled to
equal protection against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. To the State, welfare
relief for the poor is not an issue of charity but an obligation whose fulfillment is the
42
difference between a successful middle class or a failed State, as explained on Human
Rights Day 2006. The Universal Declaration of Human rights provides: Article 22 calls
for the right to social security; that is derogated in other words to guarantee income base
that maintains human dignity and that allows individuals to meet most basic human needs
of water, shelter, clothing and so on. Article 23 calls for the right to work and to a
livelihood that enables individuals to support themselves and their families. Article 24
calls for the right to rest and leisure, so that one’s employer cannot demand work around
the clock or in burdensome and crushing conditions. Article 25 states that there is a
universal right to a standard of living that is adequate for the health and wellbeing of the
individual and of their family. The elements of this standard of living include food;
clothing; housing; medical care; necessary social services; and the right to security in the
event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or any other lack of
livelihood in uncontrollable circumstances. Additionally, mothers and children are
entitled to special care and assistance.
§73 World-Wide Welfare
A. There are now 7.2 billion people on the planet, roughly 9 times the 800 million people
estimated to have lived in 1750, as the start of the Industrial Revolution. The world
population continues to rise rapidly, by around 75 million people per year. Soon enough
there will be 8 billion by the 2020s, and perhaps 9 billion by the early 2040s. These
billions of people are looking for their foothold in the world economy. The poor are
struggling to find the food, safe water, health care, and shelter they need for mere
survival. Those just above the poverty line are looking for improved prosperity and
brighter future for their children. Those in the high-income world are hoping that
technological advances will offer them and their families even higher levels of wellbeing.
In short, 7.2 billion people, with a GWP of $90 trillion, are looking for economic
improvement. They are doing so in a world economy that is increasingly interconnected
through trade, finance, technologies, production flows, migration and social networks. A
half a century since the end of colonialism and the mid-20th century Golden era the UN
Development Programme (UNDP) rhetoric begun in the 1970s has seen a decrease in war
but an increase in poverty and disease. The evidence from the MDGs is powerful and
encouraging. In September 2000, the UN General Assembly adopted the “Millennium
Declaration”, which included the MDGs. Those eight goals became the centerpiece of
the development effort for poor countries around the world. They seem to have made a
difference. There has been a marked acceleration of poverty reduction, disease control,
and increased access to schooling and infrastructure in the poorest countries in the world,
and especially in Africa, as the result of the MDGs. They helped to organize a global
effort. In his famous peace speech in June 1963, President John F. Kennedy said: “by
defining our goals more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we
can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it and to move irresistibly towards it”.
This is the essence of the importance of goal setting. The World Bank set an even high
goal of $1.25 a day and this too was achieved by 2015.
Fig. 10 MDGs for 2015 Progress Report 1990 & 2005
Primary Indicator
1990
2005
Goal
43
Goal 1: Halve Poverty <$1 day
45.5% 21.5% 22.75%
Goal 2: Universal Primary Education
82.0% 89.0% 90.0%
Goal 3: 1.0 Gender Ratio in Education
0.89
0.96 1.00
Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality 2/3
9.3%
6.7% 3.1%
Goal 5: Reduce Maternal Mortality 3/4
430
400
143
Goal 6: Halt & Reverse Spread of AIDS 8
33.3
<
Goal 7: Halve Lack of Access to H20
77%
87%
88.5%
Goal 8: Develop Global Partnership
52.7
107.1
>
Sources: UN Millennium Development Goal Report 2009
1. Probably the biggest accomplishments of the MDGs have been in the area of public
health. Good health stands at the center of sustainable development, like Buddhist death
resulting from violence and deprivation of social welfare incited by the unsustainable
international sustainable development propaganda. Health stands to the left of health and
welfare (haw) or health theology (pronounced hell). Health has long been regarded as a
basic human need and basic human right. WHOs goal is the highest attainable standard
of physical and mental health. In 1978 in Alma-Ata, now Almaty, Kazakhstan, world
health officials gathered and adopted the important Alma-Ata Declaration, which called
for universal health by the year 2000. Unfortunately when 2000 came around, there was
not health for all. Instead, there were pandemics, specifically the HIV/AIDS crisis and
poor health outcomes, regarding malaria and tuberculosis, in many tropical parts of the
world. Three of the eight MDGs treated upon health. MDG 4 is about reducing child
mortality. MDG 5 is about reducing maternal mortality. MDG 6 is about controlling
epidemic diseases, including AIDS and malaria. There has been significant progress in
health since 2000 and especially since 2005. Three out of the eight MDGs are about
health: reducing child mortality and maternal mortality and controlling the epidemic of
communicable diseases. The MDGs have made a very big difference. Many
organizations in academia, private foundations (such as the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, businesses, and international agencies worked together to develop and
disseminate new technologies and business models for success. There were specific
funding mechanisms attached to achieve the health MDGs. Most important was the
arrival of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), which
was established in 2001, just one year after the MDGs were adopted, and put into motion
in 2002. The US government adopted the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR) in 2003 and put billions of dollars into the fight against AIDS in poor
countries. In 2005 the US government adopted the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI).
The health MDGs succeeded in those areas because of monitoring, measurement,
evaluation, and feedback to program design. There has not been a global fund for clean
water and sanitation along the same lines. Achieving the SDGs will require a lot of new
investment: new infrastructure in water, energy, and transport; new educational systems;
new health care; and other critical areas. In the end, we are all going to pay because as
citizens and consumers we have to pay for the goods and services that are part of our
lives. One way we pay is by participating in markets as consumers and suppliers. The
other way that we buy the things that we need is by paying taxes as citizens, so
governments can provide public services such as building roads; providing health care,
public education, or fire and police services; and funding the scientific research that
44
underpins technological change. High schools may include in their curriculum fulllength textbook Medicine HA-5-12-13.
2. At the core of the sustainable development concept is a nagging discrimination against
“social welfare” aggravated by this speak of the devil, “development” that does not
protect against totalitarian famine in its language or implied choice of rich rather than
poor international assistance grant recipients. Although there is a marked decline in
military conflicts since World War II, since the Golden Era of decolonization ended in
the 1970s the UN Development Programme has seen an increase in poverty and disease,
somewhat mitigated by the documented success of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) to halve poverty between 1990 and 2015. It is however time for better
propaganda than “development” for the poor who are better compensated with “social
welfare” in a modern or traditional welfare state fully accounted for by U.N. “WorldWide Welfare”. Permaculture is a term coined by two Australians in a book they wrote in
the mid-1970s called Permaculture One and reinforced in Principles & Pathways Beyond
Sustainability in 2002. The books and very word Permaculture© are copyright. The
word permaculture can be used by anyone adhering to the principles and ethics expressed
herein. The only restriction on use is that of teaching; only graduates of a Permaculture
Institute can teach ‘Permaculture’, and they adhere to agreed-on curricula developed by
the College of Graduates of the Institutes of Permaculture. There are now more than 54
international teaching centers and over 80 teachers at work; students number some 6,000,
and are expanding exponentially. Permaculture gives priority to using existing wealth to
rebuilding natural capital, especially trees and forests, as a proven storage of wealth to
sustain humanity into a future with less fossil fuel. Permaculture emphasizes bottom-up
“redesign” processes, starting with the individual and household as the drivers for change
at the market, community and cultural level. Permaculture sees pre-industrial sustainable
societies as providing models that reflect the more general system design principles
observable in nature, and relevant to post-industrial systems. The word permaculture
describes an “integrated evolving system of perennial or self-perpetuating plant and
animal species useful to man”. A more current definition of permaculture, is
“Consciously designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and relationships found in
nature, while yielding an abundance of food, fiber and energy for provision of local
needs.” Permaculture is also a worldwide network, and movement of individuals and
groups who are working in both rich and poor countries on all continents to demonstrate
and spread “permaculture” design solutions as the inspirational alternative to “sustainable
development” propaganda.
B. It was in 1972, at the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, the
challenge of maintaining sustainability in the context of economic growth and
development was first brought to the global forefront. The phrase was adopted and
popularized in the report of the United nations Commission on Environment and
Development, known widely by the name if its chairwoman, Gro Harlem Brundtland.
The Brundtland Commission gave a classic definition of the concept of sustainable
development, one that was used for the next twenty-five years: sustainable development
is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs. This “intergenerational” concept of
45
sustainable development was widely adopted, including at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
One of the key principles of the Rio Declaration was that “development today must not
threaten the needs of present and future generations”. In Johannesburg, the World
Summit on Sustainable Development the WSSD Plan of Implementation spoke of “the
integration of the three components of sustainable development – economic development,
social development and environmental protection. The concept of intergeneration justice
is now secondary to emphasis on holistic development that embraces economic, social
and environmental objectives. This three-part vision of sustainable development was
emphasized on the twentieth anniversary of the Rio Summit. In the final outcome
document of the Rio + 20 Summit (The Future We Want), the aim of sustainable
development was put this way: we also reaffirm the need to achieve sustainable
development by: promoting sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth, creating
greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic standards of living;
fostering equitable social development and inclusion; and promoting integrated and
sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems that supports inter alia
economic, social and human development while facilitating ecosystem conservation,
regeneration and restoration and resilience in the face of new and emerging challenges.
C. Africa is the priority for international economic co-operation whereas the poverty on
that continent is the most severe and nearly 50% of the population lives below the
international poverty line of $2 a day and hundreds of millions earn less than $1 a day.
The regional conference in Lusaka, Zambia on Social Security in the African Context
from August 9-12 2005 set major priorities for social security administrators and policy
makers in the region. The conference focused upon social security and the national
economy, acceptance of social security in Africa, social health insurance, pensions and
risk management. The need to provide protection for the population by guaranteeing
their basic income has long been recognized as a fundamental objective of social security
schemes. In Africa, the need for effective social protection, especially in the area of
medical care, is of paramount importance.
1. The World Development Report recommends a minimum of USD12.00 per capita in
health insurance. For any health insurance scheme to succeed, information transfers,
communications and computerization are vital factors in a number of ways, which
includes the establishment of a membership database and a tracking system for
monitoring and control. The processing of claims under the fee-for-service is effective
but tedious and thus cannot be done manually. African countries should strive to
establish "social" health insurance schemes to cover the majority of the population as
health care costs/expenses and the multitude and complexity of diseases become
unmanageable at individual or family levels. Both political and government support is
necessary at all times.
2. Since the Industrial Revolution which began in 1750 the era of modern economic
growth has led the GWP per capita to increase in a sustained basis, though in a very
uneven way across different regions of the world. A few of the world’s poorest countries
have not achieved the takeoff of modern economic growth that other countries
experienced two centuries ago. There are two kinds of economic growth. One kind of
46
growth is the growth of the world’s technological leaders. In the early nineteenth century
that was certainly England; in the middle to end of the nineteenth century, it was
Germany and the United States; in the twentieth century the United States was by far the
most technologically dynamic country in the world. The “technological leaders” had a
very particular kind of economic growth driven by relentless technological advance, in
which advances in one technology tend to spur advances in other technologies as well,
through new innovations and new combinations of processes. Economists call this kind
of growth endogenous growth meaning something that arises from within a system, rather
than from the outside. There is a second kind of economic growth, the growth of a
“laggard” country that for whatever reasons of history, politics, and geography lagged
behind as the technological leaders charged ahead. This kind of growth is very different
from endogenous growth. It is sometimes called “catch-up” growth. The technologies
that fuel it come from outside the economy engaged in rapid catching up. The essence of
the import strategy is to import technologies from abroad rather than develop them at
home. Catch-up growth can be considerably faster than endogenous growth.
Technological leaders have tended to grow at around 1-2 percent per capita, while the
fastest catching up countries, like South Korea and China, have enjoyed per capita GDP
growth of 5-10 percent per annum. No technological leader has ever sustained such rapid
growth rates, and no laggard country has sustained them after the point of catching up
with the leading countries. Super-rapid growth is about closing gaps, not about inventing
wholly new economic systems or technologies. The failure to recognize the fundamental
differences between endogenous growth and catch-up growth has led to all sorts of
confusion in the discussion of economic development. The age of information and
communication technology (ICT) has given rise to the new “knowledge economy” in
which massive amounts of data can be stored, processed, and transmitted globally for use
in just about every sector of the economy. The invention and spread of mobile phones,
and now smartphones and other handheld devices, has made the ICT revolution also a
mobile revolution, wherein information can readily reach every nook and cranny of the
planet. The ICT revolution builds on waves of scientific and technological innovations.
D. Significant progress has been made under the UN Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) for 1990-2015. The common goals in the Millennium Declaration of 8
September 2000 have helped to unify donors and developing nations in the provision of a
subsistence living to 1 billion people living on less than $1 a day and 2 billion making
less than $2 a day.
Goal 1 Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than one dollar a day and
reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.
Goal 2 Achieving universal primary education by ensuring that all boys and girls
complete a full course of primary education.
Goal 3 Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by
2005, and at all levels by 2015.
Goal 4 Reduce by two thirds the mortality rate among children under five.
47
Goal 5 Reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio.
Goal 6 Halt and begin to reverse the spread of the HIV, malaria, TB and other major
diseases.
Goal 7 Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and
programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources. Reduce by half the proportion of
people without sustainable access to safe drinking water. Achieve significant
improvement in lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers, by 2020
Goal 8 Develop further an open trading and financial system that is rule-based,
predictable and non-discriminatory, includes a commitment to good governance,
development and poverty reduction— nationally and internationally. Address the least
developed countries' special needs. This includes tariff- and quota-free access for their
exports; enhanced debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries; cancellation of official
bilateral debt; and more generous official development assistance for countries
committed to poverty reduction. Address the special needs of landlocked and small
island developing States. Deal comprehensively with developing countries' debt
problems through national and international measures to make debt sustainable in the
long term. In cooperation with the developing countries, develop decent and productive
work for youth. In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to
affordable essential drugs in developing countries. In cooperation with the private sector,
make available the benefits of new technologies— especially information and
communications technologies.
1. At the successful conclusion of the MDGs in 2015 the UN unveiled ten Sustainable
Development Goals, the SDGs. Secretary-General Ban ki-moon created a new global
network of sustainable development problem solving called the Sustainable Development
Solutions Network (SDSN). World leaders will adopt the actual SDGs at a special
summit of the UN General Assembly in September 2015. The UN secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon will make his recommendations to the world leader in a special report by the
end of 2014. The SDSN has proposed a concise set of ten goals. The ten SDGs that have
been proposed each have three associated specific targets, and even more (usually around
ten) specific numerical indicators to track progress on the goals and targets.
SDG 1: End extreme poverty, including hunger. The more specific goal is to end
extreme poverty in all forms, to complete the MDGs including hunger, child stunting,
malnutrition, and food insecurity, and give special support to highly vulnerable countries.
The World Bank leadership voted in 2013 to take on this specific objective, specifically
for the Bank to contribute to ending extreme poverty by the year 2030. The overriding
idea that ending extreme poverty in all its forms can actually be accomplished by our
generation is becoming official policy.
SDG 2: Achieve economic development within planetary boundaries. This goal neams
all countries have a right to economic development as long as that development respects
48
planetary boundaries, ensures sustainable production and consumption patterns, and helps
to stabilize the global population by midcentury. The idea of SDG 2 is to give support to
continued economic growth, especially in the developing countries, but only growth that
is environmentally sustainable within the planetary boundaries. This will require huge
changes in the ways we use and produce energy, grow food, design and build cities, and
so forth.
SDG 3: Ensure effective learning for all children and for youth for their lives and their
livelihoods. This education goal is stated as “effective learning” meaning children should
be enabled to develop the skills they need to be productive, to be fulfilled in their lives, to
be good citizens, and to be able to find decent jobs. As technology changes, the
pathways to decent work also require decent skills and good education. Part of effective
learning will include greater attention to early childhood development, when key brain
development occurs.
SDG 4: Achieve gender equality, social inclusion and human rights for all. Sustainable
development rests on the core dimensions of justice, fairness, social inclusion and social
mobility. Discrimination is a huge and persistent barrier to full participation in economic
life and to life satisfaction. This goal will also direct the world’s attention to excessive
inequality of income and wealth and to the concept of “relative poverty” meaning a
situation in which households are not in extreme poverty, but are still too poor to be part
of the dignified life of the society.
SDG 5: Achieve health and wellbeing at all ages. The subtitle of this SDG is to achieve
universal health coverage at every stage of life with particular emphasis on primary
health services, including reproductive health, to ensure that all people receive quality
health services without suffering financial hardship. All countries will also be called
upon to promote policies to help individuals make healthy and sustainable decisions
regarding diet, physical activity, and other individual or social dimensions of health.
With proper organization n, it is possible to reduce child and maternal mortality
dramatically, to raise life expectancy, and to control many diseases at very low cost.
SDG 6: Improve agricultural systems and raise rural productivity. This goal calls on all
countries to improve farming practices, rural infrastructure, and access to resources for
food production to increase the productivity of agriculture, livestock, and fisheries; raise
smallholder incomes; reduce environmental impacts; promote rural prosperity; and
ensure resilience to climate change. Smallholder farmers face many challe3nges. There
are the problems of freshwater depletion, the impacts of climate change and the need to
create a new technology – and information – based systems that help raise the most
impoverished of these families out of poverty and ensure that farm systems are more
productive and resilient. At the same time, existing farm practices lead to the loss of
biodiversity, groundwater depletion, excessive fluxes of nitrogen and phosphorus,
chemical pollution, and other harms. Sustainable Development Goal 6 recognizes the
centrality of sustainable agriculture and, as part of that, the sustainability of the food
supply.
49
SDG 7: Empower inclusive, productive and resilient cities. The goal is to make all cities
socially inclusive, economically productive, environmentally sustainable, and secure and
resilient to climate change and other risks. Success in SDG 7 will require new forms of
participatory, accountable, and effective city governance to support rapid and equitable
urban transformation.
SDG 8: curb human-induced climate change and ensure sustainable energy. The aim is
to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the energy industry, agriculture, the built
environment, and the land-use change to ensure a peak of global CO2 emission in the
coming years and to head off the rapidly growing dangers of climate change; and to
promote sustainable energy for all. The world will need to cut greenhouse gas emissions
approximately by half by 2050, even as the world economy grows perhaps threefold
between now and then. Success requires that the world decarbonize the energy system
while also ensuring that electricity and modern energy services are available for all.
Meeting this challenge will of course require a much faster transition to low-carbon
energy than we have achieved to date.
SDG 9: Secure ecosystem services and biodiversity and ensure good management of
water and other natural resources. Biodiversity and marine and terrestrial ecosystems of
local, regional and global significance should be measured, managed, and monitored to
ensure that continuation of resilient and adaptive life support systems that support
sustainable development. Water and other natural resources should be managed
sustainably and transparently to support inclusive economic and human development.
SDG 10: Transform governance for sustainable development. The public sector, business
and other stakeholders should commit to good governance. Good governance for
sustainable development includes transparency, accountability, access to information,
participation, an end to tax havens, and efforts to stamp out corruption. The international
rules governing international finance, trade, corporate reporting, technology and
intellectual property should be made consistent with achieving the SDGs. The financing
of poverty reduction and global public goods including efforts to head off climate change,
should be strengthened and based on a graduated set of global rights and responsibilities
(for hydrocarbon corporations to turn the lights on climate change science under the 1982
Law of the Sea and 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change).
E. In 1928 the International Social Security Association (ISSA) was founded to unite the
world’s social security institutions and is part of the International Labor Organization
(ILO). The objective of ISSA is to co-operate, at the international level, in the promotion
and development of social security throughout the world, in order to advance the social
and economic conditions of the population on the basis of social justice. ISSA publishes
the International Social Security Review (ISSR).
1. US SSA has entered into bilateral agreements with 20 other social security states
regarding the administration of social security benefits and collections for and from
nationals. The purpose of these agreements is to guarantee fair payments and equitable
benefits such as the US Mexican Agreement that has not yet been signed into law will
50
prevent duplicate social security taxation and guarantee full benefits for people who work
in both nations.
2. The total value of remittances has been increasing steadily over the past decade and it
is estimated that in 2005 the total value worldwide was over $167 billion equivalent,
involving some 175 million migrants. Net private capital flows to developing countries
reached a record high of US $491 billion in 2005. They account for 26% of world trade.
Trade between developing countries rose to $562 billion in 2004, up from $222 billion in
1995. In 2004, that trade made up 26% of developing countries’ total trade. Despite a
doubling of oil prices from early 2003 to late 2005, world GDP expanded by a robust
3.6% in 2005. Developing countries account for 20% of the global GDP. Developing
countries led the way with GDP growth of 6.4 %, more than twice the rate of high
income countries, at 2.8%.
Fig. 11: International Assistance 1990-2010
Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation in Europe DACNews April 2007
F. ODA is just one quarter of 1 per cent of donor-countries’ national income. Only a
handful of countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden –
currently meet or exceed the target of 0.7 per cent. Seven more donor countries have
pledged to reach the target before 2015. The European Commission’s recent proposal to
set an EU target of 0.56% for 2010. This would trigger an estimated additional 20 billion
euros by 2010. It would also bring EU countries closer to the target of 0.7% by 2015. The
US has made considerable progress increasing their provision of aid this 2007 with a 50%
51
increase to $35 billion, 0.3% of the GNI. The $100 billion ODA that has been levied
annually since 2005 and 2006, despite the slowdown, is still about $150 billion short of
the $250 billion ODA resources estimated to be required to meet the MDGs. Donors,
that have not already done so, should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7 per cent
target by no later than 2015, starting in 2006 and reaching 0.5 by 2009 and 0.7% by 2010.
To continue progress and get back on track $120 billion is a good goal for 2007.
1. The United States reaffirms support for achieving the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) undertaken at the ongoing Summits of the Americas; the World Summit for
Social Development (Copenhagen, 1995); the Millennium Summit of the United Nations
(New York, 2000); the International Conference on Financing for Development
(Monterrey, 2002); the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg,
2002); and the High-level Plenary Meeting of the Sixtieth Session of the United Nations
General Assembly (New York, 2005), as a fundamental condition for the sustainable
development for our countries. The United States is committed to increasing
contributions to international development.
Fig 12: US State Department and International Assistance Spending 2000-2020
2000
2015
OMB
28,954
2016
2017
2018
2019
Department of
6,687
14,389
14,749
15,117 15,495
State
International
12,087
21,577
37,406
38,342
39,300 40,283
Assistance
Programs
Source: OMB Table 4.1, State Department FY 2015 Budget
2020
15,883
41,290
G. OMB estimates spending of $29 billion for the Department of State and $21.3 billion
for International Assistance Programs. After carefully reviewing the Budget Request
summary that failed to make a distinction between the State Department and USAID and
the State Department and International Assistance that could be understood by OMB and
instead declared a Contingency Operating Fund (COO). It would be more accurate to
account for International Affairs spending at $14,407 million for the Department of State
and $35,693 million for International Assistance Programs. Department and International
Assistance spending has grown more than 400% since 2000 an average of 29% annually.
The United States, is estimated by OMB to pay only $21.8 billion in Official
Development Assistance (ODA) 0.1% of GDP. It is estimated that only $14.4 billion are
spent on Department of State administration, and this amount is going down as the
United States sells its risky embassies. International Assistance spending is more
accurately estimated at $35.7 billion and the US gets ODA credit for International
Assistance.
1. The U.S. system of international affairs needs to improve the efficiency of its
administration so that State Department spending is less than international assistance, as
it was under Bill Clinton - $6.7 billion, 35.6%, for the State Department and $12.1
52
billion, 64.4%, for international assistance programs. The $50.1 billion in International
Affairs (Function 150) spending is equal to the OMB combined total of $21 billion
international assistance and $29 billion State Department spending. The biggest cuts in
the International Security Assistance category are (1) complying with the $3 million limit
on foreign military financing, saving $5 billion from $6 billion State funds matched by
Defense spending and (2) abolishing the $1 billion bribe to International Narcotic Control
and Law Enforcement. The $6 billion saved by this measure should be invested in the
United Nations new global request for $16.7 billion this 2015 and accounted for as
International Organization spending whereas there continues to be remarkable agreement
in the total amount of International Assistance and State Department spending although
the exact accounts may be garbled by both State Department budget request and OMB.
These two measures save $6 billion from the $7.8 billion, reducing International Security
Assistance spending by the State to $1.8 billion with a consideration for abolishing the
$105 million for the international military education program infamous as the School of
the America. Perhaps the true meaning of the obsession with the Benghazi massacre is
that the Department of State should make it a policy to sell their 275 foreign embassies
and consulate and 750 foreign military bases to prevent overextension of the empire. No
other nation has such an extensive system of embassies and foreign military bases to pay
for. $10.6 billion are spent on diplomatic and consular programs ($8.4 billion) and
embassy construction and security ($2.3 billion) in 2015. It is hoped that a 1% annual
decline in consular spending could be arranged due spending reductions and asset sales.
2. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is the primary provider of
foreign assistance in the Department of State. The US has long had a reputation for
relying on its position as the largest single donor nation to provide the smallest portion of
their GNI for international development. In 2006 the US is credited with contributing
$20 billion, 0.18% of the GNI. The US needs to ensure that levels of foreign
development assistance continue to increase toward the goal of 0.7% of the GNI. The
greatest short-term prospect for increasing levels of foreign assistance involves the
government in accounting for the private US international development contributions.
H. The long term plan for global economic equality through international economic cooperation, much like predicted in the basic treaties of the United Nations, is to establish
an international social security administration that remits wealth from developed donors
to developing beneficiaries. To achieve this long term goal it has been proposed to
amend Chapter XII of the UN Charter to establish an International Tax Administration.
The new World-Wide Welfare slogan may however come to abolish the administration
from the SUN in the draft Statement of the United Nations (SUN) that also proposes to
lay down our Generals of the United Nations (GUN) in the old UN Charter and elect an
Assembly and Secretary of the UN in general elections, in nations around the world.
This social security tax administration would apply to least developed countries who are
entitled to the largest per capita benefit payment; middle income developing nations who
are exempt from either taxation or benefit but fertile for investment; and donor nations
responsible for making annual contributions to the international social security system.
The benefit of an international social security administration is that contributions would
go directly into the individual accounts of the world’s neediest people and development
53
projects financed there from would be done with the democratic consent of the people
concerned to ensure that the public works projects substantially improve their lives
through water treatment, sanitation, health insurance and other programs arrived at
through the process of collective bargaining. The terms of taxation for each territory to
be placed under the social security system, shall be agreed upon by the states directly
concerned, taking into consideration the mandate to wealthy Member Nations for
contributions totaling 0.7% of GDP or 1% of GNI that will appear on the pay-stub of
workers as a new UN FICA tax in 2020.
§74 Universal Health Insurance
A. Universal health insurance is defined by the World Health Organization as access to
key promotion, preventive, curative and rehabilitative health interventions for all at an
affordable cost, thereby achieving equity in access and financing where households
contribute to the health system on the basis of ability to pay. The principle of financialrisk protection ensures that the cost of care does not put people at risk of financial
catastrophe whereas affordable tax contributions and private health insurance of the
wealthy would offset the cost of treating the poor. The United States is one of the few
nations without a universal health insurance system. In 2007 15% of the population, 45
million people, including 9 million children, were considered uninsured in the United
States. They did not pay any health insurance premiums beyond the 2.9% federal
Medicare tax, if they earned a taxable income at all. Low-income workers are left
without affordable health insurance and 15%, 45 million people are considered
uninsured. 54%, 162 million workers and their family members are insured through
employers. 5%, 15 million are insured individually. 13%, 39 million are insured through
Medicaid. 12%, 36 million are insured through Medicare. 1%, 3 million are insured
through other public insurance. The portion of the US gross domestic product (GDP) that
is devoted to health care more than doubled, from 7.1 percent in 1970 to 15.3 percent in
2003. Health spending per capita in the US, at $5,777, is among the highest in developed
countries -- 24% higher than in the next highest spending countries, and over 90 percent
higher than in many other countries that would be considered global economic
competitors. Medical spending in the United States has exceeded 17% of the GDP. This
is a crime. Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy. Medical and hospital bills
cannot be honored at credit bureaus. Collectively, Americans spent $2.5 trillion on health
care in 2009, accounting for 17.6% of our Nation’s economy. 42USC(157)§18091(2)(B).
Health and Human Services (HHS) spending must be limited to less than $1 trillion as of
2015. ILO Convention 132 provides for Holidays with Pay.
1. The cost of health insurance in the United States is alarming. Total health
expenditures in the US are estimated to be $2.16 trillion in 2006. Health spending per
capita in the US is the highest in developed countries -- 24% higher than in the next
highest spending country in 2003, and over 90% higher than in many other countries that
would be considered global economic competitors. Health expenditure is projected to
rise to over $4 trillion by 2015. Between 1985-1997 government healthcare spending
increased at an annual rate of 8%. Private sector spending grew at an annual rate of 7.3%
between 1985-1997. As a share of the economy, health care has risen from 7.2% of GDP
54
in 1965, to 8.8% of GDP in 1980, to 11.8% in 1991, to 13.4% in 2000, to over 16% of
GDP today, and it is projected to be 20% of GDP just 10 years from now. Health
spending continues to increase much faster than the overall economy. Since 1970, health
care spending has grown at an average annual rate of 9.9%, or about 2.5 percentage
points faster than GDP. Per person health spending is $7,110 in 2007 and is projected to
increase to $12,320 by the end of the period. More than 50% of bankruptcies are now the
result of medical bills. Nine out of 10 Americans think the United States health care
system needs fundamental changes, 44% of view health reform as one of the most
important issues and 29% as the most important issue.
Fig. 13 Health Expenditures Per Capita 1970, 1980, 1990, 2003 (inc. % GDP)
1970
1980
1990
2003
% GDP
Australia
$252
$691
$1,306
$2,886
9.2%
Austria
193
770
1,328
2,958
9.6
Belgium
148
636
1,341
3,044
10.1
Canada
299
783
1,737
2,998
9.9
Denmark
384
927
1,522
2,743
8.9
Finland
191
590
1,419
2,104
7.4
France
205
697
1,532
3,048
10.4
Iceland
163
703
1,593
3,159
10.5
Ireland
117
519
794
2,455
7.2
Italy
NA
NA
1,387
2,314
8.4
Japan
149
580
1,116
2,249
8.0
Luxembourg
163
640
1,533
4,611
7.7
Netherlands
NA
755
1,435
2,909
9.1
55
Norway
141
665
1,393
3,769
10.1
Sweden
312
944
1,589
2,745
9.3
Switzerland
351
1,031
2,029
3,847
11.5
United Kingdom
163
480
987
2,317
7.8
United States
352
1,072
2,752
5,711
15.2
Source: Exhibits 2 & 4. Kaiser Family Foundation Health Care Spending in the United
States and OECD Countries. January 2007
2. Since 2000, premiums for family health coverage have increased by 87%, compared
with cumulative inflation of 18% and cumulative wage growth of 20%. During this same
period, the percentage of employers offering health benefits has fallen from 69% to 61%,
and the percentage of workers covered by their own employer also has fallen. The current
employer-based system offers little choice in health plans to employees: 88% of
American firms offer only 1 health plan type. Premiums for employer-sponsored health
coverage rose twice as fast as the 3.8% increase in wages or 3.5% increase in inflation at
an average 7.7% in 2006. This was less than the 9.2% increase recorded in 2005 and the
recent peak of 13.9% in 2003. Average annual premiums for employer-sponsored
coverage in 2006 were $4,242 for single coverage and $11,480 for family coverage. Out
of pocket expenses for deductibles, co-pays and spending limits vary from plan to plan,
and can be considerable. Furthermore when a person becomes chronically disabled as the
result of illness or retires and ceases to pay premiums, the health benefits in private plans
cease. Barring catastrophic injury or disease a person is unlikely to recoup as much as
one tenth of what they spend on health insurance and many don’t use a penny of the
thousands of dollars they pay. The best answer for solving the crisis in the cost of health
care is to legally limit the inflation of medical costs to no more than 3% per year.
B. The right to health is assured in the documents comprising the International Bill of
Rights. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and necessary
medical care and social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age in circumstances beyond his control under Art.
25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948. Everyone
has the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. To
achieve the full realization of this right States shall provide for the creation of conditions
which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness
under Art. 12 (1,2d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights of 16 December 1966. The achievement of the highest standards of health and the
56
provision of health protection for the entire population, if possible free of charge Art. 10
(d) of the Declaration on Social Progress and Development of 11 December 1969
1. On July 30, 1965, the Social Security Act established the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund as a separate account in the U.S. Treasury. In 2011, Medicare covered 48.7
million people: 40.4 million aged 65 and older, and 8.3 million disabled. About 25
percent of these beneficiaries have chosen to enroll in Part C private health plans that
contract with Medicare to provide Part A and Part B health services. Total expenditures
in 2011 were $549.1 billion. Total income was $530.0 billion, which consisted of $514.8
billion in non-interest income and $15.2 billion in interest earnings. Assets held in special
issue U.S. Treasury securities decreased to $324.9 billion. The total assets of the trust
fund amounted to $271.9 billion on December 31, 2010. Total HI payroll tax income in
calendar year 2011 amounted to $195.6 billion—an increase of 7.4 percent over the
amount of $182.0 billion for the preceding 12-month period. Total revenue amounted to
$228.9 billion, and total expenditures were $256.7 billion. Total assets thus decreased by
$27.7 billion during the year to $244.2 billion on December 31, 2011. The fund received
$12.0 billion in interest income.
2. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), an organization that represents more than
1,300 health insurance companies, advocates for universal coverage through subsidies to
existing private insurers. Their plan is that the federal government would provide
subsidies for the purchase of private coverage to individuals and families with incomes
under 400 percent of the FPL. Individuals with incomes under 300 percent of the FPL
should receive proportionally greater assistance. People at 100 percent of the FPL should
be eligible for Medicaid. Insurers would become more reliant upon taxes but would
continue to collect premiums from individuals and employers. It would only cost an
extra $55 billion. $55 billion is a reasonable estimate for implementing the AHIP plan to
achieve universal health insurance in 2009. A single payer system could be implemented
at the same time for the estimated cost of $300 million to the government, for the printing
of electronic health record cards for every citizen, another $1 billion to expand CMS
claims processing and $250 for providers to purchase card scanners and computer
software via which CMS would pay and bankrupt all health care claims. Section
1818(a)(4) of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)(XVIII)§1395i–2 provides that certain
persons, not otherwise eligible, for HI protection may obtain coverage by enrolling in HI
and paying a monthly premium. In 2011, premiums collected from such voluntary
participants (or paid on their behalf by Medicaid) amounted to about $3.3 billion. The
PPACA provides for refundable and advance able premium credits to eligible individuals
and families with incomes from 133 to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to
purchase insurance through the exchanges. The premium credits will be tied to the
second-lowest-cost silver plan in the area and will be set on a sliding scale such that the
premium contributions are limited to the following percentage of income.
Fig. 14 Affordable Care Act Premium Contribution Limits by Income
Household Income
Up to 133% of FPL
Premium Contribution Limit
2% of income
57
133-150% FPL
3-4% of income
150-200% FPL
4-6.3% of income
200-250% FPL
6.3-8.05% of income
250-300% FPL
8.05-9.5% of income
300-400 FPL
9.5% of income
Source: Turner, Grace-Marie; Capretta, James C.; Miller, Thomas P.; Moffit, Robert E.
Why Obamacare is Wrong for America: How the Health Care Law Drives up Costs, Puts
government in Charge of Your Decisions, and Threatens Your Constitutional Rights.
Broadside. Harper Collins Publisher. New York. 2011; citing Henry J. Kaiser Family
Family Foundation, “Summary of New Health Reform Law”.
3. Under current law, the standard HI payroll tax rate is scheduled to remain constant at
2.90 percent (for employees and employers, combined). The Budget Control Act of 2011
is expected to require a 2-percent reduction in all Medicare expenditures for February
2013 through January 2022. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as
amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, is another, and
even larger, source of policy-related uncertainty. This legislation, referred to collectively
as the “Affordable Care Act” or ACA, contains roughly 165 provisions affecting the
Medicare program. The premise is that high-income workers will pay an additional 0.9
percent of their earnings above $200,000 (for single workers) or $250,000 (for married
couples filing joint income tax returns) in 2013 and later. However, the revenues from
this tax are not satisfactorily allocated to the Medicare trust funds.
4. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will provide people under
age sixty-five who have incomes below $14,400 for an individual and $29,300 for a
family of four 133% of the “federal poverty line” would be eligible for Medicaid.
Federal taxpayers will pick up 100 percent of the cost for this new Medicaid coverage
until 2016 and then the federal matching payment begins to drop to 90%. Total federal
and state Medicaid spending will skyrocket, going from $427 billion to $896 billion
between 2010 and 2019. Beginning in 2014 the PPACA creates a new system of
taxpayer subsidies for individuals and families to offset the cost of health insurance.
Total federal and state Medicaid spending will skyrocket, going from $427 billion to
$896 billion between 2010 and 2019. Health plans will be subject to federal “medical
loss ratio” (MLR) rules. This means that health plans in the individual and small-group
markets must spend 80 percent of their revenues on medical benefits, retaining no more
than 20 percent for the costs of administration, marketing, other customer services, and
profits. For the large-group market, 85 percent of premiums must be spent on medical
benefits. If the MLR targets are not met, the health plans will be required by law to
refund the difference to enrollees in the form of rebates.
C. Federal health spending needs to be limited to less than $1 trillion annually without
review until 2020. OMB and HHS estimates agree that DHHS spending FY2015 will be
$1,010 billion and FY 2016 $1,073 billion. It is necessary for the United States to swiftly
abolish the new $60.1 billion refundable premium tax credit and cost sharing reductions
in the mandatory estimates of the Treasury to account under penalty of accounting fraud.
58
If the accounting fraud is not merely a matter of limiting HHS spending to less than $1
trillion annually until at least 2020 and then either removing the refundable premium tax
credit and cost sharing reductions from the books of the Treasury, at actual cost that runs
around a couple hundred dollars per subsidized beneficiary, rather than what is presumed
to be a badly misinterpreted estimate of premium revenues, or by nationalizing PPACA
and Medicare in Medicaid that provides free medical services for all beneficiaries.
The way forward is said to be that Medicaid continues to deny people receiving disability
and retirement insurance, who are eligible for Medicare, the bill free coverage enjoyed by
equally poor SSI beneficiaries. OASDI beneficiaries making less than SSI $724 should
be automatically eligible for free Medicaid and SNAP benefits. Workers and wealthy
people should be able to purchase Medicaid premiums on the sliding scale used by the
PPACA. Then everyone’s health would be fully insured and would receive necessary
medical care including many drugs without copay or deductible, for free. Realization of
universal coverage is dependent on organizational mechanisms that make it possible to
collect financial contributions for the health system efficiently and equitably from
different sources; to pool these contributions so that the risk of having to pay for health
services is shared by all and not borne by each person who is sick; and to use these
contributions to provide or purchase effective health interventions. American workers
could be insured for less by amending the title of Section 1818(a)(4) of the Social
Security Act 42USC(7)(XVIII)§1395i–2 from Hospital Insurance Benefits for Uninsured
Elderly Individuals Not Otherwise Eligible to provide all Americans with high quality
bill-free “Medicaid Benefits for Individuals Not Otherwise Eligible”.
§75 History of Social Work
A. The concept of charity goes back to human pre-history, has been recorded since
ancient times and the practice of providing for the poor has roots in all major world
religions. Psalm 72(4) defends the cause of the poor of the people, gives deliverance to
the needy, and crushes the oppressor. Jesus counsels in the passage outlawing retaliation
in his Sermon on the Mount, Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse
anyone who wants to borrow (Matthew 5:42) and whenever you give alms do not sound a
trumpet before you like the hypocrites, give alms in secret and your Father who sees in
secret will reward you (Matthew 6:2-4).
1. In the West, when Roman Emperor Constantine I legalized the Christian Church, the
church set up poorhouses, homes for the aged, hospitals, and orphanages. These were
often funded, at least in part, from grants from the Empire. By 590 the church had a
system for circulating the consumables to the poor. During the Middle Ages, the
Christian church had vast influence on European society and charity was considered to be
a responsibility and a sign of one’s piety. As there was no effective bureaucracy below
city government that was capable of charitable activities, the clergy generally served this
role in the west up through the 18th century.
2. Queen Elizabeth, a popular and enlightened monarch as ever ruled, passed a series of
bills to redress the increasing poverty problem from the decay of feudalism and
dissolution of the monasteries. The 1598 Poor Law Act directed every parish to appoint
59
overseers of the poor to find work for the unemployed and set up parish-houses for poor
people who could not support themselves. The 1601 Poor Law Act remained in force
until 1834, and is therefore usually referred to as the "old" or "Elizabethan" poor law.
The act made provision to levy a compulsory poor rate on every parish, to provide
working materials and work and apprenticeships for orphans, to provide relief to the
deserving poor, to collect a poor relief rate from property owners and make parents
responsible for their children.
B. The American Revolution (1775-1783), heavily financed by the French monarchy,
was led by wealthy landowners whose democratic philosophy, promotes the general
welfare in the Preamble to their Constitution, and is Framed by the classical liberal theory
of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776). The French Revolution (1789-1799) on the
other hand, was a political uprising of the starving poor steeped in the philosophy of
Voltaire and Jean Jacque Rousseau’s Social Contract (1762) whereby the people as a
whole would meet regularly in assemblies; abjuring individualism, they would contribute
to a ‘General Will’ that outlawed all inequality and privilege. With the end of the Ancien
Regime in 1789, a social order founded on legally entrenched and inherited hierarchy
collapsed. The estates system was abolished, and with it the notion that men were born
into particular and tiered stations of society ordained by God. The Church lost its
autonomy and popularity to secular society. No longer were the first two estates, the
clergy and the aristocracy, to be privileged over the rest of society, the third estate. All
men were declared to be legally equal, citizens of a single, coherent nation rather than
members of separate estates, corporations and guilds.
1. In the USA the first national pension program for soldiers was actually passed in early
1776, prior even to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Revolutionary War
figure Thomas Paine set forth one of the first proposals for a general retirement pension
in Agrarian Justice published in the winter of 1795. James Fillebrown was arrested by a
jury for neglecting to establish the retirement home under the Naval Hospital Act of 26
Feb. 1811 and after some delay due to illness, had to be obligated to do so by the U.S.
Supreme Court in US v. Fillebrown, Wash. 32 US 28 (1833) 7 Pet.44 I. Ed. 596 on the
principle of good purpose was cited by Justice Story in Minis v. US 40 U.S. 423 (1841).
2. The term sociology was first coined by the French essayist Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès
(1748–1836). The term socialism was not invented until 1830 by Henri Leroux. Many
philosophers were involved in the development of socialist ideology and the science of
sociology namely three philosophers released from prison after the guillotining of
Robespierre, Francois-Noel Babeuf, Comte Henri de Saint-Simon, and Charles Fourier
who each, founded a particular strain of socialism, egalitarian Communism, scientific
socialism and a more Romantic socialism and were incorporated by Karl Marx (18181883) into a grand, synthesis whereby social development followed a series of stages,
from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism and then on to Communism. Although Marx
advocated worker revolts in the middle of the 19th century were unsuccessful and Marx
turned to developing his theories and in socialist parties there was debate between
democracy and dictatorship leading to a split between the Social Democrat and the
Communist political parties.
60
3. Strict economic definitions are given regarding the various stages of society.
“Primitive communism” means collective ownership and use of all goods at a very low
technological level. “Slavery” means private ownership by individuals of land and
human beings. “Feudalism” means control, but not ownership, of lands and workers, so
the serfs are bound to the land and the king may transfer control of the land from one
landlord to another, but the feudal landlord does not own the serf and may not sell him,
nor can he sell the land. Under “capitalism” capitalists buy and sell land, buy and sell
factories and equipment, which become more important than land, and buy workers
power to labor, but may not buy or sell worker, as was the case in slavery. “Socialism” as
defined by the Soviet Union means social ownership of the means of production, with
continued differences in wages according to the work done, and purchase of consumer
goods for private use. “Communism” is said to mean social ownership plus sharing of
goods according to “need” with no wages or prices.
a. The anarchist takes their stand with those who struggle to bring about “the third and
last emancipatory phase of history”, the first having made serfs of slaves, the second
having made wage earners out of serfs, and the third which abolishes the proletariat in a
final act of liberation that places control over the economy in the hands of free and
voluntary associations of producers. The problem of freeing man from the curse of
economic exploitation and political and social enslavement remains the problem of our
time. Wage slavery is intolerable. People should not be forced to pay rents they can ill
afford. The core of anarchist tradition is that power is always illegitimate, unless it proves
itself to be legitimate. So the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some
authoritarian hierarchic relation is legitimate. If they can’t prove it, then it should be
dismantled. Great care must be taken, in a state that has “red” and “writ”, not to
accidentally abolish welfare, that must grow, but to abolish the government precisely
under the Slavery Convention of 1926 to be free.
C. In the 1860s State Board of Charities, Board of Public Charities, Board of Charities
and Corrections; sprang up to manage the institutional building boom of reformatories,
prisons, mental asylums, poor-houses and orphanages whereas it soon became apparent
that these institutions did not solve the problems that created them, but presented new
problems in institutional management. The leaders of the boards turned to a new type of
charity management: "scientific charity". In the words of historian James Leiby
Scientific charity was to be: secular, rational and empirical as opposed to sectarian,
sentimental, and dogmatic.
1. After the Civil War in 1893 the US spent $165 million spent on military pensions and
was the largest single expenditure ever made by the federal government. In 1894 military
pensions accounted for 37% of the entire federal budget. Although some paternalistic
employers had always provided token work or retirement stipends for the elderly one of
the first formal company pension plans for industrial workers was introduced in 1882 by
the Alfred Dolge Company, a builder of pianos and organs. Dolge withheld 1% of each
workers’ pay and placed it into a pension fund, to which the company added 6% interest
each year.
61
2. The first American charity organization society was established in Buffalo, New York
in 1877 by the turn of the century virtually every major urban area in America hosted
some form of charity organization society. The movement was undermined by a popular
new social philosophy of Social Darwinism based on the teachings of Englishman
Herbert Spencer. It was said that relief was destructive to society and the poor because it
created dependency and sapped their motivation. Charity organization movement broke
from earlier traditions by avoiding the dispensation of direct relief. Josephine Shaw
Lowell, founder of New York's charity organization, was once asked by a contributor
how much money would go directly to the poor and she proudly replied, “Not one cent!”
3. In the late 1880s, a new type of philanthropic organization appeared. The settlement
movement, as it came to be called, was a new approach to the problems of the city and its
poor, and it focused mostly on new immigrants. Settlements focused more on the causes
of poverty than the flaws of the poor. Instead of focusing their efforts on changing the
individual behaviors and values of the poor, settlement workers tried to change the
neighborhoods and expand opportunities for working class people who were poor, but not
indigent. By the mid-1890s there were fifty and by 1900 there were more than a hundred
recognized settlements. The Phenomenal growth of the settlement movement was fueled
by what Jane Addams called the two miseries. The first misery was the plight and trials of
the poor. The second misery that nourished the settlement movement was the problems
confronting the first contingent of college educated women. Their method of social
activism was known as the three Rs – research, reform and residence. Settlements
commissioned social surveys regarding the conditions of the poor, they reformed systems
and became involved in the labor movements, and they considered themselves neighbors.
4. In 1898, the New York Charity Organization started the first school for social workers.
The original curriculum was designed as a six week set of summer classes and included
formal lectures and field work. By 1910 five schools of philanthropy had been instituted
and by 1920 there were 17 schools of social work that formed the Association of Training
Schools of Professional Schools of Social Work, that is now known as the Council on
Social Work Education. (CSWE). Since the first social work class was offered in the
summer of 1898 at Columbia University, social workers have led the way developing
private and charitable organizations to serve people in need. In solidarity with those who
are disadvantaged, the profession strives to alleviate poverty and to liberate vulnerable
and oppressed people in order to promote social inclusion.
D. At the beginning of the 20th century the movement achieved government recognition.
To redress the fact that the United States had the highest rate of infant and maternal
mortality of any industrialized country people began advocating for a Children’s Bureau.
Although the Bill was defeated in 1906 enough political pressure was generated to force
the creation of the Children’s Bureau in 1912. The Sheppard-Towner bill was
introduced in 1918 by Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin. Ms. Rankin was the first
congresswoman in the U.S. Congress and a social worker. The proposed legislation
provided funds to local health departments for maternal and infant health services and
after considerable opposition from conservative legislators was finally signed by the
62
president in 1921. When the act finally expired in 1929, there were more than 3,000 local
programs and maternal and infant mortality rates were significantly improved.
1. Plans were made at this conference for the creation of a permanent organization which
then evolved into the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP). The NAACP's first central committee included both William Walling and
W.E.B. Du Bois. Medical social work did not become an area of practice until Dr.
Richard Cabot introduced a medical social services department at Massachusetts General
Hospital in 1905. Seven years after founding the service, a specialty in medical social
work was offered by the Boston School of Social Work. Psychiatry was receptive to
adding social workers to its teams, thereby creating a new specialty in psychiatric social
casework, and by 1920 was fully integrated into the psychiatric team.
2. The 1920s were marked by two laws that many social workers had worked diligently
to pass - suffrage and prohibition - as a slice of the larger women's movement. While
equal suffrage for women is a necessary social development the prohibition of alcohol
sabotaged the integrity of this social progress and the women’s movement in general by
giving equal suffrage for women constitutional equality with the prurient interest, so
willing to use State sanctioned violence to put harmless drunks behind bars. While the
social work profession had made substantial gains in status during the twenties, it still
needed more prestige. Many social work leaders felt that new advances in social
casework and clinical social work had catapulted social work into full professional status.
However, the general public continued to view social work as a vocation rather than a
profession. Low salaries were a symptom of the problem. A 1930 survey of practicing
social workers found that average salaries were 30 percent below that of high school
teachers.
3. At the First International Conference on Social Work held in Paris in 1928, the
suggestion was made that an International Association of Social Workers be formed. At
the Second International Conference on Social Work held in Frankfurt in 1932
provisional statutes of the International Permanent Secretariat of Social Workers
(IPSSW) were agreed by 8 founding members – Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France,
Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. IPSSW was initially
based in Berlin. In 1932, the Association of Professional Schools of Social Work,
responded to the challenge posed by the rapid expansion of public agencies by adopting a
minimum curriculum that required a year of full-time study. In 1934, the Association
required that all schools seeking accreditation be affiliated with a college or university
and in 1939 requirements increased to include a two year curriculum. Finally at the Fifth
International Conference on Social Work held in Paris in 1950 an agreement to form a
new body was approved provided that seven national bodies became members – achieved
in 1956 when the International Federation of Social Workers was formed in Munich. A
new Secretariat was established in New York, sharing office with the National
Association of Social Workers. The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW)
links professional social workers around the globe. It represents professional social work
organizations or coordinating bodies from 80 countries with more than 470,000 social
workers in all parts of the world. And it continues to grow.
63
E. Modern social work did not come into its own until President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt’s social welfare programs of the New Deal, to alleviate the suffering of the
Great Depression, were enacted creating a taxpayer financed infrastructure to sustain
social welfare on a wide-scale and the social workers responsible for the fulfillment of
these new rights. Frances Perkins, a social worker, was the first woman to be appointed
to the cabinet of a U.S. President. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Secretary of
Labor, Perkins drafted much of the New Deal legislation. The American Association of
Social Workers testified before the U.S. Senate on the gravity of the crisis. The Social
Security Act provided federal support for two social insurance programs that had been
already initiated in many states, Unemployment Insurance and Workers' Compensation,
as well as the ambitious Old Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance.
1. In the Soviet Union the concept of ‘social work’, as it was called, involved doing an
unpaid shift for some worthy cause or serving on a trade union committee and for
academics and professionals, it might include giving evening lectures to workers. Social
work is a new scientific discipline and profession in Russia and generally there is not a
very strong tradition of international social science publication among Russian
academics. In the United States, United Kingdom and Western Europe the social work
profession and academic discipline evolved in the 19th century to fill the demand for
secular, scientific, charity work and came into its own at the dawn of the 20th century,
much like the socialist party. The practice and profession of social work has a relatively
modern (19th century) and scientific origin. Social work grew out of humanitarian and
democratic ideals of socialism and its values are based on respect for the equality, worth,
and dignity of all people. At the beginning of the century, Americans possessed a world
view that saw God and religion as both the purpose and cause of most life events.
Gradually this view changed, and by the end of the century most Americans had a more
secular and humanistic view of the world.
F. The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) updated their previous
definition of social work from 1982 in their General Meeting in Montreal, Canada in July
2000 whereby “The social work profession promotes social change, problem solving in
human relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance wellbeing”. The National Association of Social Workers Code of the Ethics as approved by
the 1996 NASW Delegate Assembly states: The primary mission of the social work
profession is to enhance human wellbeing and help meet the basic human needs of all
people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are
vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty.
1. It is proposed that Sec. §206 of the Social Security Act 42USC(7) II§406 should be
amended to provide for social workers and non-social worker representatives.
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) need to be replaced with licensed and literate social
workers government-wide and the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law Manual (HALLEX) needs to be edited and judged
by a social worker.
64
2. Unfortunately the NASW Code of Ethics has been hacked so that it no longer forbids
billing and testifying. Instead the code forbids disclosure of ‘confidential’ deaths, very
similar to the Eli Lilly injunction against millions of cases of diabetes and diabetic death
from Zyprexa and alcohol, recently fleshed out to explain the 50% mortality rate within
20 years of diagnosis of insulin dependent, juvenile onset, diabetes with one counterfeit
injection from jail. This is why licensed professional and volunteer social workers must
know – no billing, no testifying and a public funeral.
Art. 2 Welfare Administration
§76 House Ways and Means and Senate HELP Committees
A. The Committee on Ways and Means was first established as an ad hoc committee in
the first session of the First Congress, on July 24, 1789. In the first session of the 7th
Congress, Tuesday, December 8, 1801, a resolution was adopted as follows: Resolved,
That a standing Committee on Ways and Means be appointed, whose duty it shall be to
take into consideration all such reports of the Treasury Department, and all such
propositions, relative to the revenue as may be referred to them by the House; to inquire
into the state of the public debt, of the revenue, and of the expenditures; and to report,
from time to time, their opinion thereon.
B. On Thursday, January 7, 1802, the House agreed to standing rules which, among other
things, provided for standing committees, including the Committee on Ways and Means.
It shall be the duty of the said Committee on Ways and Means to take into consideration
all such reports of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and all such propositions relative
to the revenue, as may be referred to them by the House; to inquire into the state of the
public debt, of the revenue, and of the expenditures, and to report, from time to time,
their opinion thereon; to examine into the state of the several public departments, and
particularly into the laws making appropriations of moneys, and to report whether the
moneys have been disbursed conformably with such laws; and also to report, from time
to time, such provisions and arrangements, as may be necessary to add to the economy of
the departments, and the accountability of their officers
C. Rule X, Clause 1, Rules of the House of Representatives, in effect during the 108th
Congress, provides for the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, as follows:
1. Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery.
2. Reciprocal trade agreements.
3. Revenue measures generally.
4. Revenue measures relating to insular possessions.
5. Bonded debt of the United States,
6. Deposit of public monies.
7. Transportation of dutiable goods.
8. Tax exempt foundations and charitable trusts.
9. National Social Security (except health care and facilities programs that are
65
supported from general revenues as opposed to payroll deductions and except
work incentive programs).
D. The Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over most of the programs
authorized by the Social Security Act, which includes not only those programs that are
normally referred to colloquially as “Social Security” but also social insurance programs
and a whole series of grant-in-aid programs to State governments for a variety of
purposes. The Social Security Act, as amended, contains 21 titles (a few of which have
either expired or have been repealed). The principal programs established by the Social
Security Act and under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means in the
108th Congress can be outlined as follows:
1. Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (Title II)--At present, there are
approximately 156 million workers in employment covered by the program, and for
calendar year 2003, $479 billion in benefits were paid to 47 million individuals.
2. Medicare (Title XVIII)--Provides hospital insurance benefits to 34.9 million persons
over the age of 65 and to 6.4 million disabled persons. Voluntary supplementary medical
insurance is provided to 33.4 million aged persons and 5.6 million disabled persons. Total
program outlays under these programs were $281 billion in 2003.
3. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (Title XVI)--The SSI program was inaugurated in
January 1974 under the provisions of P.L. 92-603, as amended. It replaced the former
Federal-State programs for the needy aged, blind, and disabled. On average in calendar
year 2003, 6.9 million individuals received Federal SSI benefits on a monthly basis. Of
these 6.9 million persons, approximately 1.2 million received benefits on the basis of age,
and 5.6 million on the basis of blindness or disability. Federal expenditures for cash SSI
payments in 2003 totaled $35.6 billion, while State expenditures for federally
administered SSI supplements totaled $4.9 billion.
4. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (part A of Title IV)--The TANF
program is a block grant of about $16.5 billion dollars awarded to States to provide
income assistance to poor families, to end dependency on welfare benefits, to prevent
nonmarital births, and to encourage marriage, among other purposes. TANF also
includes incentive funds for States that achieve overall program goals and additional
incentive funds for States that are successful in reducing non-marital births. In most
cases, Federal TANF benefits for individuals are limited to 5 years and individuals must
work to maintain their eligibility. In March 2004, about 2 million families and 4.8
million individuals received benefits from the TANF program.
5. Child support enforcement (part D of Title IV)--In fiscal year 2003 Federal
administrative expenditures totaled $5.2 billion for the child support enforcement
program. Child support collections for that year totaled $21.2 billion.
6. Child welfare, foster care, and adoption assistance (parts B and E of Title IV)--Titles
IV B and E provide funds to States for child welfare services for abused and neglected
66
children; foster care for children who meet Aid to Families with Dependent Children
eligibility criteria; and adoption assistance for children with special needs. In fiscal year
2003, Federal expenditures for child welfare services totaled $694 million. Federal
expenditures for foster care and adoption assistance were approximately $6.2 billion.
7. Unemployment compensation programs (Titles III, IX, and XII)--These titles authorize
the Federal-State unemployment compensation program and the permanent extended
benefits program. Between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004, an estimated $36.1 billion
was paid in unemployment compensation, with approximately 8.6 million workers
receiving unemployment compensation payments.
8. Social services (Title XX)--Title XX authorizes the Federal Government to reimburse
the States for money spent to provide persons with various services. Generally, the
specific services provided are determined by each State. In fiscal year 2004, $1.7 billion
was appropriated. These funds are allocated on the basis of population.
§77 Senate HELP Committee
A. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP)
refers to the committee all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials and other
matters relating to the following subjects under Rule 25, of the Standing Rules of the
Senate.
1. Measures relating to education, labor, health, and public welfare.
2. Aging
3. Agricultural colleges
4. Arts and humanities
5. Biomedical research and development
6. Child labor
7. Convict labor and the entry of goods made by convicts into interstate commerce
8. Domestic activities of the American Red Cross
9. Equal employment opportunity
10. Gallaudet University, Howard University and Saint Elizabeth’s hospital
11. Individuals with disabilities
12. Labor standards and labor statistics
13. Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes
14. Occupational safety and health, including the welfare of miners
15. Private pension plans
16. Public health
17. Railway labor and retirement
18. Regulation of foreign laborers
19. Student loans
20. Wages and hours of labor
67
B. To support the committee in the study and review, on a comprehensive basis, of
matters relating to health, education and training, and public welfare, and report thereon
from time to time four subcommittees have been established.
1. The Subcommittee on Bio-terrorism and Public Health Preparedness was established at
the start of the 109th Congress to focus exclusively on ensuring that the United States is
prepared for public health emergencies – whether deliberate, accidental, or natural. The
Subcommittee has jurisdiction over a wide range of bio-terrorism and public health issues
including Bio-Shield, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, immunizations,
infectious diseases, pandemic flu, and vaccines.
2. The Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development has jurisdiction
over a wide range of issues including children, youth, families, and elementary,
secondary and college education
3. The Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety. The Subcommittee was
named Employment Safety and Training in previous Congress, but was renamed to better
fit the HELP Committee’s mission of creating a safer environment for workers. The
Subcommittee has jurisdiction over a variety of labor issues including OSHA, wage and
hour laws, workplace leave, and employment trends, among others.
4. The Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging has oversight over many issues
including: Pensions, the Older Americans Act; elder abuse, neglect, and scams affecting
seniors; long-term care services for older Americans, family caregiving, and the health of
the aging population. Subcommittee was named Aging in the previous congress but was
renamed to acknowledge the importance of pension reform within the HELP Committee
jurisdiction and assign pension responsibility to this subcommittee.
§77a Office of Personnel Management
A. As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through
taxes and the participants' contributions under the Federal Employees' Retirement System
Act of 1986. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary
into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.
Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but
only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after
completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that
Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension. The
amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of
the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's
retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. According to the
Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving
federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006.
Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual
pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS
68
and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952
in 2006.
Fig. 15 Office of Personnel Management Budget 2000-2020
2000
2015
OMB
93,362
2016
2017
2018
2019
Office of
48,655
48,000
48,000
48,000
48,000
Personnel
Management
Source: OMB Table 4.1, OPM $ 1 trillion asset FY 2015 Budget Request
2020
48,000
B. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) receives “such sums as necessary”
mandatory appropriations for payments from the General Fund and has saved $1 trillion;
$36.3 billion to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund which has an FY 2015
balance of $875 billion and outlays of $82.4 billion, $11.4 billion to the Employees
Health Benefits Fund which has a balance of $23.3 billion and outlay of $47.7 billion,
and $50 million to the Employees Group Life Insurance Fund which has a balance of
$44.1 billion and outlays of $2.9 billion. The federal government contributes $0 to the
Postal Service Retiree Health Fund which has a balance of $61.3 billion and zero outlays.
OPM assets are estimated at nearly exactly $1 trillion, $1,003.7 million. Due to the
existence of the trust funds it is presumed that the OPM does not use the undistributed
off-setting receipt method with their mandatory benefit accounts. The Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) requests $240.2 million discretionary. OMB estimates costs to be
$93,362 billion. OPM assets are estimated nearly exactly $1 trillion, $1,003.7 million.
This is a major discrepancy amounting to over $93.1 billion. The Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is responsible for the administration of the Federal Retirement
Program covering over 2.7 million active employees and 2.5 million annuitants. Having
discerned that the OPM subsidized insurance programs total of $47.75 billion plus $240
million administrative costs, $48 billion, this is $45.5 billion less than the $93 billion
OMB estimate. This discrepancy might reduce the deficit by $45.5 billion. Any
retroactive debt relief due the accurate correction of OMB accounting of federal
government spending on OPM spending will have to be verified and negotiated with the
OPM budget office regarding the adequacy of their new $1 trillion total trust fund
balance. In summary although the OMB estimates federal spending to be $93.4 billion
on-budget the OPM budget estimates $132,916 billion in outlays, $48 billion on-budget:
$47.7 subsidy and $240 million administration; $53.5 billion in off-budget contributions
and $31 billion in interest income, exactly $1 trillion assets in total health, life, retirement
and disability, and unpaid postal health assets FY2015.
C. Members of Congress are also provided with an annual allowance intended to defray
expenses related carrying out their congressional duties, including "official office
expenses, including staff, mail, travel between a Member's district or state and
Washington, DC, and other goods and services." Many members of Congress retain their
private careers and other business interests while they serve. Members are allowed to
retain an amount of permissible "outside earned income" limited to no more than 15% of
69
the annual rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule for federal employees,
or $26,550 a year in 2013. However, there is currently no limit on the amount of nonsalary income members can retain from their investments, corporate dividends or profits.
House and Senate rules define what sources of "outside earned income" are permissible.
For example, House Rule XXV (112th Congress) limits permissible outside income to
"salaries, fees, and other amounts received or to be received as compensation for personal
services actually rendered." Perhaps most importantly to voters and taxpayers, member
of Congress are strictly prohibited from earning or accepting income that may appear to
be intended to influence the way they vote on legislation.
D. As of 2015, the base salary for all rank-and-file members of the U.S. House and
Senate is $174,000 per year, plus benefits. The maximum taxable limit for OASDI taxes
is $118,500. Salaries have not been increased since 2009. Leaders of the House and
Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members. Senate Leadership; Majority
Party Leader - $193,400, Minority Party Leader - $193,400. House Leadership Speaker
of the House - $223,500, Majority Leader - $193,400, Minority Leader - $193,400.
Members of Congress are eligible to receive the same annual cost-of-living increase
given to other federal employees, if any. The raise takes effect automatically on January 1
of each year unless Congress, through passage of a joint resolution, votes to decline it, as
Congress has done since 2009. To be worthy of a raise it is obvious that Congress, must
eliminate the maximum taxable limit on OASDI taxations, $118,500 (2015) when the
average $174,000 Congressperson would pay $6,882 out of their pocket to balance the
federal budget, if they had agreed to pay 12.4% OASDI tax on all their income FY 2015,
as we ask them to pay only 2.4%, Less than $1,277 for the DI fund and Postal Service in
2016 as the result of the rising maximum taxable limit and non-growing wage.
§77b Postal Service
A. The United States Postal Service, also known as the Post Office, U.S. Mail, or Postal
Service, often abbreviated as USPS, is an independent agency of the United States federal
government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. Benjamin
Franklin was appointed our first Postmaster General in 1775, The USPS employed
617,254 workers (as of February 2015) and operated 211,264 vehicles in 2014. The
USPS is the third largest employer in the nation after the federal government and
Walmart. The USPS is the operator of the largest civilian vehicle fleet in the world. The
USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s. Since the 2006 alltime peak mail volume, after which Congress passed the Postal Accountability and
Enhancement PAE Act, (which mandated $5.5 billion per year to be paid into an account
to fully prefund employee retirement health benefits, a requirement exceeding that of
other government and private organization), revenue dropped sharply due to recessioninfluence declining mail volume prompting the postal service to look to other sources of
revenue while cutting costs to reduce its budget deficit. The postal service has defaulted
on this $5.5 billion obligation five years in a row. The federal government has paid $0 in
benefits from the Postal Service Retiree Health Fund which has a balance of $61.3 billion
and zero outlays. The Postal Service would benefit from the DI WILL that could be
retroactively billed to January 1, 2016 and the USPS would collect from at the end of the
70
year if revenues were adequate for the DI Trust fund. If the DI WILL does not pass the
PAE should be abolished and Postal Service Retiree Health Fund refunded.
Fig. 16 Postal Service Budget Request
Postal Service
2015
0
2016
2017
2018
21,115
21,643
22,184
Source. FY 2015 Federal Budget
2019
22,739
2020
23,307
1. On November 6, 2013 the New York Times reported; Last year, the Postal Service’s
operating revenue was $65 billion, but its operating expenses were $81 billion = $16
billion deficit in 2012. A net loss of $41 billion is reported between 2007-02 or 13. The
post office has seen revenue for first-class mail — the agency’s cash cow — decline by
$2.4 billion. It has defaulted on three annual $5.5 billion payments into a health care fund
for its future retirees. It has also exhausted its $15 billion borrowing limit from the
Treasury Department. It has defaulted on three annual $5.5 billion payments into a health
care fund for its future retirees. It has also exhausted its $15 billion borrowing limit from
the Treasury Department. On November 15, 2013 the L.A. Time wrote; The USPS
reported a $5 billion loss FY2013. It's the seventh-straight yearly net loss. Since 2006,
the agency has cut its expenses by $15 billion annually, but first-class mail volume has
continued to drop. While package and standard mail volumes increased, the agency's
most profitable product, first-class mail, declined by 2.8 billion pieces.
§78 Treasury Department
A. Tax revenues accounted for by the Secretary of Treasury are levied by the
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In 2003 the IRS agency has
approximately 100,000 employees and a budget of $10 billion. The gross receipts of
federal, state and local governments were reported to total $4,024.1 billion and
expenditures $4,173.7 billion in 2006, before the return estimated at $300 billion.
Federal, state, and local tax receipts have nearly tripled as a percentage of GDP over the
last 70 years - rising from 9.5% in 1929 to 26.2% by 2002. As a percentage of income
the average US taxpayers pay 34% of their income. Since 1929, the federal government
has significantly increased rates and expanded the base of the individual income tax and
created contribution-based entitlement programs in Social Security and Medicare (the
receipts of which together measure 6.5% of GDP in 2002, 13.5% of income. Social
insurance receipts ballooned after the introduction of Medicare in 1965. By contrast, the
individual income tax, after explosive growth in World War II, grew very slowly in the
post-war era until the late 1990s, when it eclipsed state and local taxation in 1998 and
peaked at 10.2% of GDP or 18% of income in 2002. From the late 1960s through the late
1990s, the level of total government receipts largely stabilized, remaining between 25 and
27% of GDP.
71
1. The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage GDP than do
most other countries in the OECD. In 2003 taxes in the United States, including all levels
of government amounted to 25.6% of GDP, down from 29.6% of GDP in 2000. Other
countries in the G7 raised 33.9% of GDP, while non-G7 OECD countries raised 34.7%.
Within the OECD, Mexico raised the least tax revenues at 19% and Sweden the most at
50.6%. The recovery of corporate profits and the stock market since 2003 subsequently
boosted U.S. tax revenues to 26.8% of GDP in the first three quarters of calendar year
2005. Compared with other OECD countries, the United States relies more heavily on
income taxes as a source of revenue and less on taxes on goods and services. In 2003 the
United States raised 43.3% of its revenue from corporate and personal income taxes,
compared with 30.5% for the rest of the G7 and 34.3% for non-G7 OECD countries. But
unlike other OECD countries, the United States does not impose a value-added or other
form of national sales tax.
B. Of the nation’s 139 million estimated nondependent tax units, 18 million do not file an
income tax return. More than 60 percent of these non-filers are single, but a quarter are
married without dependent children. Almost all non-filers have estimated adjusted gross
income of less than $10,000. They are also disproportionately elderly: those aged 65 or
above account for less than 20 percent of all nondependent tax units, but more than half
of all non-filing units. An additional 42 million tax units file an income tax return but
owe no more than $500 in income tax after credits. Of these, 34 million either owe no
income tax or receive a net income tax refund after credits. More than one in six
taxpayers in 2004 received the Earned Income Tax Credit. The federal credit, which
72
offers tax refunds this year of up to $4,716 for a parent with two children who makes
$12,000 to $15,000, has emerged as one of the largest aid programs for the working poor.
The amount of the credit for such parents gradually declines, reaching zero as their
incomes hit $38,000. The number of people receiving the credit rose to 21.7 million in
2004 from 18.8 million in 2000. At least 19 states and three local governments, including
New York City, San Francisco and Montgomery County, Md., offer similar credits
against state and local taxes. Childless adults and non-custodial fathers receive little from
the earned income credit; their maximum benefit this year will be $428 and begins
phasing out at an annual income of $7,000.
Fig. 18 Tax Rates by Income 1979 & 2000
Effective Tax
Share of Pretax
Share of Taxes
Rate
Income
Paid (percent)
(percent)
(percent)
Average After-Tax
Income (2000 $)
1979
2000
1979
2000
1979
2000
1979
2000
All
22.2
23.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
40,700
57,000
Lowest 20%
8.0
6.4
2.1
1.1
5.8
4.0
12,600
13,700
Second 20%
14.3
13.0
7.2
4.8
11.1
8.6
25,600
29,000
Middle 20%
18.6
16.7
13.2
9.8
15.8
13.5
36,400
41,900
Fourth 20%
21.2
20.5
21.0
17.4
22.0
19.6
47,700
59,200
Top 20%
27.5
28.0
56.4
66.7
45.5
54.8
84,000
141,400
Top 10%
29.6
29.7
40.7
52.2
30.5
40.6
106,300
201,400
Top 5%
31.8
31.1
29.6
41.4
20.7
30.7
140,100
299,400
Top 1%
37.0
33.2
15.4
25.6
9.3
17.8
286,300
862,700
Income
Group
Source: Congressional Budget Office. 2003. Effective Federal Tax Rates, 1997-2000.
August
1. Widening income inequality in the US is alarming. As executive compensation
skyrocketed from 2003 to 2004, the average after-tax income for the richest 1 percent of
U.S. households went up almost 20 percent, while after-tax incomes for the middle fifth
of the nation — the middle of the middle class — went up only 3.6 percent. Looking
back 25 years — starting in 1979 — the contrast is even greater. The top one percent saw
a whopping 176 percent jump, while the middle fifth of Americans saw only a 21 percent
rise. That's a big difference, but although 21 percent still seems high. In fact a new study
shows that in 2005, the top 10 percent of Americans collected almost half of all reported
income in this country. This is their biggest share since 1928. Taxes on the richest need
73
to be increased. Throughout the golden years of income equality 1950-1970 the top
bracket of income earners, a highly variable category ranging from $100,000 in 19251931 and 1965-1970 to over $5 million in 1936 to 1941, was taxed between 7% in 1913
to 1915 and 94% in 1944 and 1945. The current rate is 10% for low income taxpayers
and 35% for top bracket income earners. The average rate of income taxation of the
richest is probably about 50% but the ideal rate is probably 70%.
2. The tax system heavily subsidizes employer-sponsored insurance (ESI). Section 125
of the Internal Revenue Code allows employers to administer certain employee benefits.
Employees choose to receive part of their compensation either as cash wages or as one or
more nontaxable fringe benefits, including health insurance. The self-employed may
deduct their health insurance premiums from income tax. There are limitations to using
tax credits to expand health insurance coverage. Employer contributions to employee
health insurance are treated as nontaxable fringe benefits and are not considered part of
total compensation for income or payroll tax purposes. The tax subsidies for ESI reduced
income and payroll tax receipts by as much as $200 billion in fiscal year 2007.
C. The Treasury cannot sustain the costs hidden in the deceptive language of the
refundable premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction. HHS will need to account for
the new Medicaid premiums off-budget revenues used to reduce federal Medicaid
spending in their budget request, so far, without trust fund, estimated to operate on a $2.7 billion deficit at its inception. If the number of beneficiaries doubles to 16 million
premium payers in 2015, paying $60,100 million in premiums, the account deficit might
double to -$5.2 billion. It should be much less expensive and more efficient for Medicaid
to insure worker health than a private third-party insurer.
§79 Department of Health and Human Services
A. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is the United States
government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing
essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. The
Department includes more than 300 programs, primarily the 20 or so agencies in the
Public Health Service (PHS) of which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is chief
and the mandatory benefit programs – Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), Children’s Health Insurance, Foster Care and Adoption
Assistance, Child Support Enforcement, Child Care, Social Services Block Grant and
other smaller programs, covering a wide spectrum of activities. Some highlights include:
1. Health and social science research
2. Preventing disease, including immunization services
3. Assuring food and drug safety
4. Medicare (federal health insurance) and Medicaid (state health insurance)
5. Health information technology
6. Financial assistance and services for low-income families
7. Improving maternal and infant health
8. Head Start (pre-school education and services)
74
9. Faith-based and community initiatives
10. Preventing child abuse and domestic violence
11. Substance abuse treatment and prevention
12. Services for older Americans, including home-delivered meals
13. Comprehensive health services for Native Americans
14. Medical preparedness for emergencies.
B. The foundation of the public health service is typically attributed to July 16, 1798,
when President John Adams signed a bill into law that created the Marine Hospital
Service but the increasing involvement of the Service in public health activities led to its
name being changed again in 1912 to the Public Health Service (PHS). It was not until
the social programs of the 1960, particularly the Medicare and Medicaid legislation of
1965, that health became a major expense of the federal government. The Social Security
Act of 1965 [H.R. 6675] established both Medicare and Medicaid with the signature of
President Johnson on 30 July 1965. Medicare was a responsibility of the Social Security
Administration (SSA) and State Medicaid programs were administrated by the Social and
Rehabilitation Service (SRS). In 1977, the Health Care Financing Administration
(HCFA) was created under the Department of Health Education and Welfare (HEW) to
effectively coordinate Medicare and Medicaid. In 1980 HEW was divided into the
Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In
2001, HCFA was renamed the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and is
led by an Administrator.
1. The Medicare program has two trust funds established in Title XVIII Health Insurance
for the Aged and Disabled, and several State administered programs in Title XIX Grants
to States for Medical Assistance Programs and Title XXI State Children’s Health
Insurance Program. Hospital Insurance (HI), or Medicare Part A, helps pay for hospital,
home health, skilled nursing facility, and hospice care for the aged and disabled.
Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) consists of Medicare Part B and Part D. Part B
helps pay for physician, outpatient hospital, home health, and other services for the aged
and disabled who have voluntarily enrolled. In 2006 and later, Part D provides subsidized
access to drug insurance coverage on a voluntary basis for all beneficiaries and premium
and cost-sharing subsidies for low-income enrollees. Beneficiaries pay monthly
premiums that finance about 25 percent of Part B costs. For SMI, transfers from the
general fund of the Treasury represent the largest source of income, currently covering
roughly 75 percent of program costs. Medicaid is the State health insurance program;
children’s health insurance is also administered by the States.
2. In 2011, Medicare covered 48.7 million people: 40.4 million aged 65 and older, and
8.3 million disabled. About 25 percent of these beneficiaries have chosen to enroll in Part
C private health plans that contract with Medicare to provide Part A and Part B health
services. Total expenditures in 2011 were $549.1 billion. Total income was $530.0
billion, which consisted of $514.8 billion in non-interest income and $15.2 billion in
interest earnings. Assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities decreased to
$324.9 billion. The total assets of the trust fund amounted to $271.9 billion on December
31, 2010. Total HI payroll tax income in calendar year 2011 amounted to $195.6
75
billion—an increase of 7.4% over the amount of $182.0 billion for the preceding 12month period. Total revenue amounted to $228.9 billion, and total expenditures were
$256.7 billion. Total assets thus decreased by $27.7 billion during the year to $244.2
billion on December 31, 2011. The fund received $12.0 billion in interest income.
3. Of the $256.7 billion in total HI expenditures, $252.9 billion represented net benefits
paid from the trust fund for health services. Net benefit payments increased 3.4% in
calendar year 2011. The remaining $3.8 billion in expenditures was for net HI
administrative expenses. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 established a health care fraud and abuse control account within the HI trust fund.
$1.7 billion in monies derived from the fraud and abuse control program were transferred
from the general fund of the Treasury to the HI trust fund during calendar year 2011. The
ratio of administrative expenses to benefit payments has generally fallen within the range
of 1 to 3%. The Trustees have recommended maintenance of HI trust fund assets at a
level of at least 100% of annual expenditures.
4. Payments from the General Fund finance about 76% of SMI Part B and Part D costs,
$222 billion of $292.4 billion in 2011, with most of the remaining $70 billion in costs
covered by monthly premiums charged to enrollees or in the case of low-income
beneficiaries, paid on their behalf by the Medicare or Medicaid. Part B and Part D
premium amounts rely on methods defined in law and increase as the estimated costs of
those programs rise. In 2012, the Part B standard monthly premium is $99.90. There are
also income-related premium surcharges for Part B beneficiaries whose modified
adjusted gross income exceeds a specified threshold. In 2012 through 2019, the threshold
is $85,000 for individual tax return filers and $170,000 for joint return filers. Incomerelated premiums range from $139.90 to $319.70 per month in 2012. In 2012, the Part D
"base monthly premium" is $31.08. SMI general revenues currently equal 1.5% of GDP
and would increase to an estimated 3.0% in 2086 under current law (but would increase
to 4.4% under the full illustrative alternative to current law). SMI general revenues in
fiscal year 2008 were equivalent to about 12.0% of total Federal income taxes collected
in that year. For 2009, 2010 and 2011, the percentages were 17.7, 19.2 and 17.2%,
respectively.
5. Medicaid served 52 million beneficiaries at an annual cost of $305 billion in 2006.
Medicaid pays Part B premiums and cost-sharing amounts for beneficiaries with very low
incomes. Kaiser Family Foundation Key Medicare and Medicaid Statistics estimated 52
million Medicaid beneficiaries at an annual cost of $305 billion in 2006. This is more
than the federal Medicare program that served 42 million people at a cost of $295 billion.
Together Medicare and Medicaid served 87 million people at a combined cost of $602
billion in 2006. The federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) is the share of total
Medicaid expenditures the federal government pays. Currently Medicaid pays
approximately 1 in 5 health care dollars and 1 in 2 nursing home dollars. According to
the Office of Management and Budget, federal grants to the States for Medicaid
amounted to nearly $273 billion in Fiscal Year 2010.
76
D. The refundable tax credit and cost-sharing reduction FY2015 must better account for
premium earnings. HHS must not be allowed to mark up the Treasury’s book to spend
more than $1 trillion. It is absolutely critical that Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) spending be limited to less than $1 trillion without review until FY
2020. OMB estimates DHHS spending FY2015 to be $1,010 billion and FY 2016 $1,073
billion. U.S. medical spending is beyond belief, health insurance assets need to be
nationalized and whereas socializing health insurance costs less, federal spending needs
to be limited to less than $1 trillion without review until 2020.
Fig. 19 HHS Spending in billions 2000, 2008, 2014-15
HHS Total Spending
Food and Drug
Administration
Health Resources and
Services Administration
Indian Health Service
Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services
Administration
Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services
Administration for Children
and Families
Administration for
Community Living
formerly Agency on Aging
Office of the National
Coordinator
Office of Medicare
Hearings and Appeals
Office for Civil Rights
General Departmental
Management
Health Insurance Reform
Implementation Fund
Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund
Office of the Inspector
General
2000
400
1.1
2008
698
1.6
2014
958
2.7
2015
1,010
2.9
4.3
6.2
9.1
9.5
2.3
2.7
3.5
5.8
4.6
6.7
4.8
6.6
15.5
2.5
28.6
3.1
31.1
3.7
29.7
3.4
0.09
0
0.3
0.1
333
599
844
897
38
46
50.1
51.1
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.9
0.06
0.4
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.1
0.4
0.04
0.9
0.04
0.6
0.2
0.1
2.6
1.8
1.9
0.08
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.2
77
Program Support Center
Offsetting Collections
Total HHS Spending
0.3
0.5
1.1
0.6
-1.1
-1.3
-0.8
-0.8
400
698
958
1,010
HHS Budgets 2000, 2008 & 2015
1. Americans have been held back from receiving their Public Health Department (PHD)
by the lack of foresight on the part of their federal government to graduate from Health
and Human Services (HHS) and the Education Reorganization Act of 1978 within four,
or even twelve years. The Social Security Amendments of 2001 unpoetically changed
the name of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to Centers for Medicare,
Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CMS) and gave the Social
Security Commissioner an ungainly 6 year term although the endurance limit in nature
was two years for everyone since the creator. HCFA was cheaper and remains better
accounted for in the literature, but is not perfect. A two year term for Social Security
Commissioner seems more natural. Medical spending needs to be limited to less than $1
trillion. Child and family welfare spending needs to increase, Temporary assistance for
needy families (TANF) enrollment has gone down from 14 million in 1994 to 4 million
2014, and child care, declined from $3.7 billion 2000 to $2.8 billion in 2008 at $3.5
billion in 2015 child care receives less than in 2000.
Fig. 20 Mandatory HHS Spending 2000, 2008, 2014-15
2000 2008 2014 2015
Medicare
215
387
513
526
Medicaid
115
202
309
336
Temporary Assistance for
14.1 17.3 17.6
17.5
Needy Families
Foster Care and
5.5
6.8
6.7
7.0
Permanency
Children’s Health Insurance 1.9
6.6
10.3
10.6
Child Support Enforcement 2.9
4.1
3.9
4.1
formerly Family Support
Child Care
3.7
2.8
2.9
3.5
Social Services Block Grant 2.5
1.7
1.9
2.4
Other Mandatory Programs 1.0
1.9
12.6
24.6
Offsetting Collections
-1.1
-1.3
-0.8
-0.8
Total HHS Mandatory
360
629
877
931
Spending
HHS Budgets 2000, 2008 & 2015
2. The newly expensive and unexplained concept of other mandatory programs, that
increased from $1.9 billion FY2014 to $24.6 billion FY2015 is clearly the target for
immediate reductions FY2015 and needs to be abolished. The 2015 HHS budget lauds
the new health insurance marketplace, and the Budget requests $4.6 billion for health
centers, of which $3.6 billion is funded by the Affordable Care Act’s Community Health
Center Fund, to serve approximately 31 million patients in FY 2015. A good deal.
78
However the new spending wrongly termed “other mandatory spending”, must be denied
to reduce spending to less than $1 trillion FY 2015, $993.5 billion to be exact.
Furthermore, the primary focus of federal medical spending cuts in Medicare and
Medicaid should be to eliminate federal psychiatric spending to zero and prohibit medical
b(k)illing which so offends the Hippocratic Oath and Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 and the true ethical code of the social worker.
§80 Veteran’s Administration
A. The Department of Veterans Affairs pension program pre-date the nation. Although
this VA benefits system traces its roots back to 1636, when the Pilgrims of Plymouth
Colony were at war with the Pequot Indians and the Pilgrims passed a law which stated
that disabled soldiers would be supported by the colony the establishment of the Veterans
Administration came in 1930 when Congress authorized the President to "consolidate and
coordinate Government activities affecting war veterans" to fulfill President Lincoln’s
promise – “To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his
orphan”. VA operates the largest direct health care delivery system in America. On
September 30, 2009, there were an estimated 23.1 million living Veterans, with 23
million of them in the U.S. and Puerto Rico, there were an estimated 35.2 million
dependents.
B. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs employs 230,000 to administrate.
(1) Compensation and pension programs.
(2) Vocational rehabilitation and educational assistance programs.
(3) Veterans' housing loan programs.
(4) Veterans' and service members' life insurance programs.
(5) Outreach programs and other veterans' services programs
C. Census 2000 counted 208.1 million civilians 18 and older in the United States.1
Within this population, approximately 26.4 million or 12.7 percent were veterans. 1.6
million are women. 9.7 million are over the age of 65. 57.4 is the median age of
veterans. 2.6 million black veterans. 1.1 million Hispanic. 284,000 Asian. 196,000
Native American. The poverty rate for veterans is 5.6% opposed to 10.9% for the general
populace. 3 in 10 have disabilities. $67.7 billion in budget authority for fiscal year 2005,
an increase in budget authority of $5.6 billion over the current fiscal year. $36.5 billion
is the aggregate sum veterans benefits. $32.5 billion is invested in Veterans health care.
The largest percentage, 31.7%, were enlisted in the Vietnam era and disability ranges
from 16.3% for soldiers from the 1990 Gulf War to Present to 45.2% for World War II
vets.
D. Number of Veterans August 1990 or later (including Gulf War) . . . . 3,024,503
September 1980 to July 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,806,602
May 1975 to August 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,775,492
Vietnam era (August 1964 to April 1975) . . . . . 8,380,356
February 1955 to July 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,355,323
Korean War (June 1950 to January 1955) . . . . 4,045,521
World War II (September 1940 to July 1947) . 5,719,898
79
E. Military pensions are supplemental to Social Security benefits since 1957 according to
Military Veteran’s and Social Security Vol. 66 No. 2. There are 9.4 million military
veterans receiving Social Security benefits, which means that almost one out of every
four adult Social Security beneficiaries has served in the United States military. In
addition, veterans and their families make up almost 40 percent of the adult Social
Security beneficiary population. Fourteen percent of veterans receiving Social Security
benefits have income below 150 percent of poverty, while 25 percent of all adult Social
Security beneficiaries are below this level. The right of US service members to Veteran’s
Benefits will not be denied people with less than $2 million in assets, under Scarborough
v. Anthony J. Principi Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs No. 02-1657 (2004).
1. Veterans pensions under 38USC§1521(j) are between $3,000 and $6,000 a year. They
are intended to supplement income from employment and other pension programs,
primarily Social Security insurance. Veteran’s health benefits are adequate as Veterans
Hospitals deliver health care for free or by deduction from benefits while the veteran is
hospitalized.
2. Law Judges, attorneys experienced in veteran’s law and in reviewing benefit claims,
are the only ones who can issue Board of Veteran Appeals decisions. Staff attorneys, also
trained in veteran’s law, reviewing the facts of each appeal and assist the Board members.
Fig. 21 Veterans Affairs Spending 2000-2020
[in millions]
2000
2015
OMB
158,039
2016
2017
2018
2019
Department of 47,044
164,410 168,520 172,733 177,052
Veterans
Affairs
Source: OMB Table 4.1, VA FY 2015 Budget + 2.5% growth
2020
181,478
E. The FY 2015 VA request of $160.8 billion is $2,761 million more than the $158,039
million OMB estimate. Mandatory $ 95.6 billion, of that Compensation and pensions
amount to $78.7 billion 2015. Discretionary requests increase to $65.3 billion. It seems
wise for the US to hasten through to $70 billion in exchange for fixing the books. VA
compensation and pensions amount to $78.7 billion in 2015. Military retirement
contributions amounted to $73,187 million in interfund transfer off-setting receipts in
OMB Table 13-5 Offsetting Receipts and Types. This is a pretty accurate estimate of
payroll contributions and interfund transfers from the military, financing VA
compensation and does not require a duplicate Other Defense Civil Programs row. The
Other Defense – Civil Programs row from the Outlays by Agency table need to be
abolished $57,368 million off the FY 2015 deficit. Abolishing the Other Defense Civil
Programs row from the on-budget and total undistributed offsetting receipts rows before
2009 and on-budget 2009-present would reduce the FY 2015 deficit by $57.4 billion and
the federal debt by $360 billion FY 2009-2014.
§81 Department of Labor
80
A. The Department of Labor (DOL) was created in the DOL Organic Act of March 4,
1913. DOL fosters and promotes the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and
retirees of the United States. In carrying out this mission, the Department administers a
variety of Federal labor laws including those that guarantee workers’ rights to safe and
healthful working conditions; a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay; freedom from
employment discrimination; unemployment insurance; and other income support. The
Department of Labor (DOL) administers and enforces more than 180 federal laws. These
mandates and the regulations that implement them cover many workplace activities for
more than 10 million employers and 125 million workers. During the 1990s 21 million
private sector jobs were created. Since 2001 there has been net private and public sector
job loss in this country. Wages have also gone down.
Fig. 22 Occupations by Category 2006
Employees
All Occupations
Management
Business and
Financial
Operations
Computer and
Mathematical
Science
Architecture and
Engineering
Life, Physical and
Social Science
Community and
Social Services
Legal
Education, Training
and Library
Arts, Design,
Entertainment,
Sports, and Media
Healthcare
Practitioner and
Technical
Healthcare Support
Protective Service
Food Preparation
and Serving
Building and
Grounds Cleaning
Mean
Hourly
$18.84
$44.20
$28.85
Mean Annual
132,604,980
5,892,900
5,826,140
Median
Hourly
$14.61
$38.98
$25.81
3,076,200
$31.80
$33.29
$69,240
2,430,250
$30.00
$31.82
$66,190
1,231,070
$25.49
$28.68
$59,660
1,749,210
$17.21
$18.75
$39,000
976,740
8,206,440
$32.56
$19.76
$41.04
$21.79
$85,360
$45,320
1,727,380
$18.44
$22.17
$46,110
6,713,780
$24.99
$29.82
$62,030
3,483,270
3,024,840
11,029,280
$11.00
$15.42
$7.90
$11.83
$17.81
&8.86
$24,610
$37,040
$18,430
4,396,250
$9.75
$10.86
$22,580
$39,190
$91,930
$60,000
81
and Maintenance
Personal Care and
Service
Sales
Office and
Administrative
Support
Farming, Fishing
and Forestry
Construction and
Extraction
Installation,
Maintenance, and
Repair
Production
Transportation and
Material Moving
3,249,760
$9.17
$11.02
$22,920
14,114,860
23,077,190
$11.14
$13.50
$16.52
$14.60
$34,350
$30,370
450,040
$8.63
$10.49
$21,810
6,680,710
$17.04
$18.89
$39,290
5,352,420
$17.65
$18.78
$39,060
10,268,510
9,647,730
$13.16
$12.17
$14.65
$14.16
$30,480
$29,460
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates May 2006
1. The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act is administered by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that regulates Safety and health conditions in
most private industries and public sector employers. Employers also have a general duty
under the OSH Act to provide their employees with work and a workplace free from
recognized, serious hazards. OSHA enforces the Act through workplace inspections and
investigations. OSHA has an extensive library of highly informative workplace
regulations at 29CFR Part 1910.
2. Employment Standards Administration (ESA's) Office of Workers Compensation
Programs (OWCP) provides for compensation for death, disability and medical care of
certain workers. Maritime employees under the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (LHWCA), contractors under the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act and section 5 of the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act, the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), for federal
workers injured in the course of duty 5USC§8101, and the Black Lung Benefits Act that
provides monthly cash payments and medical benefits to coal miners disabled from
pneumoconiosis ("black lung disease").
3. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) prescribes standards for minimum wages, child
labor and overtime pay, which affect most private and public employment. The act is
administered by the Wage and Hour Division of the Employment Standards
Administration (ESA) that also supervises the garnishment of wages under the Consumer
Credit Protection Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Family and Medical
Leave Act of February 5, 1993 (PL-303-3) is considered substandard and the U.S.
provides only 12 weeks of unpaid leave to approximately half of mothers in the U.S. and
82
nothing for the remainder. 45 countries ensure that fathers either receive paid paternity
leave or have a right to paid parental leave. The United States guarantees fathers neither
paid paternity nor paid parental leave. At least 96 countries around the world in all
geographic regions and at all economic levels mandate paid annual leave. The U.S. does
not require employers to provide paid annual leave. At least 37 countries have policies
guaranteeing parents some type of paid leave specifically for when their children are ill.
Of these countries, two-thirds guarantee more than a week of paid leave, and more than
one-third guarantee 11 or more days. 139 countries provide paid leave for short- or longterm illnesses, with 117 providing a week or more annually. The U.S. provides up to 12
weeks of unpaid leave for serious illnesses through the FMLA. The following ILO
Conventions await ratification by the United States a.Holidays with Pay Convention
(Convention 132) of 1970; b.Workers with Family Responsibilities (Convention 156) of
1981; c. Maternity Protection (Convention 183) of 2000.
4. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 29USC§1002(2)(B)(ii), makes
provisions for employer contributions to provide supplemental retirement income,
disability and health insurance benefits to employees. These contributions to retirement
welfare plans under 401(k) and 414(h)(2) of Internal Revenue Code are considered nonprofit trusts of the employer exempted from taxation in 26USC(A)(1)(F)I§501(c) so long
as they are defined benefit plans that invest a pre-determined amount of money to provide
cash payments not beginning before retirement, or disability, and do not pay highly
compensated employees at a higher rate of return for the same investment. ERISA
regulates employers who offer pension or welfare benefit plans for their employees. Title
I of ERISA is administered by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Under Title IV, certain employers and plan administrators must fund an insurance system
to protect certain kinds of retirement benefits, with premiums paid to the federal
government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). EBSA also administers
reporting requirements for continuation of health-care provisions, required under the
Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) and the health
care portability requirements on group plans under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA).
5. The Unemployment Compensation program was established in 1935 to compensate the
millions of people who lost their jobs during the Depression. The Unemployment Trust
Fund has 59 accounts. The accounts consist of 53 State UC benefit accounts, the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Account, the Railroad Administration Account, and four
Federal accounts. The Unemployment Tax Act sets forth a 6% tax on the wages paid by
employers; this payment may be credited against contributions, totaling up to 90% of the
tax, made to the state unemployment insurance fund, in doing so employers should take
into consideration the solvency of the state unemployment program in comparison to the
federal unemployment program and investing more in the better program for the greatest
chances of settling claims for unemployment credit paid under
26USC(C)(23)§3302(d)(1). Between spring 2003 and spring 2004 the Unemployment
Trust Fund (s) of the 50 states and territories had combined revenues of $28,325,600,000
and maintained a balance of $18,842,981,000. The Secretary of the Treasury is permitted
to invest such portion of the Unemployment Trust Fund as is not, in his judgment,
required to meet current withdrawals. Investments there under yielded $327,389,000 in
83
interest in 2003-2004. Federal unemployment insurance costs an estimated $1 billion
annually.
B. ILO Convention No. 87 protects collective bargaining as part of freedom of
association. Part I of the Convention, entitled “Freedom of Association”, sets out the
rights of workers to freely form organizations which operate under constitutions and rules
set by the workers and which have the ability to affiliate internationally. Convention No.
87 has been the subject of numerous interpretations by the ILO’s Committee on Freedom
of Association, Committee of Experts and Commissions of Inquiry. These interpretations
have been described as the “cornerstone of the international law on trade union freedom
and collective bargaining”: The right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances
the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to
influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a
major aspect of their lives, namely their work. Labor unions are required to register their
constitutive votes with the Department of Labor.
1. From 1900 to mid-century union density slowly and irregularly moved on an upward
trend starting at 7 percent in 1900 and reaching a peak of 33 percent in 1953. Under the
New Deal unions surged in both membership and power. Union membership tripled
from 1933 to 1938 then doubled again by 1947. At the end of WWII more than a third of
non-farm workers were members of unions. Since then density has retraced much of its
path, moving steadily downward. Falling rapidly from 24 percent in 1977 to 13 percent
in 2002 until in 2005 it stood at 12 percent. Private sector density peaked in the United
States in the early 1950s at 36 percent and then fell steadily and sharply until in 2005 it
stood at only 8 percent in 1983. Density remains higher in manufacturing than in
services. The opposite trend occurred in the public sector where union density rose more
than threefold between 1960 and 1980 and then remained in the 35 to 40 percent range
from the mid-1980s to the present time. By 2002 46 percent of all union members were in
the public sector compared with 32.5 percent in 1983. By 2002 traditional collective
bargaining serves few workers in the US private sector only one in twelve (8.6 percent)
are union members and one in eleven (9.3 percent) are covered by a collective bargaining
agreement. In the United States, the average “raw” union-nonunion wage gap without
control for skill or other attribute is about 20 percent whereas the union nonunion wage
gap falls to 15 percent when skill characteristics are held constant.
2. The de-industrialization of the United States was in fact a de-unionization. The
income of the young and middle-aged, especially men, have fallen since 2000, leaving
many age groups poorer than they were in the 1970s. The wages of new workers are 50
percent of the wages of older workers. The U.S. had a manufacturing base in the 1940s,
50s and 60s. You could graduate high school and go out and get a job in a factory. It
wasn’t glamorous but especially if you had a union behind you, the likelihood was you
earned wages to take your family to the middle class you had decent health care coverage
and maybe even a strong pension. From 2000 to 2008, the U.S. went from 17 million jobs
in manufacturing to about 12 million jobs.
84
C. The DOL budget request increased dramatically from $58 billion in FY 2008 to a high
of $162 billion in FY 2010, going down to $132 billion in FY 2011 to defiantly rise again
to $137 billion in FY 2012. As of FY 2012 DOL spending remains highly distorted after
receiving a total of $34.4 billion in Recovery Act funds, including $29.5 billion for
mandatory UT funds. Now that Unemployment Compensation (UC) spending has
declined from a high of $140 billion in 2010 to $38 billion in 2012 DOL spending must
be reduced. Labor spending, other than UI rose from +/-$10 billion annually to +/- $30
billion in 2010 and 2011 before rising to $90 billion in 2012. This is too much for 17,500
full time employees, $5.1 million per capita.
Fig. 23 DOL Spending, UC, Employment and Unemployment 2000-2012
(in millions)
2000
2005
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Labor Budget
31,873 46,949 58,838 138,157 173,053 131,975 127,157
UC Spending
21,340 32,613 51,467 132,714 139,979 108,357
37,938
Employment
131.8 133.7
136.8
130.8
129.9
131.4
133
Unemployment 4.0%
5.1%
5.8%
9.3%
9.6%
8.9%
8.1%
Source: DOL. FY 2011 Detailed Budget Documentation, Employees on nonfarm payrolls
by major industry sector, 1962 to 2011. OMB Historical Tables, U.S. Department of
Labor Employment and Training Administration (Image Expired?)
1. The vast majority of increased DOL spending during 2009 and 2010 was the result of
the dramatic increase in unemployment and unemployment insurance costs stemming
from the Great Recession. In FY 2008, state agencies collected $32.2 billion in state
unemployment taxes, and paid $42.9 billion in Federal and state unemployment benefits
to 8.9 million beneficiaries. During FY 2009 the state agencies are expected to collect
$36.7 billion in state unemployment taxes and to pay $102.9 billion in Federal and state
unemployment benefits to 12 million. The FY 2010 Budget request for UI State
Administration is $3,195,645,000, a decrease of $78,992,000 from the FY 2009
appropriation of $3,274,637. The formula for FY 2010 finances was $28,600,000 per
100,000.
§82 Education Department
A. 25% of the U.S. population is enrolled in school. In 2006, 79.1 million people aged 3
and older were enrolled in school. Of the total, 8.9 million were enrolled in nursery
school, preschool, or kindergarten. More than one half, 49.8 million, of the enrolled
population in 2006 was enrolled in grades 1 through 12. A total of 20.5 million were
enrolled in college or graduate school. The Education Departments (ED's) $68.6 billion
budget plus around $140 billion in student loans, contributes only about 12% of the total
$1 trillion spending for all levels of education. With a staff of 4,400, 45% below the
7,528 employees who administered Federal education programs in several different
agencies before the Department was established on May 4, 1980, in the Department of
Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88 of October 1979).
85
1. ED is prohibited from effectively governing the education system by setting the core
curriculum that guides textbook publishers to enable students to perform well on
standardized tests. Enforcing a century old superstition Congress legislated a Prohibition
against Federal control of education under 20USC(31)III(2)§ 1232a as codified from the
General Educations Provisions Act of April 18, 1970, P.L. 91-230, Title IV, sec.
401(a)(10), 81 Stat.169 that was cited at 20USC(52)I§3921 of the Education for
Economic Security Act of August 11, 1984, P.L. 98-377, and reinforced at
20USC(48)I§ 3403(b) of the Establishment of Department of Education Act of October
17, 1979 P.L. 96-88. In the U.S., each state, with the individual school districts,
establishes the curricula taught. Each state, however, builds its curriculum with great
participation of national academic subject groups selected by the United States
Department of Education, e.g. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) for
mathematical instruction. This fundamental issue pertaining to the governance of
education is studied in more depth in Federal Core Curriculum?HA-15-12-08.
B. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) delivered nearly
$100 billion to States, school districts, postsecondary institutions, and students to help
address budget shortfalls and meet the educational needs of all Americans in the midst of
the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. These funds helped save
or create an estimated 400,000 jobs, including 325,000 education jobs, many of which
were lost when the special financing ended, and the Education Jobs Fund has helped
cash-strapped States and districts keep tens of thousands of teachers in the classroom
since its passage in late summer of 2010. In early 2010, the President proposed a farreaching reauthorization plan for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
However, in September 2011, he announced an ESEA flexibility initiative. President
Obama also continues to advocate for his American Jobs Act, which would provide $25
billion to support the jobs of some 325,000 teachers and $30 billion to help modernize up
to 35,000 public schools and community colleges. The historic Student Aid and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2010 (SAFRA) ended decades of unnecessary Government
subsidies to banks and other institutions that made guaranteed loans to postsecondary
students, saving an estimated $68 billion. These savings were re-directed to help Pell
Grants keep pace with rising college costs, reduce the burden of loan repayment for
college graduates, expand career training opportunities at local community colleges, and
increase support for minority-serving institutions, which currently enroll nearly 60
percent of all minority undergraduate students. Thanks in part to these new investments,
President Obama has roughly doubled funding for the need-based Pell Grant program,
raising the maximum award from $4,731 in fiscal year 2008 to an estimated $5,635 for
fiscal year 2013 and increasing the number of recipients by approximately 50 percent to
nearly 10 million students.
Fig. 24 Education Spending 2000-2020
[in billions]
2000
Department of
33,476
2015
OMB
76,334
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
70,315
72,073
73,875
75,722
77,615
86
Education
Source: OMB Table 4.1, Education FY 2015 Budget + 2.5% growth
1. The Department of Education Administration is requesting $68.6 billion in
discretionary appropriations in 2015, an increase of $1.3 billion, or 1.9 percent, more than
the 2014 level and almost $3 billion more than in 2013. Pell grants account for $22.8
billion. The Pell Grant program maximum award has risen from $4,731 in award year
2008-2009 to $5,730 in award year 2014-2015. The 2015 request includes $1.3 billion
to launch a 10-year, $75 billion mandatory investment in the Preschool for All program,
which would support State efforts to provide access to high-quality preschool for all 4year-olds from low- and moderate-income families. The 2015 request provides $7 billion
in mandatory budget authority over 10 years for new College Opportunity and
Graduation Bonus grants to reward colleges that successfully enroll and graduate a
significant number of low- and moderate-income students on time and encourage all
institutions to improve their performance. The Obama education budget needs to be
stabilized around 3% growth in future years.
C. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2200A (XXI) of
16 December 1966 recognizes the right of everyone to education. Education shall be
directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and
shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Education shall
enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding,
tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and
further the maintenance of peace. With a view to achieving the full realization of this
right: (a) Primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all; (b) Secondary
education in its different forms, including technical and vocational secondary education,
shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in
particular by the progressive introduction of free education; (c) Higher education shall be
made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and
in particular by the progressive introduction of free education; (d) Fundamental education
shall be encouraged or intensified as far as possible for those persons who have not
received or completed the whole period of their primary education; (e) The development
of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively pursued, an adequate fellowship
system shall be established, and the material conditions of teaching staff shall be
continuously improved.
1. Due respect must be given for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal
guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public
authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down
or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children
in conformity with their own convictions.
2. No part of this article shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of
individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, that shall conform
to such minimum curricular standards as may be laid down by the State.
87
§83 Department of Agriculture
A. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides leadership on issues related to
food, agriculture, food safety, rural development, and natural resources. It was founded
in 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The USDA employs 103,000 workers and
provides millions of farmers with crop insurance. The number of food stamp
beneficiaries is reported to have risen 22.5% from 31 million to 44.7 million between
November 2008 and 2011, cut a million beneficiaries in October 2013 but projects
growth. Under SNAP rules, the maximum benefit levels for each fiscal year — which
are the benefit amounts that go to households with no disposable income after deductions
for certain necessities — are set at 100 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan,
USDA’s estimate of the minimum amount that a family needs to afford a bare-bones,
nutritionally adequate diet, for the preceding June. Homeless people without bills,
physical laborers, athletes, old and sick people under strict diets, with incomes below the
poverty line, deserve full food-stamp benefits because they are hungrier.
Fig. 25 USDA Budget 2008, 2000-2020
2000
2015
OMB
139,727
2016
2017
2018
2019
Department of 75,071
143,500 147,088 150,765 154,534
Agriculture
Source: OMB Table 4.1, USDA FY 2015 Budget + 2.5% growth
2020
158,397
B. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Services (FNS)
Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) serves as the first line of defense
against hunger. It enables low-income families to buy nutritious food with Electronic
Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards. Food stamp recipients spend their benefits to buy eligible
food in authorized retail food stores. The Program is the cornerstone of the Federal food
assistance programs, and provides crucial support to needy households and to those
making the transition from welfare to work. The Food Stamp Act of 1977 codified at
7USC(51)§2011 set forth a program of food stamps to guarantee low income people and
families an adequate nutritious diet to eliminate hunger and malnutrition. Participation in
the food stamp program is limited to those households whose incomes and other financial
resources, held singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting
factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet, upper limit of household
income is 30% above the poverty line. The Farm Bill of 2008 changed the name of the
Food Stamp Program to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Fig. 26 State by State Projection of the Number of SNAP Participants 2013
(in billions of dollars)
Alabama
Alaska
970,000
91,000
Idaho
Illinois
Arizona
1,125,000 Indiana
241,000
Missouri
1,890,000 Montana
994,000
131,000
Pennsylvania 1,810,000
Rhode Island 169,000
924,000
184,000
South
Carolina
Nebraska
890,000
88
Arkansas
512,000
California
Colorado
Iowa
394,000
Nevada
351,000
3,869,000 Kansas
315,000
477,000
Kentucky
868,000
Connecticut 399,000
Louisiana
932,000
Delaware
142,000
Maine
261,000
New
Hampshire
New
Jersey
New
Mexico
New York
District of
Columbia
Florida
142,000
Maryland
703,000
Georgia
North
Carolina
3,239,000 Massachusetts 857,000
North
Dakota
1,875,000 Michigan
2,032,000 Ohio
Guam
43,000
Minnesota
533,000
Hawaii
168,000
Mississippi
656,000
107,000
119,000
South
Dakota
Tennessee
800,000
Texas
4,190,000
436,000
Utah
299,000
1,344,000
3,160,000 Vermont
97,000
1,675,000 Virginia
905,000
64,000
1,111,000
Washington
364,000
Oklahoma
1,874,000 West
Virginia
648,000
Wisconsin
Oregon
814,000
38,000
Wyoming
844,000
1.The USDA cut aggregate SNAP benefits and this is justiciable by the U.S. Supreme
Court …United States ex. rel. v. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Office of
National Drug Control Policy (re: Oct. 2013). Deprivation of relief benefits is a civil
rights crime under 18USC§246. Violations of the laws of nations regarding not being
party to the 1982 Law of the Sea and 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and its
Biosafety and Liability Protocols are also fined i.e. 24USC§154. Cattle and fuel must not
contaminate the Safe Drinking Water Act. GM crops cannot be sold on the international
market, insured or subsidized. SNAP benefits must grow.
§84 Department of Housing and Urban Development
A. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was created at the end of
the Great Depression in the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 shortly after the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) was created in 1934 to give homebuyers access to reasonably
priced mortgages under fair terms. The Department of Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1965 created HUD as Cabinet-level agency. HUD’s mission is to create strong,
sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD statute is
codified in Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) guided by the civil action
for damages caused by discriminatory housing practices under the Fair Housing Act of
1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 at 42USC(45)§3613(c)(1) and
corresponding 10 day compliance notice at 24CFR§1.8(d,c).
1. Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies investigate the majority of housing
discrimination complaints filed in the United States. In Fiscal Year 2011, this amounted
to 7,800 investigations of housing and lending discrimination. As a result of these
investigations, FHAP agencies secured approximately $6.5 million for people affected by
housing discrimination in addition to other forms of relief, including the provision of
89
housing, the discontinuance of eviction proceedings, the reduction of mortgage interest
rates, the retrofit of inaccessible housing, the provision of reasonable accommodations,
and the allowance of reasonable modifications.
2. When the Federal Housing Agency (FHA) was founded only 4 in 10 people owned the
homes they lives in and 2 million construction workers had just lost their jobs. In the
1940s FHA lent to returning veterans. By 2001 homeownership rates had soared to
68.1%. Over the years FHA has been able to help more than 34 million families and
49,259 multifamily projects containing 5.6 million units of housing. FHA currently has
3.9 million insured single family mortgages and 12,319 insured multifamily projects in its
portfolio. The FHA is the largest insurer of mortgages in the world and is completely
funded through its operations at no cost to taxpayers. The FHA approved a weekly
adjusted annual estimate of 708,900 loan applications in March, 5.1% for refinancing.
That is an average of 2,802 loan approvals per workday. The FHA holds a total of 7
million mortgage loans and operates its programs through four funds supported by
premium and fee income, interest income, Congressional appropriations, borrowing from
the U.S. Treasury, and other miscellaneous sources. The Office of Healthcare Programs
(OHP) administers the Section 232 Residential Care Facilities Program and Section 242
Hospitals Program, which provide mortgage insurance for loans supporting the
construction, renovation, equipping, and/or refinancing of healthcare facilities through
HUD’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA). These facilities include nursing homes,
assisted living facilities, and board and care facilities, and acute care hospitals ranging
from large urban teaching institutions to small rural critical access hospitals.
3. 4.5 million families receive HUD rental assistance. Altogether, over 50 percent of
HUD-assisted households are elderly or disabled, in addition to over 56,000 households
served through HUD’s Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program.
The median income of HUD assisted households is $10,200 or 17% of area median
income and 72% are below 30% of area median income. In FY2013, HUD anticipates
serving a total of 5.4 million families through its core rental programs, in addition to
programs such as HOME, Sections 202 and 811, Native American initiatives, and
Homeless Assistance programs. Public housing stock of 1.1 million units is shrinking at a
rate of 10,000 units per year, due to a growing backlog of unmet capital needs, estimated
at $26 billion. Rental assistance is a cost-effective substitute. Over the last 50 years,
HUD’s Section 202 program has provided over 400,000 affordable homes for very low
income elderly individuals. HUD’s Section 811 program provides affordable housing for
persons with disabilities for 23,330 existing units and 1,850 new units in FY2013. Since
2009 a total of 7,816 special Non-Elderly Disabled vouchers have been awarded to nonelderly persons with disabilities, including those individuals who wish to transition out of
institutions. This is particularly critical at a time when the average household is paying 52
cents of every dollar it earns on housing and transportation and when congestion on our
roads is costing us five times as much wasted fuel and time as it did 25 years ago. SSI is
no longer enough to afford an efficiency apartment. The number of homeless veterans
dropped fully 12% between 2009 and 2010. HUD has taken on “bureaucracy busting”
efforts that have yielded results, reducing the time it takes to post competitive program
funds by 82%.
90
4. In Fiscal Year 2013, HUD is requesting $400 billion in loan guarantee authority for the
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, which will provide an estimated 1.2 million single
family mortgages. HUD is requesting $500 billion in Ginnie Mae loan guarantee
authority, in order to help finance a wide array of government-insured products, increase
liquidity and stabilize the housing market. Since its inception in 1968, Ginnie Mae has
guaranteed more than $4.1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, financing more than 8.0
million single-family homes and 1.2 million rental housing units, with the financing of
more than 1.6 million households in FY 2011 alone. Ginnie Mae has experienced
significant growth, with annual issuance volume growing from $220.6 billion in FY 2008
to $350.4 billion in FY 2011. In FY 2011, Ginnie Mae’s market share of agency MBS
was approximately 28 percent. In addition, HUD is requesting $25 billion in loan
guarantee authority for the General and Special Risk Insurance Fund, which will provide
an estimated 156,000 units in multifamily housing properties and an estimated 80,600
beds in healthcare facilities. In Fiscal Year 2011, FHA multifamily housing
commitments totaled $13.1 billion, nearly 15% higher than 2010 volume and 3.9 times
2009 volume. This activity is projected to decline to $11.0 billion in 2012 and $10.1
billion in 2013, largely due to the re-emergence of conventional lending sources in many
markets. Multifamily housing loans endorsed in Fiscal Year 2011 are supporting 54,525
private sector jobs in construction, property management, service and administrative
fields.
B. The budget maintains the commitment to serve over 4.5 million families—more than
50% of whom are elderly or disabled. Reforms to HUD rental assistance programs save
more than a billion dollars in 2013 without reducing the number of families served. 80
cents of every dollar of the HUD FY 2013 budget is required to continue assistance for
those who need it. In total, 61% of HUD capital dollars are invested in cities and counties
with an unemployment rate greater than the national average, and the average HUD
capital dollar is dedicated to a city or county with an unemployment rate of 10.5%, nearly
one full percentage point above the national unemployment rate. The most recent HUD
Worse Case Housing Needs report showed an increase of fully 20% in worst-case needs
renters between 2007 and 2009 (the largest increase over a 2-year period in the quartercentury history of the survey); Millions of Americans continue to experience
homelessness, some for years at a time, including too many of our Nation’s veterans.
According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “The
generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30
percent of its annual income on housing.” Under most HUD rental programs, the resident
family pays at least 30 percent of their income for rent and HUD subsidizes the
remainder to cover operating costs or a fixed local fair market rent.
Fig. 27 Housing and Urban Development Spending 2000-2020
[in millions]
2000
2015
OMB
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
91
Department of 30,781
38,088
39,040
40,016
41,016
42,042
Housing and
Urban
Development
Source: OMB Table 4.1 = HUD FY 2015 Budget + 2.5% growth
43,093
1. In 2015 the Department of Housing and Urban Development budget outlay estimate is
exactly $38,088 million, $4 billion less than FY 2014, yet achieving growth to $20 billion
in tenant based rental assistance spending. It is the only agency whose budget is
portrayed exactly right by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). HUD manages
$171.6 billion total FHA loan volume in 2015 and $297 billion GNMA new guarantees in
2015. In FY2015, 84% of HUD’s budget request will be used to: Renew Existing Rental
Assistance/Operating Subsidies, Fund accrued capital needs of Public Housing, and
Renew Existing Homeless Assistance Grants
§84a Federal Emergency Management Administration
A. On April 1, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed the executive order that created the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). President Carter's 1979 executive
order merged many of the separate disaster-related responsibilities into the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Among other agencies, FEMA absorbed:
The Federal Insurance Administration, The National Fire Prevention and Control
Administration, The National Weather Service Community Preparedness Program, The
Federal Preparedness Agency of the General Services Administration, The Federal
Disaster Assistance Administration activities from HUD, and Civil defense
responsibilities were also transferred to the new agency from the Defense Department's
Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 100-707, was signed into law November 23,
1988; amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, Public Law 93-288 as codified at
42USC(68)§ 5121-5206 . It created the system in place today by which a presidential
disaster declaration of an emergency triggers financial and physical assistance through
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This Act constitutes the statutory
authority for most federal disaster response activities especially as they pertain to FEMA
and FEMA programs. On March 1, 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As of April,
2014, FEMA has 14,844 employees across the country – at headquarters, the ten regional
offices, the National Emergency Training Center, Center for Domestic
Preparedness/Noble Training Center and other locations. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency coordinates the federal government's role in preparing for,
preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic
disasters, whether natural or man-made, including acts of terror.
1. An event must meet at least one of the following criteria to be classified as a natural
disaster: economic loss of $50 million insured loss of 25 million, 10 fatalities, 50 injured
or 2,000 homes or structures damaged. Worldwide disasters during 2011 cost as much as
$435 billion. In total, $107 billion of that cost was insured, according to the Annual
92
Global Climate and Catastrophe Report for 2011, which was published by Impact
Forecasting. Overall, the top-10 disasters around the world during the year comprised
more than 80 percent of the total damage costs. Total insured losses were over two and a
half times the losses from 2010 - which in turn were almost double the losses from 2009.
In 2013, there were 296 separate natural disaster events that produced total economic
losses of $192 billion – four percent below the 10-year average of $200 billion, but above
the average 259 events. The natural disasters caused total insured losses of $45 billion –
their lowest since 2009 and 22 percent below the 10-year average of $58 billion. In a
reversal from 2012, the largest global events of 2013 were heavily concentrated in
Europe and Asia, rather than in the United States. However, despite just 16 percent of all
economic losses occurring in the U.S., the country accounted for 45 percent of all insured
losses globally due to its greater insurance penetration. Flood events accounted for 35
percent of all global economic losses during the year, which marked their highest
percentage of aggregate losses since 2010. Notable events included major flooding in
Central Europe, Indonesia, the Philippines, China, and Australia. Meanwhile, severe
drought conditions contributed to billion-dollar losses in Brazil, China, New Zealand, and
the U.S. The number of human fatalities caused by natural disasters in 2013 was
approximately 21,250; eight of the top ten events occurring in Asia. The other two events
occurred in Africa. Although 2013 saw a notable uptick in natural disaster-related
fatalities from those sustained in 2012, that number was 81% lower than the 2003-2012
average of 109,000. Although 2013 saw a notable uptick in natural disaster-related
fatalities from those sustained in 2012, that number was 81% lower than the 2003-2012
average of 109,000. In the last ten years, major singular events (such as earthquakes in
Haiti (2010), China (2008), and Indonesia (2004), Cyclone Nargis’ landfall in Myanmar
(2008), and the major heatwave in Europe (2003) have skewed the annual average.
Fig. 28 Annual Global Cost of Natural Disasters 1948-2003
2. Under 42USC(68)IV§5177 the President is authorized to provide to any individual
unemployed as a result of a major disaster such benefit assistance for the weeks of such
unemployment. Under 42USC(68)IV-A§5191 the Governor of every state shall estimate
needs that the Federal Government will cover no less than 75% of. Under
42USC(68)§5170B-3 essential assistance programs are categorized as follows; (A) debris
removal; (B) search and rescue, emergency medical care, emergency mass care,
emergency shelter, and provision of food, water, medicine, and other essential needs,
including movement of supplies or persons; (C) clearance of roads and construction of
temporary bridges necessary to the performance of emergency tasks and essential
93
community services; (D) provision of temporary facilities for schools and other essential
community services; (E) demolition of unsafe structures which endanger the public; (F)
warning of further risks and hazards; (G) dissemination of public information and
assistance regarding health and safety measures; (H) provision of technical advice to
State and local governments on disaster management and control; and (I) reduction of
immediate threats to life, property, and public health and safety.
Fig. 29 Disaster Relief FY 1990 Though FY 2013 (millions of dollars)
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2002-2013
Budget
Authority
Low (FY
2003)
High (FY
2005)
Average
(dropping
high/low) $
Relief
$1,454
$1,852
$7,558
$37,157
$31,944
$5,451
$21,365
$2,743
$6,029
$2,475
$7,075
$11,488
$136,591
$1,852
$37,157
$9,750
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1990-2001
Budget
Authority
Low (FY
1991)
High (FY
1995)
Relief
$2,095
$323
$3,482
$2,499
$7,881
$45,773
$3,866
$10,280
$4,726
$2,700
$470
$4,203
$88,298
$323
$45,773
$4,202
Lew '11: 3 There were no supplemental appropriations in FY 2011 or FY 2012. Painter
'12: 14-17 Table A-1. Bills with Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions 19902012 (low estimate)
3. The total budget authority appropriated for disaster relief the ten year period 20012011 was $130,756 billion. The low value was $1,852 in FY2003. The high value was
$37,157 billion in FY2005 for Hurricane Katrina. The average funding provided for
disaster relief over the 10 years 2001-2011 (excluding the highest and lowest years) is
$11.5 billion for fiscal year 2011, and $11.3 billion for fiscal year 2012. During FY
2011 and FY 2012, Lew and OMB Director and then Treasurer, seems to have been able
to pay for the disaster relief using the Deepwater Horizon Overpayment. On October 29,
2012, shortly after the beginning of FY2013, Hurricane Sandy made landfall in New
Jersey. According to wire service reports a month afterwards, the storm killed at least
94
125 people in the United States and had $62 billion in damage attributed to it. Ultimately
the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) administrated $8,444 million for Hurricane Sandy.
B. FEMA can trace its beginnings to the Congressional Act of 1803. This act, generally
considered the first piece of disaster legislation, provided assistance to a New Hampshire
town following an extensive fire. In the century that followed, ad hoc legislation was
passed more than 100 times in response to hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and other
natural disasters. By the 1930s, when the federal approach to disaster-related events
became popular, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was given authority to make
disaster loans for repair and reconstruction of certain public facilities following an
earthquake, and later, other types of disasters. In 1934, the Bureau of Public Roads was
given authority to provide funding for highways and bridges damaged by natural
disasters. The Flood Control Act of 1965, which gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
greater authority to implement flood control projects, was also passed. This piecemeal
approach to disaster assistance was problematic. Accordingly, it prompted legislation to
require greater cooperation between federal agencies and authorized the President to
coordinate these activities. The 1960s and early 1970s brought massive disasters
requiring major federal response and recovery operations by the Federal Disaster
Assistance Administration, established within the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). These events served to focus attention on the issue of natural
disasters and brought about increased legislation. In 1968, the National Flood Insurance
Act created the Federal Insurance Administration and made flood insurance available for
the first time to homeowners. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 made the
purchase of flood insurance mandatory for the protection of property located in Special
Flood Hazard Areas. In the year following, President Nixon passed into law the Disaster
Relief Act of 1974, firmly establishing the process of Presidential disaster declarations.
However, emergency and disaster activities were still fragmented. When hazards
associated with nuclear power plants and the transportation of hazardous substances were
added to natural disasters, more than 100 federal agencies were involved in some aspect
of disasters, hazards and emergencies. Many parallel programs and policies existed at the
state and local level, simplifying the complexity of federal disaster relief efforts. The
National Governor's Association sought to decrease the many agencies with which state
and local governments were forced work. They asked President Carter to centralize
federal emergency functions with a full Description of Disaster Assistance Programs:
1. Aging Services: Services are available to meet the needs of the elderly who have been
directly affected by a declared disaster (i.e., transportation, meals, home care, etc.).
2. Agricultural Aid: The USDA Rural Development may make emergency loans to
farmers and ranchers (owners or tenants) who were operating and managing a farm or
ranch at the time of the disaster. These loans are limited to the amount necessary to
compensate for actual losses to essential property and/or production capacity. Farmers
and ranchers may also apply for cost sharing grants for emergency conservation programs
such as debris removal from crop/pasture lands, repairs to land/water conservation
structures, and permanent fencing. Further information is available from the USDA Farm
Service Agency (FSA).
95
3. Assistance From Financial Institutions: Banks that are members of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve System (FRS), or the Federal Home
Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) may permit early withdrawal of time deposits, without
penalty. Contact your financial institution to see if they have obtained a waiver from
their regulatory agency.
4. Business Loan Program: Disaster loans through the Small Business Administration
(SBA) are available to businesses to repair or replace destroyed or damaged business
facilities, inventory, machinery, or equipment. The maximum loan amount is
$ 1,500,000. If you have been referred to this program you will be receiving an
application package in the mail. For more information or help in completing this form,
refer to your SBA application package or the SBA website at www.sba.gov.
5. Consumer Services: Counseling is available on consumer problems such as nonavailability of products and services needed for reconstruction, price gouging,
disreputable business concerns and practices, etc.
6. Crisis Counseling: Referral services and short-term intervention counseling is available
for mental health problems caused or aggravated by the disaster.
7. Disaster Unemployment Assistance: This assistance provides weekly benefit payments
to those out of work due to the disaster, including self-employed persons, farm and ranch
owners, and others not covered under regular unemployment insurance programs.
8. Emergency Assistance: Emergency food, clothing, shelter, and medical assistance may
be provided to individuals and families having such needs as a result of the disaster. The
American Red Cross (ARC), the Salvation Army, church groups, and other voluntary
organizations can provide assistance.
9. Hazard Mitigation: You may receive funds to prevent future damage to your major
utilities (i.e., furnace, water heater, electrical service) by either elevation or relocation of
these utilities in your home.
10. Home and Personal Property Loan Program: Disaster loans through the Small
Business Administration (SBA) are available to homeowners and renters for restoring or
replacing disaster damaged real and personal property. The maximum real estate portion
of the loan is $200,000 and for personal property is $40,000. The loan amount is limited
to the amount of uninsured
11. SBA verified losses. If you have been referred to this program you will find more
information in the "Application Summary" on the back of the Disaster Assistance
Application Form. Insurance Information: Help and/or counseling is available on
insurance problems and questions, which may include obtaining copies of lost policies,
claims filing, expediting settlements, etc. If you have not been able to resolve your
problem with your insurance company you may contact your State Insurance
96
Commissioner. For flood insurance inquiries, contact the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP).
12. Legal Services: Free or reduced legal services, including legal advice, counseling, and
representation may be provided to low-income disaster victims.
13. Social Security: Help is available from the Social Security Administration (SSA) in
expediting delivery of checks delayed by the disaster and in applying for Social Security
disability and survivor benefits.
14. Federal Tax Assistance: The federal tax laws allow the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) to grant relief to taxpayers who are victims of a Presidentially declared disaster.
This relief includes postponing tax deadlines to provide you with extra time to file and
pay before you will be assessed any penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax, or
abating your interest for periods for which you received an extension of time to file tax
returns and pay taxes because you were located in a Presidentially declared disaster area.
Generally, qualified disaster relief payments are not required to be reported in gross
income. Qualified disaster relief payments include payments received from any source to
pay reasonable and necessary personal, family, living, or funeral expenses incurred as a
result of a Presidentially declared disaster. The IRS may allow casualty losses that were
suffered on home, personal property, and household goods to be deducted on the income
tax return if they are not covered by insurance. Taxpayers may also file an amended
return to receive an early tax refund. More information, forms and publications can be
found on the IRS web at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=108362,00.html.
15. Other Tax Assistance: County tax assessors may provide information and assistance
on possible property tax relief.
16. Veteran's Benefits: The Veterans Administration (VA) can expedite delivery of
information about benefits, pensions, insurance settlements, and VA mortgage loans.
C. The initial First Response to a disaster is the job of local government's emergency
services with help from nearby municipalities, the state and volunteer agencies. In a
catastrophic disaster if the governor requests, federal resources can be mobilized through
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) for search and rescue, electrical power, food, water, shelter and other basic
human needs. It is the long-term Recovery phase of disaster which places the most severe
financial strain on local or state government. Damage to public facilities and
infrastructure, often not insured, can overwhelm even a large city. A governor's request
for a major disaster declaration could mean an infusion of federal funds, but the governor
must also commit significant state funds and resources for recovery efforts. A Major
Disaster can be a result of hurricanes, earthquakes, flood, tornados or major fires; the
President then determines warrants supplemental federal aid. The event must be clearly
more than state or local governments can handle alone. If declared, funding comes from
the President's Disaster Relief Fund, managed by FEMA and disaster aid programs of
other participating federal agencies. A Presidential Major Disaster Declaration puts into
motion long-term federal recovery programs, some of which are matched by state
97
programs and designed to help disaster victims, businesses and public entities. An
Emergency Declaration is more limited in scope and without the long-term federal
recovery programs of a Major Disaster Declaration. Generally, federal assistance and
funding are provided to meet a specific emergency need or to help prevent a major
disaster from occurring.
Fig. 30 Major Disaster, Emergency and Fire Management Declarations 1953- 2015
Year
Major Disaster
Declarations
Emergency
Declarations
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
35
45
62
47
99
81
59
75
63
52
48
68
56
49
45
45
50
65
44
75
32
36
32
45
43
38
31
11
23
28
27
34
21
24
15
1
6
5
16
29
9
7
17
13
5
68
7
19
0
11
6
20
9
0
8
2
1
19
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
1
3
0
Fire Management Assistance
Declarations (Prior to 2003: Fire
Suppression Authorizations)
27
33
28
49
114
18
49
51
60
86
39
43
48
70
44
63
40
54
3
75
4
20
7
6
2
5
1
5
7
1
9
4
2
0
3
Total
63
84
95
112
242
108
115
143
136
143
155
118
123
119
100
114
110
128
47
158
38
57
58
53
45
43
32
16
31
29
36
42
24
27
18
98
Year
Major Disaster
Declarations
1980 23
1979 42
1978 25
1977 22
1976 30
1975 38
1974 46
1973 46
1972 48
1971 17
1970 17
1969 29
1968 19
1967 11
1966 11
1965 25
1964 25
1963 20
1962 22
1961 12
1960 12
1959 7
1958 7
1957 16
1956 16
1955 18
1954 17
1953 13
Source: FEMA
Emergency
Declarations
6
10
14
34
8
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fire Management Assistance
Declarations (Prior to 2003: Fire
Suppression Authorizations)
2
7
2
5
7
1
2
9
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
31
59
41
61
45
45
53
55
48
20
19
29
19
11
11
25
25
20
22
12
12
7
7
16
16
18
17
13
1. There is room for dissemination of information regarding (a) cloud seeding and (b)
oceanic hydrocarbon cooling (and controversial heating) pump technology, to neutralize
the political “hot air” of climate change propaganda, under 42USC(68)§5170B-3 (G) .
(a) Wildfire fighting is five times more dangerous inner-city firefighting. Nonetheless
wildfire fighting is only half as dangerous as farming, a fourth as dangerous as forestry
and one-sixth as dangerous as commercial fishing. To reduce hazards to workers and
threats of air pollution the wildfirefighters and the press must adopt the use of cloud
seeding. A number of rockets have to be fired within minutes so that the clouds reach the
precipitation level that induces rainfall. And once the rockets are fired, rain is expected
within 50 minutes. In an Indian study, rocket technology has a success ratio of 80% as
against 40% ratio in the aeroplane-driven technology. Rockets routinely used in China
are launched from truck beds and are every bit as large as small military missiles, much
99
larger than anything launched by professionals on the 4th of July. It is not enough to fire
one rocket that disperses silver iodide into a cloud that instantly darkens, several rockets
must be fired over the course of an hour to enjoy an 80 percent chance of rain. There
does not seem to a market for selling rockets to farmers. Technology at least as advanced
as the firefighters who set off municipal fireworks displays on the 4th of July is needed.
The press must inform the public of cloud seeding efforts as there is flooding, mudslide
and toxicity liability and technologists need to fine-tune their cloud seeding techniques
(b) The 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, and climate change politics in
general, must at all times uphold the 1982 Law of the Sea against thermal pollution of the
ocean waters by hydrocarbon heating and cooling pumps. Oceanic thermal temperature
is the most significant driver of human hydrocarbon industry caused global warming
monitored daily on a sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly map published by National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The new patented hydrocarbon
cooling pump technology enables nations to cool waters below 80°F to prevent hurricane
formation for pennies on the oil railcar storage and cable laying maritime railcar transport
technology. The past two years have been the hottest on record and it is time for U.S. oil
reserves to be converted from hostile global warming environmental modification
techniques to chill out hurricanes in the press for the benefit of the public.
§85 Social Security Administration
A. Social
Security Administration (SSA) delivers benefit checks in a timely and accurate
fashion. SSA was founded in the Social Security Act of 1935 [H. R. 7260] originally
called the Economic Security Act (ESA), that was signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt on 14
August 1935. Monthly disability insurance benefits were first established by the Social
Security Amendments of 1956 [H.R. 7225]. In 1972, Congress enacted the Supplemental
100
Security Income (SSI) Program to assist "individuals who have attained age 65 or are
blind or disabled" by setting a guaranteed minimum income level for such persons Public
Law 92-603. In 1995 SSA broke with the Department of Health and Human Services
after many years as a sub-cabinet agency with the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare from 1939, and was again the independent agency it was founded in 1935.
Social Security Statute is codified in Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the US Code. SSA is
divided into (1) Old Age Survivors Insurance (OASI) Fund (2) the Disability Insurance
(DI) Fund and (3) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) that is administrated by SSA
although its costs are entirely paid by the General Fund. The SSA mission is to advance
the economic security of the nation’s people through compassionate and vigilant
leadership in shaping and managing Americas Social Security programs. The
administrative expenses of the Social Security program run about 1.0% of total
expenditures for OASI, 4% for DI and 5% for SSI. The administration;
1. Pays benefits to more than 50 million people every month.
2. Processes more than 5 million claims for benefits;
3. Issues 16 million new and replacement Social Security number (SSN) cards;
4. Processes 265 million earnings items to maintain workers’ life-long earnings records;
5. Handles approximately 54 million phone calls to SSA’s 800-number; and
6. Issues 136 million Social Security Statements to advise workers how much they have
contributed to Social Security and provide estimates of future benefits.
Fig. 31 OASDI beneficiaries, by program, April 2006–April 2007
OASI
Month
2006
April
2007
April
2006
April
2007
Total,
OASDI
48,805
49,537
44,870
Subtotal,
OASI
Retirement
Survivors
Number (thousands)
40,397
33,754
6,643
40,815
34,244
6,571
Total monthly benefits (millions of dollars)
38,157
32,436
5,721
Subtotal, DI
8,408
8,722
6,713
April
47,497
40,233
34,344
5,889
7,263
2006
Average Monthly Benefit (dollars)
April
919.40
944.50
961.00
861.10
798.50
2007
April
958.80
985.80
1,002.90
896.30
832.80
SOURCE: Social Security Administration, Master Beneficiary Record, 100 percent data.
1. Until 1990 the OASI fund was not remarkable. Between 1970 and 1980 the fund
actually declined from $32.6 billion to $24.6 billion. After several tax increases in the
1980s that brought the fund over $100 billion the fund reached a ratio that was successful
101
in producing a rapid growth in savings. In 1990 the fund had $203.45 billion in assets.
Without further tax increases the fund began to grow rapidly at a rate of 15-35% annually
exceeding the $1 trillion mark in 2001. OASDI is predicted to exceed $2.7 trillion, in
2012 and $3.6 trillion in 2020. OASDI is the largest asset under one management in the
world. However, the DI Trust Fund has been operating on a deficit since 2012. High
income baby boomers are at the peak age for disability and the floodgates were opened to
rich people with tolerable jobs they couldn’t defend against a lawyer Commissioner who
wanted to rob the beneficiaries, intimate the petitioners for more money with the number
of the beast in violation of the 42 month limit (Revelation 13:10) consequently
bankrupting the disability fund to, for example, enrich five illiterate lawyer ALJs and
make the insurance skyscraper the tallest in the city Astrue, Commissioner of Social
Security v. Ratliff No. 08-1322 (2010). The DI Trust Fund reserves become depleted in
2016, at which time continuing income to the DI Trust Fund would be sufficient to pay
81 percent of DI benefits. Therefore, legislative action is needed as soon as possible to
address the DI program’s financial imbalance. Lawmakers may consider responding to
the impending DI Trust Fund reserve depletion as they did in 1994, solely by reallocating
the payroll tax rate between OASI and DI. Such a response might serve to delay DI
reforms and much needed corrections for OASDI as a whole. However, enactment of a
more permanent solution could include a tax reallocation in the short-run. Under the
current intermediate assumptions, the Social Security Trustees project that annual cost for
the OASDI program will exceed non-interest income in 2014 and remain higher
throughout the remainder of the long-range period. The projected theoretical combined
OASI and DI Trust Fund asset reserves increase through 2019, begin to decline in 2020,
and become depleted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in
2033. At the time of reserve depletion, continuing income to the combined trust funds
would be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, a social security trust
fund, would be depleted for the first time. All other deficits were redressed by a tax
reallocation or increase before a trust fund was actually depleted because the Actuary
couldn’t do the math.
2. The Social Security Trust funds as set forth in Sec. 201 42USC(7)II§401 are sustained
under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act 26USCC(21)B§3121 that ensures that an
appropriate amount of tax dollars are transferred from the General Fund to the Social
Security Trust Funds. Under the intermediate assumptions, the Trustees project that the
OASI Trust Fund ratio will decline from 390 percent at the beginning of the period, at
first slowly, and then more rapidly, until the trust fund becomes exhausted in 2035. The
DI trust fund ratio has been declining steadily since 2003, and continues to decline from
109 percent at the beginning of 2012 until the trust fund becomes exhausted in 2016.
Lawmakers must strengthen the finances of the DI Trust Fund by reallocating part of the
existing payroll tax rate from the OASI Trust Fund to the DI Trust Fund. This
reallocation would provide additional revenue for the DI Trust fund without increasing
overall tax rates.
Fig. 32 Current and Proposed OASDI and HI FICA Rates 1937-2018
102
Tax rate for employees and employers, each
Tax rate for self-employed workers
Year OASI DI OASDI HI Total OASI
DI
OASDI HI
Total
37-49 1.000
-1.000
-------1950 1.500
-1.500
-------51-53 1.500
-1.500
--- 2.250
-2.250
-- 2.250
54-56 2.000
-2.000
--- 3.000
-3.000
-- 3.000
57-58 2.000 0.250
2.250
--- 3.0000 0.3750
3.375
-- 3.375
1959 2.250 0.250
2.500
--- 3.3750 0.3750
3.750
-- 3.750
60-61 2.750 0.250
3.000
--- 4.1250 0.3750
4.500
-- 4.500
1962 2.875 0.250
3.125
--- 4.3250 0.3750
4.700
-- 4.700
63-65 3.375 0.250
3.625
--- 5.0250 0.3750
5.400
-- 5.400
1966 3.500 0.350
3.850 0.350 4.200 5.2750 0.5250
5.800 0.350 6.150
1967 3.550 0.350
3.900 0.500 4.400 5.3750 0.5250
5.900 0.500 6.400
1968 3.325 0.475
3.800 0.600 4.400 5.0875 0.7125
5.800 0.600 6.400
1969 3.725 0.475
4.200 0.600 4.800 5.5875 0.7125
6.300 0.600 6.900
1970 3.650 0.550
4.200 0.600 4.800 5.4750 0.8250
6.300 0.600 6.900
71-72 4.050 0.550
4.600 0.600 5.200 6.0750 0.8250
6.900 0.600 7.500
1973 4.300 0.550
4.850 1,000 5.850 6.2050 0.7950
7.000 1.000 8.000
74-77 4.375 0.575
4.950 0.900 5.850 6.1850 0.8150
7.000 0.900 7.900
1978 4.275 0.775
5.050 1.000 6.050 6.0100 1.0900
7.100 1.000 8.100
1979 4.330 0.750
5.080 1.050 6.130 6.0100 1.0400
7.050 1.050 8.100
1980 4.520 0.560
5.080 1.050 6.130 6.2725 0.7775
7.050 1.050 8.200
1981 4.700 0.650
5.350 1.300 6.650 7.0250 0.9750
8.000 1.300 9.300
1982 4.575 0.825
5.400 1.300 6.700 6.8125 1.2375
8.050 1.300 9.350
1983 4.775 0.625
5.400 1.300 6.700 7.1125 0.9375
8.050 1.300 9.350
1984 5.200 0.500
5.700 1.300 7.000 10.400 1.000 11.400 2.600 14.000
1985 5.200 0.500
5.700 1.350 7.050 10.400 1.000 11.400 2.700 14.100
19861.450 7.150
2.900
0.500
5.700
10.400 1.000 11.400
14.300
87 5.200
88-89 5.530 0.530
6.060 1.450 7.510 11.060 1.060 12.120 2.900 15.020
90-93 5.600 0.600
6.200 1.450 7.650 11.200 1.200 12.400 2.900 15.300
94-96 5.260 0.940
6.200 1.450 7.650 10.520 1.880 12.400 2.900 15.300
97-99 5.350 0.850
6.200 1.450 7.650 10.700 1.700 12.400 2.900 15.300
2000 5.300 0.900
6.200 1.450 7.650 10.600 1.800 12.400 2.900 15.300
Fut.
Year OASI DI OASDI HI Total OASI
DI
OASDI HI
Total
2016 5.000 1.200 6.200 1.450 7.650 10.000 2.400 12.400 2.900 15.300
2017 5.050 1.150 6.200 1.450 7.650 10.100 2.300 12.400 2.900 15.300
2018 5.100 1.100 6.200 1.450 7.650 10.200 2.200 12.400 2.900 15.300
Tax rate for employees and employers, each
Tax rate for self-employed workers
Source: Social Security and Medicare Tax Rates December 29, 2010, Sanders ’11: Table
12; 51
103
B. A Social Security Board was responsible for administration of the original Social
Security Act except for parts 1, 2, 3, and 5 of Title V (which were administered by the
Children's Bureau, then in the Department of Labor); part 4 of Title V which increased
the appropriations authorized for carrying out the Act of June 2, 1920 and Title VI which
authorized grants to the States for public health work. The Social Security Board was
transferred to the Federal Security Agency by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1939 and the
Board's functions were to be carried on under the direction and supervision of the Federal
Security Administrator. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1946 transferred the functions of
the Children's Bureau and the functions of the Secretary of Labor under Title V of the
Act to the Federal Security Administrator and the Board was abolished. The Bureau of
Employment Security, with its unemployment compensation and employment service
function, was transferred from the Federal Security Agency to the Department of Labor
by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1949. The Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare was established by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 with a Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare as the head of the Department. All functions of the
Federal Security Agency, which was abolished, were transferred to the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. The functions of the Federal Security Administrator
were transferred to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. The Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare was re-designated the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare was re-designated the
Secretary of Health and Human Services by P.L. 96-88, §509, approved October 17,
1979. The Department of Health and Human Services re-designation was effective May
4, 1980 (45 Federal Register 29642; May 5, 1980). The Department of Education which
was established by P.L. 96–88 was activated May 4, 1980 (Executive Order 12212 of
May 2, 1980; 45 Federal Register 29557; May 5, 1980). Effective March 31, 1995, the
Social Security Administration was re-established as an independent agency by P.L. 103296, §101, approved August 15, 1994, with a Commissioner of Social Security
responsible for the exercise of all powers and the discharge of all duties of the
Administration.
Fig. 33 Commissioners of Social Security 1946-present
Arthur J. Altmeyer July 16, 1946-April 10,
1953
William L. Mitchell (Acting) April 11,
1953 to November 23, 1953
John W. Tramburg November 24, 1953 to
July 31, 1954
Charles I. Schottland August 23, 1954 to
December 31, 1958
William L. Mitchell February 4, 1959 to
April 3, 1962
Robert M. Ball April 17, 1962 to March 17,
1973
Arthur E. Hess (Acting) March 18, 1973 to
October 24, 1973
Martha A. McSteen (Acting) September 14,
1983 to June 25, 1986
Dorcas R. Hardy June 26, 1986 to July 31,
1989
Gwendolyn S. King August 1, 1989 to
September 30, 1992
Louis D. Enoff (Acting) October 1, 1992 to
July 18, 1993
Lawrence H. Thompson (Acting) July 19,
1993 to October 7, 1993
Shirley S. Chater October 8, 1993 to
February 28, 1997
John J. Callahan (Acting) March 1, 1997 to
September 28, 1997
104
James B. Cardwell October 25, 1973 to
Kenneth S. Apfel September 29, 1997 to
December 12, 1977
January 20, 2001
Don I. Wortman (Acting) December 13,
William Halter (Acting) January 21, 2001 to
1977 to October 4, 1978
March 28, 2001
Stanford G. Ross October 5, 1978 to
Larry G. Massanari (Acting) March 29,
December 31, 1979
2001 to November 9, 2001
Herbert R. Doggette (Acting) January 1,
Jo Anne B. Barnhart November 9, 2001 to
1980 to January 2, 1980
February 11, 2007
William J. Driver January 3, 1980 to
Michael J. Astrue November 12, 2007 to
January 19, 1981
February 14, 2013
Herbert R. Doggette (Acting) January 20,
Carolyn Colvin February February 14, 2013
1981 to May 5, 1981
– present
John A. Svahn May 6, 1981 to September
12, 1983
Source: SSA, note to mom: save worker and SSA estimated costs
1. SSA is headed by a Commissioner of Social Security, who employs a deputy
commissioner and Inspector General to oversee, in co-operation with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, the administrative programs of SSA and may create and
abolish such operations as they see fit under 42USC(7)VII§902. SSA receives counsel
from the President’s Advisory Board. It is the duty of the Board of Trustees composed of
the Commissioner of Social Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of
Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Sec. 202 42USC(7)II§401
to - a. Hold the Trust Funds;
b. Report to the Congress not later than the first day of April of each year on the
operation and status of the Trust Funds during the preceding fiscal year and on their
expected operation and status during the next ensuing five fiscal years;
c. Report immediately to the Congress whenever the Board of Trustees is of the opinion
that the amount of either of the Trust Funds is unduly small;
d. Recommend improvements in administrative procedures and policies designed to
effectuate the proper coordination of the old-age and survivors insurance and FederalState unemployment compensation program; and
e. Review the general policies followed in managing the Trust Funds, and recommend
changes in such policies, including necessary changes in the provisions of the law which
govern the way in which the Trust Funds are to be managed.
Fig. 34 On-budget Social Security Spending 2008-2013
SSA
Reimbursement
From General
Fund
SSI
Total
administrative
2008
+/-50
n/a
2009
2010
2,400
2011
2012
102,700 112,100
2013
2,700
42,040
9,677
45,904
10,327
47,767
11,250
49,038
11,000
55,172
11,000
52,020
10,750
105
costs
Actual on-budget 51,717
56,231
61,417 151,738 164,120 68,872
cost
OMB SSA on58,500
78,406
70,198 154,714 188,749 116,657
budget figure
Savings
6,783
22,175
8,781
2,976
24,629
47,785
Differential
Source: Source: OMB 7/12/12 Historical Table 5.2 Budget Authority By Agency 19762017; 2012 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds, Table IV.A.3 Operations of
the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds 2007-21; 2012 Annual Report of the SSI
Program, Annual Report of the Advisory Council 2012 and Table C.1 SSI Federal
Payment in Current Dollars 1974-2012. These Reimbursements from the General Fund
have stopped. Congress should never play with OASDI tax relief again. They do not
require any special mention.
C. SSI is paid for by the General Fund. During the early 1990s, SSI grew rather rapidly
(to 0.34% of GDP in 1996). SSI Expenditures as a percentage of GDP are projected to
increase to 0.33% of GDP in 2012, remain essentially level through 2014, and decline
thereafter to 0.25% of GDP by 2036. This however does not correspond with the poverty
rising poverty rate and definitely cannot stand if the WILL passes. In 2011, the
combined cost of the Social Security, SSI and Medicare programs equaled 8.83% of
GDP. The Trustees project an increase to 12.43% of GDP in 2035, which then reaches
13.1% of GDP in 2086. Medicare does not become the most costly program because
everyone will be insured by Medicaid.
1. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a general assistance program with the same
concept of qualifying disability as disability insurance (DI) but requiring an extremely
low income and not requiring the beneficiary to have made any contributions. People
without a qualifying disability who have made no contributions their entire life
automatically qualify for SSI at age 65. In 2013 SSI expenditure were $52,911 million.
Federal expenditures for cash payments under the SSI program during calendar year 2012
increased 5.4 percent to $51.7 billion. SSI payments in calendar year 2013 will increase
by $1.9 billion to $53.6 billion, an increase of 3.7 percent. By 2015 it can be expected
that SSI expenditures have reached $57 billion. There is a shortage of prophecy
regarding future payments in the SSI expenditure table Table IV.C1.—SSI Federal
Payments in Current Dollars Calendar Years 1974-2013. The Trust Funds paid $6.166
billion for OASDI net administrative expenses. Funds made available to administer the
SSI program in fiscal year 2012 decreased 1.2 percent to $3.9 billion and are expected to
have increased to $4.4 billion FY2015 for an $11 billion on-budget administrative cost
and $57 billion cost of the SSI program for a total of $68 billion SSA on-budget, $22.6
billion less than the $90,398 million OMB estimates. OMB has never accurately
accounted for on-budget and off-budget SSA spending and must pay closer attention to
the Annual Report of the Trustees and Commissioner to Congress, usually in April of
each year. The figures provided by OMB are however $6.8 billion over in FY 2008 to
$22.2 billion over in FY 2009, going down to $8.8 billion over in FY 2010 and $3 billion
106
over in FY 2011 before becoming statistically significant at $24.6 billion in FY 2012 and
$47.8 billion in FY 2013. OMB needs to revise on-budget statistics to reflect actual
spending reported in the Annual Reports from whence considerable retroactive debt relief
may be due. When the Actuary has corrected the 2015 Annual Report and calculated the
Free DIRT and WILL OMB should reconcile the historical on-budget SSI and SSA
administrative costs the reduce the historical deficit and debt through accurate accounting
when SSA takes responsibility for SSI in 2017.
D. In November 2001 a law was passed to give the Commissioner of Social Security a set
term of 6 years. Previously, in nature, without a law dictating an arbitrary term limit, the
average term was less than two years after the founder Arthur J. Altmeyer served six
years from July 16, 1946-April 10, 1953 or the longest serving commissioner Robert M.
Ball who served nearly nine years from April 17, 1962 to March 17, 1973. Most
Commissioners served only a few days of months. There is probably no more rewarding
job in the nation than Social Security Commissioner and there should naturally be a
considerable amount of competitiveness and mobility amongst the bureaucrats. In
passing this 6 year term for the Commissioner the Administration and Congress totally
failed to take into consideration the fact that in nature Commissioners have trouble
lasting two years and in its second six year term the law fell into the cruel and unusual
punishment and treatment of SSI $666 ($674) for three years without COLA from 20082011 and insufficient COLA 3.6% to $698. Victims of arbitrary overpayment decisions
sentencing them to extra years at +/-$666 are due under-payment under Sec.
204(a)(1)(B)42USC(7)II§404(c). In the future the $600-$699 payment class should skip
ahead to $700 after 42 months (Revelation 13:10).
1. Congress should amend the 6 year term of the Commissioner to a more natural 2 years
under Sec. 702 of Title VII the Social Security Act 42USC(7)VII§902(a)(3).
2. April fool’s day is not a federal holiday. SSA cannot afford to be played for a fool by
the Actuary anymore. Congress, with the consent of the SSA and Medicare Actuaries,
Commissioners and Trustees must select a more appropriate date in 2016, preferably
earlier in the year, perhaps March 1, for National Social Work Month, with which to
amend Sec. 1161 of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-10
Art. 3 Social Security Trust Funds
§86 Old Age and Survivor Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund
A. 90% of retired people earn their income in part or totally from social security. In the
USA the percentage of elders living in poverty is at an all time low, while the percentage
who are rich has reached an all time high. Somewhere between 750,000 and 1 million
seniors are now estimated to be millionaires, yet continue to receive government
entitlements and senior discounts. In 1997 an estimated $48.1 billion in social Security
benefits went to households with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000. Another
$15.5 billion, almost exactly what the government spends on income support for all
families on welfare, will be sent to households with incomes of more than $100,000. It is
107
hoped that benefit payments to such rich households are limited to an absolute minimum
of hundreds of dollars unless an individual that happens to be poor lives in a household
that happens to be rich. Older Americans 65 to 74 years old have a poverty level of only
9.2% less than half that of America’s children. We cannot expect much advocacy from
OASI beneficiaries unless benefit cuts should threaten OASI, rich people don’t advocate
for the poor, they advocate for Medicare and that’s why OASDI beneficiaries do not
automatically qualify for free Medicaid and full food stamp benefits if their income is
less than SSI.
B. The Old Age and Survivor Insurance (OASI) Trust Old set forth in Sec. 201 of Title II
of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)II§401 was begun with the original Social Security
Act of 1935. Old age insurance benefit eligibility is set forth in Sec. 202
42USC(7)IIf§402 as anybody who has (1) attained the age of 62, (2) filed an application
for old age insurance or was entitled to disability benefits the month preceding attaining
the retirement age. People are eligible on the first month of attaining the retirement age
and receive in increasing amount on a sliding scale depending on how long they work.
1. Under current law, the age at which workers become eligible for full retirement
benefits—known as the normal retirement age, or NRA—varies, depending on the
individual’s year of birth. For workers born before 1938, the NRA is 65. For workers
born in subsequent years, the eligibility age increases in two-month increments until it
reaches 66 for workers born in 1943. For workers born between 1944 and 1954, the NRA
remains at 66 but rises, again in two-month increments, until it reaches 67 for workers
born in 1960 or later. Workers can still receive benefits at age 62, but the benefit they
receive at that age will represent a smaller share of what they could have qualified for if
they had waited until the normal retirement age to claim benefits.
2. A person will not be eligible for full retirement benefits for such a time they have a
monthly income above $2,500.00 from employment, annuities, investments, and royalties
under Sec. 203 42USC(7)II§403 (f-D) however the trust fund is established as a
retirement investment for workers and they receive decent pensions commensurate with
their investment to maintain a standard of living and they will be paid a smaller sum.
3. One month after an insured person dies a sum of not less than $255 is made payable to
the widow or widower of the deceased. Should the deceased have been eligible or
receiving disability or old age insurance and the spouse was not eligible but dependent
upon the deceased income the surviving spouse and children are eligible for 75% of
normal benefits of the deceased.
Fig. 35 Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, 1937-2020
[In billions]
Year
1937
1950
1960
Receipts
0.767
2.9
11.4
Expenditures
0.01
1.0
11.2
Net Increase
0.766
1.9
0.184
Assets
0.766
14
20.3
108
1970
32.2
29.9
2.4
32.4
1980
105.8
107.7
-1.8
22.8
1990
286.7
227.5
59.1
214.2
2000
490.5
358.3
132.2
931.0
2001
518.1
377.6
140.6
1,071.5
2010
677.1
585.0
92.3
2,429.0
2015
816.8
758.7
58.1
2,783.7
2016
858.8
807.5
51.3
2,835.0
DIRT
824.5
807.5
17
2,800.7
WILL
824.5
807.5
17
2,800.7
2017
907.4
861.1
46.3
2,881.3
DIRT
869.7
861.1
8.6
2,809.3
WILL
1,090.8
880.2
140.6
2,814.8
2018
959.6
920.5
39.1
2,920.4
DIRT
926.1
920.5
5.6
2,814.9
WILL
1,163.2
949.7
140.2
2,828.8
2019
1,009.8
985.1
24.7
2,945.1
DIRT
973.5
985.1
-11.6
2,803.3
WILL
1,223.9
1,024
122.9
2,841.1
2020
1,059.6
1,055
4.6
2,949.7
DIRT
1,020.4
1.055
-34.6
2,768.7
WILL
1,284.7
1,103
100.7
2,891.4
Source: 2014 Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees Table IV.A.1 Assets growth
in the WILL is slowed by the 90% federal share until 2020 and 75% share in 2020.
4. Sec. 2 42USC(7)I§302 sets forth that there shall be adequate staff to provide that all
individuals wishing to make application for assistance under the plan shall have
opportunity to do so, and that such assistance shall be furnished with reasonable
promptness to all eligible individuals. Although every state may set their own standards
they may not have an older retirement age than 65.
C. A nursing facility must care for its residents in such a manner and in such an
environment as will promote maintenance or enhancement of the quality of life of each
resident. A nursing facility must provide (or arrange for the provision of)
1. nursing and related services and specialized rehabilitative services to attain or maintain
the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident;
2. medically-related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical,
mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident;
3. pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring,
receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of
each resident;
4. dietary services that assure that the meals meet the daily nutritional and special dietary
needs of each resident;
5. an on-going program, directed by a qualified professional, of activities designed to
meet the interests and the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident;
109
6. routine dental services (to the extent covered under the State plan) and emergency
dental services to meet the needs of each resident; and
7. treatment and services required by mentally ill and mentally retarded residents not
otherwise provided or arranged for (or required to be provided or arranged for) by he
State under Sec. 1919 of Title XIX 42USC(7)XIX§1396r.
§87 Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund
A. The Disability Trust Fund was established on August 1, 1956 when President Dwight
D. Eisenhower signed into law the 1956 Amendments et seq Sec. 201 42USC(7)II§401
that set forth what is now a 1.9% taxation of total wages. Around 9 million people
receive disability benefits that averaged $832.80 a month in 2007. Average inflationadjusted annual personal income for DI beneficiaries remained roughly constant at
$12,855 in 1984 and $12,805 in 1999. Approximately 10.1% of DI beneficiaries worked
in 1984, compared with 22.0% in 1999. For DI beneficiaries, the percentage with income
below 50% of the poverty threshold jumped from 2.6% in 1984 to 6.0% in 1999.
Disability determination is much more time consuming and costly than retirement
benefits. The administrative cost of disability determination is around 2.3% of benefits
whereas the administrative cost of retirement benefits is only around 0.4% of benefits
The term ''disability'' is defined to mean the inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which
can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of not less than 12 months as set forth by Sec. 223 42USC(7)II§423.
Table 36 Number and Average Benefit of DI Beneficiaries by Diagnosis Dec. 2009
Diagnostic Group
Total
Congenital Anomalies
Endocrine, nutritional, and
metabolic diseases
Infectious and parasitic diseases
Injuries
Mental disorders
Retardation
Mental Illness
Neoplasms
Diseases of the—
Blood and blood-forming organs
Circulatory system
Digestive system
Genitourinary system
Musculoskeletal system and
connective tissue
Nervous system and sense organs
Respiratory system
Number of % of
Beneficiaries Total
7,788,013
100
13,614
0.3
278,565
3.3
Average
Benefit
$1,014.30
793.40
1,010.20
119,753
330,708
1.4
3.9
1,033.50
1,079.90
358,737
2,220,390
237,589
8.9
27.5
2.7
668.00
940.10
1,210.90
19,977
683,834
125,725
132,797
2,146,952
0.3
7.9
1.5
1.5
24.9
942.60
1,187.70
1,114.40
1,109.30
1,121.20
734,496
227,385
9.4
2.7
1,053.70
1,087.90
110
Skin and subcutaneous tissue
18,713
0.2
1,020.80
Other
18,030
0.2
1,097.50
Unknown
120,748
3.2
853.10
Source: Table 6: distribution by sex and diagnostic group and Table 7 Average Monthly
Benefit Amount. Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance
Program December 2009
1. The Disability Insurance (DI) program discriminates and it is somewhat frightening to
receive the “DI” award. DI was not passed by Congress until 1956 probably because the
DI program is vulnerable to discrimination on the basis of disability and for as little as the
OASDI taxation of workers making over $106,800 (2011), Social Security could insure a
poverty line income for all Americans. Nonetheless, the disabled are sacred, due special
financial protection, discrimination against disability enhances the penal sentencing of
crimes and is a humble and medically sound style of suing the government for the redress
of a living wage while alive. Of the 7.78 million disabled workers earning DI benefits
4.1 million were men earning an average of $1,189 a month and 3.69 million were
women earning an average benefit of $925. Sexual discrimination is clearly indicated in
the DI program - men make $4.87 billion while women make $3.4 billion a month.
There is ample evidence to indicate both sexual discrimination and discrimination on the
basis of diagnosis exist in the DI program. Racial discrimination is so pervasive in the
disability and SSI programs that Social Security does not have any reliable statistics.
27.5 percent of DI benefits go for the mental illness diagnostic group followed closely by
musculoskeletal system and connective tissue diseases comprising 24.9 percent of
beneficiaries. Those with musculoskeletal diseases earned significantly more on average
$1,121.20 than those with a diagnosis of mental illness $940.10. Cancer was the highest
earning diagnostic group with an average benefit of $1,210.90 a month. Of those who
worked the least before becoming disabled and unable to work, those with congenital
abnormalities earned an average of $793.40 and those who were mentally retarded who
earned the equivalent of SSI $668.00 in December 2009.
B. An individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or
mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his
previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in
any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. Every
individual who - (A) is insured for disability insurance benefits (B) has not attained
retirement age of 62 (C) has filed application for disability insurance benefits, and (D) is
under a disability shall be entitled to a disability insurance benefit beginning with the first
month during all of which he is under a disability and in which he becomes so entitled to
such insurance benefits that shall not terminate until the third month after such physical
or mental disability is determined to have ceased and a period of trial work yielding
substantial gains bringing the person above the determined poverty line for 9 months has
been completed. Sec. 222 of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)II§422 provides for a
poverty line of roughly $1,000 a month, $900 in 2007. In determining whether an
individual is able to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of his earnings,
where his disability is sufficiently severe to result in a functional limitation requiring
assistance in order for him to work, there shall be excluded from such earnings an amount
111
equal to the cost to such individual of any attendant care services, medical devices,
equipment, prostheses, and similar items and services.
1. The federal government reimburses the states 50% of their expenditures for Aid to the
blind under Sec. 1003 42USC(7)X§1203. Aid to the blind means the provision of money
to need blind individuals. A single State agency shall supervise the administration of the
aid to the blind and grant an opportunity for a fair hearing before the State agency to any
individual whose claim for aid to the blind is denied. The State shall take into
consideration any other income and resources of the individual claiming aid to the blind,
as well as any expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of any such income. State
agencies shall administrate aid to the Permanently and totally disabled to guarantee the
recipients are granted steady benefits and are not subject to any prohibited residency
requirement Sec. 1402(b) 42USC(7)XIV§1352.
Fig. 36a Disability Insurance Trust Fund, 1957-2020
[In billions]
Year
Receipts
Expenditures
Increase in
Assets
Assets
1957
0.709
0.059
0.649
0.649
1960
1.1
0.600
0.464
2.3
1970
4.8
3.3
1.5
5.6
1980
13.9
15.9
-2.0
3.6
1990
28.8
25.6
3.2
11.1
2000
77.9
56.8
21.1
118.5
2010
104.0
127.7
-23.6
179.9
2015
121.2
151.0
-29.8
28.4
2016
125.8
155.8
-30.0
-1.6
DIR 2.3
161.2
155.8
5.4
33.8
WILL
208.7
161.0
47.7
54.7
2017
133.6
161.2
-27.6
-29.2
DIRT
171.3
161.2
10.1
43.9
WILL
222.4
167.3
55.1
87.9
2018
141.9
167.1
-25.2
-54.4
DIR 2.2
174.4
167.1
7.3
51.2
WILL
226.9
173.9
53
118.6
2019
149.7
173.6
-23.9
-78.3
DIRT
184
173.6
10.4
61.6
WILL
240.2
180.9
59.3
155.1
2020
157.6
180.6
-23
-101.3
DIRT
194.1
180.6
13.5
75.1
WILL
254.0
188.2
65.8
188.0
Source: 2014 Annual Report of the OASDI Trustees Table IV.A.2 the Year End Balance
in the WILL is altered by the roughly 50/50 share with USPS $21.4 billion (end of year
2016) + 2% annual growth.
112
C. The Free DIRT Act is a matter of existence for the DI Trust Fund under current
actuarial law and must be accounted for retroactively from January 1, 2016. If the DI tax
rate is not reallocated to a level of at least 2.3%, now 2.4% in 2016, the DI trust fund will
not have any funds with which to produce any interest beginning sometime in 2016. For
all intents and purposes the DI Trust Fund will be depleted and no longer viable as a trust
fund. Backpay for the wrongful “No COLA” decision for 2016 and looming benefit cuts
for the disabled will have to be afforded by retroactively accounting for a 2.4% DI and
10.0% OASI tax rate from January 1, 2016. The Commissioner may then fill in the
blanks in DI Trust Fund Figure IV.A.2 and do the math. The OASI Trust Fund would
show a modest deficit in 2019 but will not have to start begging for a WILL until 2020.
The option to balance the federal budget with an OASI WILL may not be on the table in
2020. OASI costs increase dramatically after 2020. It is left to Congress to decide if
they want to pay a DI tax in 2016 both OASDI taxes on all their income in 2017. In the
worst case scenario a DI benefit cut to 80% will constitute deprivation of relief benefits
under 18USC§246 and underpayment will ultimately have to be made under Sec. 204(c)
of the Social Security Act 42USC§404(c) to retroactively account for the right DI tax rate
from no later than January 1, 2016.
§88 Unemployment Compensation (UC) Trust Fund
A. The Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271) created the Federal-State
Unemployment Compensation (UC) Program. The program has two main objectives: (1)
to provide temporary and partial wage replacement to involuntarily unemployed workers
who were recently employed; and (2) to help stabilize the economy during recessions.
The U.S. Department of Labor oversees the system, but each State administers its own
program. The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) imposes a 6.2% gross tax rate on
the first $7,000 paid annually by covered employers to each employee. Funds for the
administration of state unemployment compensation laws are set forth in the
Unemployment Trust Fund Sec. 901(c) of Title IX of the Social Security Act
42USCIX§1101.
1. In 2008 state agencies collected $32.2 billion in state unemployment taxes, and paid
$42.9 billion in Federal and state unemployment benefits to 8.9 million beneficiaries at
the height of the recession in FY 2009 state agencies are expected to collect $36.7 billion
in state unemployment taxes and to pay $102.9 billion in Federal and state unemployment
benefits to 12 million beneficiaries. The Unemployment Trust Fund has 59 accounts.
The accounts consist of 53 State UC benefit accounts, the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Account, the Railroad Administration Account, and four Federal accounts. To
induce states to enact unemployment insurance laws, the Social Security Act of 1935
provided a tax offset incentive. A uniform national tax was imposed on payrolls of
industrial and commercial employers who employed eight or more workers in 20 or more
weeks in a calendar year. Employers who paid taxes to a state with an approved
unemployment insurance law could credit (offset) up to 90% of the state tax against the
federal tax.
113
B. About 125 million individuals were covered by all UC Programs in 2000, representing
97% of all wage and salary workers and 89% of the civilian labor force. Although the
UC system covers 97% of all wage and salary workers, on average only 38% of
unemployed persons were receiving UC benefits in 1999. This compares with a peak of
81% of the unemployed receiving UC benefits in April 1975 and a low point of 26% in
June 1968 and in October 1987. In 1999, the national average weekly benefit amount was
$215 and the average duration was 14.5 weeks, making the average total benefits $3,118.
The minimum weekly benefit amounts for 2000 vary from $0 in New Jersey to $102 in
Rhode Island. The maximum weekly benefit amounts range from $133 in Puerto Rico to
$646 in Massachusetts according to the Almanac of Policy Compensation on
Unemployment Compensation.
C. Unemployment benefits are available as a matter of right (without a means test) to
unemployed workers who have demonstrated their attachment to the labor force by a
specified amount of recent work or earnings in covered employment. The Federal-State
Unemployment Insurance Program provides unemployment benefits to eligible workers
who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Between spring 2003 and spring
2004 the Unemployment Trust Fund (s) of the 50 states and territories had combined
revenues of $28,325,600,000 and maintained a balance of $18,842,981,000. Investments
there under yielded $327,389,000 in interest in 2003-2004.
Fig. 37 Wage and Unemployment Data 2005
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
2.0
6.7
1.7
3.2
3.4
1.9
3.5
2.8
5.7
8.5
4.8
6.1
6.7
5.7
5.2
4.1
$13,668,388
$2,663,789
$18,462,620
$7,520,875
$149,870,232
$19,895,405
$17,913,144
$3,914,258
$1,496,795
$1,165,430
$1,871,676
$1,187,959
$11,852,619
$2,690,825
$2,446,535
$359,348
Taxable
Wage
Base
$8,000
$27,100
$7,000
$10,000
$7,000
$10,000
$15,000
$8,500
1.4
6.7
$6,105,092
$391,853
$9,000
1.5
1.8
1.8
4.4
3.6
2.7
2.9
2.5
2.6
1.9
4.6
3.9
3.7
5.9
6.7
5.7
5.0
5.2
6.0
6.0
$56,521,696
$32,462,100
$4,336,055
$4,016,704
$54,408,733
$22,494,523
$10,393,210
$9,510,773
$12,768,862
$13,437,999
$6,104,477
$3,648,312
$1,994,817
$1,981,394
$5,149,146
$2,014,239
$3,252,547
$1,915,766
$1,424,210
$1,386,220
$7,000
$8,500
$31,000
$27,600
$9,800
$7,000
$19,700
$8,000
$8,000
$7,000
IUR
(%)
TUR
(%)
Total Wages
(000)
Taxable
Wages (000)
114
Maine
2.9
5.7
$4,349,656
Maryland
2.2
4.4
$22,022,016
Massachusetts 3.9
5.8
$34,266,158
Michigan
4.6
7.5
$40,123,869
Minnesota
3.1
5.4
$23,999,064
Mississippi
2.2
5.5
$7,099,706
Missouri
2.9
5.4
$20,813,573
Montana
3.6
5.3
$2,434,428
Nebraska
2.0
4.1
$6,422,667
Nevada
2.6
4.7
$9,315,066
New
1.8
4.4
$5,315,936
Hampshire
New Jersey
4.0
5.6
$41,376,259
New Mexico 2.2
5.6
$5,113,813
New York
3.1
7.0
$87,705,234
North Carolina 2.8
6.0
$29,556,598
North Dakota 2.4
3.9
$2,060,157
Ohio
2.9
6.6
$44,264,784
Oklahoma
2.0
5.2
$9,503,065
Oregon
4.5
8.5
$12,919,527
Pennsylvania 4.4
5.9
$47,739,468
Puerto Rico
4.2
11.3
$4,946,146
Rhode Island 3.9
6.1
$4,010,530
South Carolina 2.7
6.5
$12,944,666
South Dakota 1.3
3.8
$2,335,033
Tennessee
2.2
5.4
$20,561,675
Texas
2.0
6.3
$80,372,236
Utah
1.9
5.3
$7,540,246
Vermont
3.3
4.6
$2,202,825
Virgin Islands 1.0
$289,089
Virginia
1.4
3.6
$29,823,776
Washington
4.0
6.8
$25,474,164
West Virginia 3.2
6.2
$4,450,662
Wisconsin
4.3
6.2
$21,423,787
Wyoming
2.2
4.5
$1,730,821
United States 2.9
$1,134,871,157
6.1
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005. IUR= Insured
Total Unemployment Rate.
$849,613
$2,169,875
$4,635,931
$3,866,283
$6,665,680
$831,231
$2,001,601
$1,247,460
$605,662
$3,703,575
$12,000
$8,500
$14,000
$9,000
$22,000
$7,000
$8,000
$20,300
$7,000
$22,000
$523,368
$8,000
$11,155,619
$1,533,795
$6,659,565
$7,189,109
$654,008
$4,621,659
$1,914,359
$5,271,312
$4,141,614
$665,578
$653,604
$1,333,713
$275,462
$1,936,497
$9,036,522
$2,895,396
$231,936
$83,306
$2,925,200
$9,563,940
$567,217
$2,750,978
$474,650
$155,969,487
Unemployment
$24,300
$16,800
$8,500
$16,200
$18,500
$9,000
$14,300
$27,000
$8,000
$7,000
$14,000
$7,000
$7,000
$7,000
$9,000
$22,700
$8,000
$18,400
$8,000
$30,200
$8,000
$10,500
$15,900
$10,863
Rate; TUR=
D. The Secretary of Labor shall from time to time certify to the Secretary of the Treasury
for payment to each State which has an unemployment compensation law approved by
the Secretary of Labor under the Unemployment Tax Act 26USC§3305(b), such amounts
as the Secretary of Labor determines to be necessary for the proper and efficient
administration of such law during the fiscal year for which such payment is to be made,
including the reasonable expenditures of the State as are attributable to the costs of the
115
implementation and operation of the immigration status verification system described in
Sec. 1137(d) 42USC(7)XI-B§1320b-7(d). The Secretary of Labor's determination shall
be based on,
a. the population of the State;
b. an estimate of the number of persons covered by the State law and of the cost of proper
and efficient administration of such law; and
c. such other factors as the Secretary of Labor finds relevant.
1. The Governor of any State shall certify to the Secretary of Labor every 3 months how
many and how much the state needs to administrate claims for unemployment
compensation under Sec. 1201 42USC(7)XII§1321 whereupon the Secretary of the
Treasurer shall quickly make adjustments to the book recognizing these payments.
Judicial review of unemployment compensation applications where state law does not
apply must be conducted at the appellate level and served upon the Governor of the state
to be heard by the Secretary of Labor within 60 days. The commencement of such
judicial proceedings shall stay the Secretary’s proceedings for one month and the court
shall grant interim relief as warranted Sec. 304 42USC(7)III§504.
E. In 1970, a permanent federal-state program of Extended Benefits was established for
workers who exhaust their entitlement to regular state benefits during periods of high
unemployment. The program is financed equally from federal and state funds.
Employment conditions in an individual state trigger Extended Benefits. This happens
when the unemployment rate among insured workers in a state averages 5% or more over
a 13-week period and is at least 20% higher than the rate for the same period in the 2
preceding years. If the insured unemployment rate reaches 6%, a state may, by state law,
disregard the 20% requirement in initiating Extended Benefits. Once triggered, Extended
Benefit provisions remain in effect for at least 13 weeks.
1. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993 (Public Law
103-6) extended EUC for claims filed through October 2, 1993. The law also authorized
funds for automated State systems to identify permanently displaced workers for early
intervention with reemployment services. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993 (Public Law 103-66) extended the 0.2 percent FUTA surtax for 2 years through
1998. The Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993 (Public Law 103-152)
extended EUC for claims filed through February 5, 1994, and set the benefit periods at 7
and 13 weeks. It repealed a provision passed in 1992 that allowed claimants to choose
between EUC and regular State benefits. The North American Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act (Public Law 103-182) gave States the option of continuing UC
benefits for claimants who elect to start their own businesses. The Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) gave States complete authority in setting base periods for
determining eligibility for benefits, authorized appropriations for program integrity
activities, limited trust fund distributions to States in fiscal years 1999-2001, and raised
the ceiling on FUA assets from 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of wages in covered
employment starting in fiscal year 2002. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law
105-34) extended the 0.2% FUTA surtax through 2007. On November 21, 2008, the
116
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449) expanded
EUC08 to up to 20 weeks in every state and up to 13 additional weeks for individuals in
"high unemployment" states. On November 6, 2009, the Worker, Homeownership, and
Business Assistance Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-92) expanded EUC08 to up to
34 weeks in every state and up to 19 additional weeks for individuals in "high
unemployment" states. The most recent unemployment extension is now over; it was
fairly well accounted for by both the Labor budget and OMB whose tables can be finetuned by any department but Housing and Urban Development.
Art. 4 Health Insurance
§89 Medicare
A. Medicare is comprised of the Hospital Insurance program (Medicare Part A) that is
financed with a 2.9% payroll tax, split 1.45% between employers and employees and the
Supplementary Medical Insurance program (Medicare Part B and D Prescription Drug
Coverage) that are financed one third by premiums and two thirds by appropriations from
government revenues. On July 30, 1965, the Social Security Act established the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund as a separate account in the U.S. Treasury. In 2011,
Medicare covered 48.7 million people: 40.4 million aged 65 and older, and 8.3 million
disabled. About 25 percent of these beneficiaries have chosen to enroll in Part C private
health plans that contract with Medicare to provide Part A and Part B health services.
Total expenditures in 2011 were $549.1 billion. Total income was $530.0 billion, which
consisted of $514.8 billion in non-interest income and $15.2 billion in interest earnings.
Assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities decreased to $324.9 billion. 3. The
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 established a health care
fraud and abuse control account within the HI trust fund. $1.7 billion in monies derived
from the fraud and abuse control program were transferred from the general fund of the
Treasury to the HI trust fund during calendar year 2011. Historically the cost of
administering the HI trust fund has remained relatively small in comparison with benefit
amounts. The ratio of administrative expenses to benefit payments has generally fallen
within the range of 1 to 3 percent. The Trustees have recommended maintenance of HI
trust fund assets at a level of at least 100 percent of annual expenditures.
B. Benefits (1) will be provided economically and only when, and to the extent,
medically necessary; (2) will be of a quality which meets professionally recognized
standards of health care; and (3) will be supported by evidence of medical necessity and
quality in such form and fashion and at such time as may reasonably be required by a
reviewing peer review organization in the exercise of its duties and responsibilities under
Sec. 1156 of Title XI-B 42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-5.
1. The beneficiary assistance program shall provide assistance, information and
counseling with respect to the Medicare program, (a) eligibility, (b) benefits (both
covered and not covered), (c) the process of payment for services, (d) rights and process
for appeals of determinations, (e) peer review organizations, fiscal intermediaries, and
carriers and (f) recent legislative and administrative changes in the Medicare program.
117
2. Within 30 days from the receipt of the claim Medicare shall notify the patient of the
claims. The claim shall then be paid at, or before, the end of the quarter
42USC(7)XVIII§1395b-7. Should the claim go unpaid until the end of a fiscal year after
the medical treatment, the medical billing agency shall file the claims as tax deductible
expenses to the full amount of the bill.
C. Health agencies must protect and promote the rights of each individual under its care,
including each of the following rights set forth in Sec. 1891 of Title XVIII
42USC(7)XVIII-D§1395bbb
1. The right to be fully informed in advance about the care and treatment to be provided
by the agency, to be fully informed in advance of any changes in the care or treatment to
be provided by the agency that may affect the individual's well-being, and to participate
in planning care and treatment or changes in care or treatment.
2. The right to voice grievances with respect to treatment or care that is furnished without
discrimination or reprisal for voicing grievances.
3. The right to confidentiality of the clinical records.
4. The right to have one's property treated with respect.
5. The right to be fully informed orally and in writing (in advance of coming under the
care of the agency).
§90 Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
A. The Federal Hospitals Insurance Trust Fund is paid for with a 2.9% payroll tax under
Section 1817 of Title XVIII 42USC(7)XVIII-A§1395i . The scope of entitlement to the
payment of benefits in Medicare Part A under Sec. 1812 42USC(7)XVIII-A§1395d is for
inpatient hospital services, post-hospital extended care services, home health services,
and hospice care during any spell of illness; including:
1. inpatient hospital services or inpatient critical access hospital services up to 150 days
2. psychiatric hospitalization is limited to 21 days of reimbursement;
3. post-hospital extended care services for up to 100 days
4. hospice care with respect to the individual during up to two periods of 90 days each
and an unlimited number of subsequent periods of 60 days.
Fig. 38 HI Trust Fund 1966-2020
1966
1970
1980
HI
0.893
4.755
23.217
HIbal
0.851
2.677
14.49
118
1990
68.556
95.63
1991
72.842
109.9
2000
135.53
168.1
2010
216.71
365.4
2014
255.9
191.7
2015
281.9
203.8
2016
300.3
220.8
2017
320.4
242.0
2018
342.0
262.0
2019
362.9
282.6
2020
383.9
300.1
Source: Historical SSA and Medicare Stats 2006: 1937-2010; 2014 Annual Report of the
Medicare Trustees, TableIII.B4
B. Hospital insurance, Part A of Chapter XVIII of the Social Security Act, is provided for
all people insured under old age and disability insurance provisions and otherwise
uninsured people who are entitled to transitional hospital insurance on the basis of need
under Title II §226 of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)II§426.
1. 42USC(7)XVIII-A§1395i-2 makes provisions for the uninsured by guaranteeing that
all hospital claims are paid, giving priority to the aged and disabled, by reducing the
share of the federal government to 45% of the total cost of hospital claims payable so
long as the patient continues to have the disabling physical or mental impairment on the
basis of which the individual was found to be under a disability. Most hospitals however
prefer Medicaid because the patients may not be b(k)illed under color of Medicare.
2. In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual,
whether or not eligible for benefits, comes to the emergency department and a request is
made on the individual's behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the
hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the
capability of the hospital's emergency department, including ancillary services routinely
available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency
medical condition exists under Sec. 1867 42USC(7)XVIII-E§1395dd.
3. Requests for Medicare payment are processed within 90 day, 1 quarter from receipt;
claims that are not immediately settled receive a fair hearing no later than 120 days after
receipt under Sec. 1869 of Title XVIII-E 42USC(7)XVIII-E§1395ff.
C. A skilled nursing facility must maintain a quality assessment and assurance
committee, under Sec. 1819(B) of Title XVIII 42USC(7)XVIII-A§1395i-3 (B) consisting
of the director of nursing services, a physician designated by the facility, and at least 3
other members of the facility's staff, which meets at least quarterly to identify issues with
respect to which quality assessment and assurance activities are necessary and develops
and implements appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies.
119
1. Shalala Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Illinois Long Term Care Inc. No.
98-1109 (2000) determined that payment to hospitals and long term care nursing facilities
could be terminated only if they immediately jeopardize the health or safety of residents,
in which case the Secretary must terminate the home's provider agreement or appoint
new, temporary management. Where deficiencies are less serious, the Secretary may
impose lesser remedies, such as civil penalties, transfer of residents, denial of some or all
payment, state monitoring, and the like. Where a nursing home, though deficient in some
respects, is in "[s]ubstantial compliance," i.e., where its deficiencies do no more than
create a "potential for causing minimal harm," the Secretary will impose no sanction or
remedy at all.
D. Hospital construction was federally funded under the 1946 Hill-Burton Hospital
Survey and Construction Act, P.L. 79-725 however contemporary policy requires health
corporations to pay for the construction of hospitals with primarily private money. The
right to arbitration in all disputes that may arise between a construction company and a
hospital is guaranteed under Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. 460
US 1 (1983).
1. For the purposes of the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility program, acute care
inpatient services do not exceed 25 beds and the number of beds used at any time for
acute care inpatient services do not exceed 15 beds for groups of physicians and nursing
assistants engaging in activities relating to planning and implementing a rural health care
plan; and designating facilities as critical access hospitals for the surrounding 35 mile
community and extended hinterland under Sec. 1820 42USC(7)XVIII§1395i-4.
§91 Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund
A. The Federal Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is a premium funded
health insurance program provided for under Sec. 1839 of Title XVIII-B
42USC(7)XVIII-B§1395t that receive funds from the General Revenues as needed. The
program is financed one third by premiums and two thirds by appropriations from the
General Revenues. The scope of benefits covers both Medicare Part B Supplemental
Medical Insurance and part D that has been interpreted to provide drug benefits. Part B
covers the cost of physicians, in home care and medical services under Sec. 1832 of Title
XVIII-B 42USC(7)XVIII-B§1935k.
1. Clinical laboratory services.
2. Physical therapy services.
3. Occupational therapy services.
4. Radiology services, including magnetic resonance imaging, computerized axial
tomography scans, and ultrasound services.
5. Radiation therapy services and supplies.
6. Durable medical equipment and supplies (including eyeglasses).
7. Parenteral and enteral nutrients, equipment, and supplies.
8. Prosthetics, orthotics, and prosthetic devices and supplies.
9. Home health services.
120
10. Outpatient prescription drugs.
11. Inpatient and outpatient hospital services.
12. Physicians for preventative yearly check-Sups and diagnostic laboratory tests.
13. Dental care, yearly check-up and decay treatment.
Fig. 39 SMI Trust Fund, 1967-2020
1967
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
SMI
SMIba
0.623
0.486
0.928
0.057
6.932
4.539
33.210
14.29
65.561
45.90
229.88
59.94
260.1
71.4
278.6
81.1
273.8
71.3
307.9
76.2
332.1
82.1
358.7
88.5
402.9
108.9
Historical SSA and Medicare Stats 2006: 1937-2010
2014 Annual Report of the Medicare Trustees 1970-2023, Table III.C4
B. Sums shall be made available to the State on the basis of the Secretary’s approval of
Medical assistance on behalf of families with dependent children and of aged, blind, or
disabled individuals, whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of
necessary medical services, and rehabilitation and other services to help such families
and individuals attain or retain capability for independence or self-care under Sec. 1902
42USC(7)XIX§1396a.
C. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
(Pub. L. 108-173) implemented Sec. 1927 of Title XIX 42USC(7)XIX§1396r-8. The
$37.4 billion Medicare prescription drug plan began its first year in 2006. In January
2005, HHS projected that 39.1 million beneficiaries would have prescription drug
coverage either from the new Medicare drug benefit or another source with benefits at
least as generous as Medicare’s.
1. HHS enrollment numbers show that so far 25.9 million (60%) of the estimated 43.4
million Medicare beneficiaries have creditable coverage. Of the 25.9 million beneficiaries
with creditable drug coverage, 15.9 million are in Medicare drug plans and 10 million are
in employer plans. Most had drug coverage prior to the start of the new benefit. As of
March 2007, 16.9 million beneficiaries were enrolled in stand-alone prescription drug
plans (PDPs) and another 7.1 million were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans
offering prescription drugs (MA-PDs). In nearly every state, beneficiaries must choose
among more than 50 different drug plan options offered by eight to 40 different plan
121
sponsors. After one year the prescription drug plan costs much less than projected. Cost
projections for Part D through 2015 are 13 percent lower than estimated in last year’s
report (and substantially lower than the original estimates from 2003).
§92 Medicaid
A. Medicaid was enacted in 1965 as a companion to Medicare in Title XIX of the Social
Security Act. In 2004 is estimated that there were 52 million Medicaid beneficiaries at an
annual cost of $305 billion. This is more than the federal Medicare program that serves
42 million people at a cost of $295 billion. The federal medical assistance percentage
(FMAP) is the share of total Medicaid expenditures the federal government pays. The
FMAP varies from state to state and is determined annually by a statutory formula
designed to account for income variation across the states. For fiscal year (FY) 2009, the
FMAP ranges from 50 percent in California and several other states to 75.84 percent in
Mississippi. Overall, the federal government finances an average of 57 percent of all
Medicaid costs annually. There is no cap on the amount the federal government pays: the
more a state spends the more it receives from the federal government.
1. Together Medicare and Medicaid serve more than 87 million people. Medicaid pays
approximately 1 in 5 health care dollars and 1 in 2 nursing home dollars. The Medicaid
Program provides medical benefits to groups of low-income people, some who may have
no medical insurance or inadequate medical insurance. Although the Federal government
establishes general guidelines for the program, the Medicaid program requirements are
actually established by each State. Whether or not a person is eligible for Medicaid
depends upon the State where he or she lives.
Fig. 40 Medicaid Population by State July 1, 1999
State of Residence Residents (1,000s) Medicare Pop. (1,000) Enrollees % Medicaid $
United States
272,691
38,319
14.1
188,456,539,000
Alabama
4,370
678
15.5
2,426,546,629
Alaska
620
40
6.5
407,574,922
Arizona
4,778
661
13.8
1,977,585,436
Arkansas
2,551
431
16.9
1,472,148,586
California
33,145
3,861
11.6
18,322,124,498
Colorado
4,056
462
11.4
1,840,149,345
Connecticut
3,282
515
15.7
3,106,833,711
122
Delaware
754
112
14.9
464,675,516
District of Columbia
519
76
14.6
812,307,451
Florida
15,111
2,793
18.5
5,842,382,222
Georgia
7,755
910
11.7
3,762,757,168
Hawaii
1,185
164
13.8
605,014,726
Idaho
1,252
161
13.0
517,507,218
Illinois
12,128
1,622
13.4
6,755,100,123
Indiana
5,943
838
14.1
2,977,949,366
Iowa
2,869
457
16.6
1,461,173,214
Kansas
2,654
385
14.5
1,106,965,283
Kentucky
3,961
612
15.5
2,770,613,802
Louisiana
4,372
595
13.6
3,384,670,228
Maine
1,253
214
17.1
1,178,880.711
Maryland
5,172
635
12.3
3,014,952,844
Massachusetts
6,175
972
15.4
5,446,127,975
Michigan
9,664
1,385
14.0
6,158,362,777
Minnesota
4,776
647
13.5
3,119,764,555
Mississippi
2,769
414
15.0
1,843,880,902
Missouri
5,468
852
15.6
3,639,967,302
Montana
883
135
15.3
424,328,043
Nebraska
1,666
253
15.2
984,253,204
Nevada
1,809
235
13.0
559,503,198
123
New Hampshire
1,201
165
13.7
787,062,321
New Jersey
8,143
1,201
14.7
5,772,631,914
New Mexico
1,740
230
13.2
1,103,690,454
New York
18,197
2,674
14.7
28,673,589,131
North Carolina
7,651
1,112
14.5
4,967,172,053
North Dakota
634
102
16.1
346,720,664
Ohio
11,257
1,697
15.1
5,908,994,760
Oklahoma
3,358
503
15.0
1,496,145,904
Oregon
3,316
490
14.6
1,962,544,049
Pennsylvania
11,994
2,082
17.4
9,556,752,320
Rhode Island
981
168
17.0
1,063,037,589
South Carolina
3,886
556
14.3
2,472,958,395
South Dakota
733
118
16.1
377,830,154
Tennessee
5,484
815
14.9
4,159,707,338
Texas
20,044
2,226
11.1
10,350,823,295
Utah
2,130
204
9.6
756,590,971
Vermont
514
88
14.6
473,137,876
Virginia
6,173
878
12.8
2,487,100,612
Washington
5,250
724
12.6
3,564,389,167
West Virginia
1,807
336
18.6
1,355,044,060
Wisconsin
5,250
770
14.7
2,738,075,303
Wyoming
480
64
13.3
204,334,030
124
Statistics from CMS Table 10 Total Resident Population of the United States, and Total
Medicare Population, by State of Residence, July 1, 1999 and CMS Table 86 Medicaid
Expenditure by Provider Type and Area of Residence
B. States are required to include certain types of individuals or eligibility groups under
their Medicaid plans and they may include others.
1. Families who meet states’ Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) eligibility
requirements in effect on July 16, 1996.
2. Pregnant women and children under age 6 whose family income is at or below 133 %
of the Federal poverty level.
3. Children ages 6 to 19 with family income up to 100% of the Federal poverty level.
4. Caretakers (relatives or legal guardians who take care of children under age 18 (or 19
if still in high school)).
5. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients (or, in certain states, aged, blind, and
disabled people who meet requirements that are more restrictive than those of the SSI
program).
6. Medicaid pays Medicare premiums, deductibles and coinsurance for Qualified
Medicare Beneficiaries (QMB)—individuals whose income is at or below 100% of the
Federal poverty level and whose resources are at or below twice the standard allowed
under SSI.
7. All states provide community Long Term Care services for individuals who are
Medicaid eligible and qualify for institutional care.
C. Medicaid eligibility groups classified as categorically needy are entitled to the
following services. These service entitlements do not apply to the SCHIP programs.
1. Inpatient hospital and outpatient (excluding inpatient services in institutions for
mental disease).
2. Other laboratory and x-ray.
3. Physicians’ services. Early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment (EPSDT)
for children under age 21.
4. Family planning services and supplies.
5.Medical and surgical services of a dentist.
6. Home health services for beneficiaries who are entitled to nursing facility services
under the state’s Medicaid plan.
7. Home health aides. Medical supplies and appliances for use in the home.
8. Nurse mid-wife services. Pregnancy related services and service for other conditions
that might complicate pregnancy and 60 days postpartum pregnancy related services.
D. Each State shall establish a pediatric vaccine distribution program (which may be
administered by the State department of health), under which each vaccine-eligible child
receives an immunization with a qualified pediatric vaccine from a program-registered
provider without charge for the cost of such vaccine under Sec. 1928 of Title XIX
42USC(7)XIX1396s; the registered provider will be shipped an appropriate amount of
125
vaccines free of charge to meet the needs of Medicaid eligible children or be reimbursed
for the cost of administering such vaccines.
E. Judicial review of Medicaid claims is a right in all cases exceeding $2,000 in value.
Smaller claims regarding dishonor valued over $200 are referred to the Secretary under
Sec. 1151 of Title XI42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-4 (Title XI §1151 SSA).
§92a Affordable Care Act
A. In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 124 Stat.
119 as codified in Title 42 U.S. Code Chapter 157 §18001 et seq requiring state programs
to provide Medicaid coverage by 2014 to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the
federal poverty level. The Affordable Care Act provides that the Federal Government
will pay 100 percent of the costs of covering these newly eligible individuals through
2016. In 2014, federal funds will cover 100% of the costs for newly eligible
beneficiaries; that rate will gradually decrease before settling at 90% in 2020. By
comparison, federal contributions toward the care of beneficiaries eligible pre-ACA
range from 50% to 83%, and averaged 57% between 2005 and 2008 42USC(7)§1396d
(y,b). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that States will spend 0.8% more
than they would have, absent the ACA. The number of uninsured people is expected to
decline from 45 million people in 2012 to 23 million people by 2023. If the Medicaid is
kind and remains open to the Medicaid marketplace, more rich people will choose to buy
the policies. The new refundable premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction from the
Marketplace cost the Treasury $36,748 million in 2014 and is estimated to cost $60.1
billion in 2015. The refundable premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction is an
accounting error. King v. Burwell (2015) deferred accounting fraud charges so as not to
engage in deprivation of relief benefits.
1. Individuals with incomes between 100 and 400% of the poverty level receive tax
credits to offset the cost of insurance to the individual purchases 26USC(A)(1)(A)
(IV)(C)§36B. The PPACA provides for refundable and advanceable premium credits to
eligible individuals and families with incomes from 133 to 400 percent of the Federal
Poverty Level (FPL) to purchase insurance through the exchanges. The premium credits
will be tied to the second-lowest-cost silver plan in the area and will be set on a sliding
scale such that the premium contributions are limited to a percentage of income. Health
plans will be subject to federal “medical loss ratio” (MLR) rules. This means that health
plans in the individual and small-group markets must spend 80 percent of their revenues
on medical benefits, retaining no more than 20 percent for the costs of administration,
marketing, other customer services, and profits. For the large-group market, 85 percent
of premiums must be spent on medical benefits. If the MLR targets are not met, the
health plans will be required by law to refund the difference to enrollees in the form of
rebates. By 2019, it is estimated that 20 million of the 24 million people who will obtain
insurance through this exchange are expected to receive an average federal subsidy of
$6,460 per person.
126
B. Under current law, the standard HI payroll tax rate is scheduled to remain constant at
2.90 percent (for employees and employers, combined). One premise of the ACA that
was not disputed is that high-income workers will pay an additional 0.9% of their
earnings above $200,000 (for single workers) or $250,000 (for married couples filing
joint income tax returns) in 2013 and later.
1. In National Federation of Independent Businesses et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health
and Human Services, et al No. 11-393 June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a
second key revenue provision that is the individual mandate, which requires most
Americans to maintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage under
26USC(D)(48)§5000A. For individuals who are not exempt, and who do not receive
health insurance through an employer or government program, the means of satisfying
the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company. Beginning in 2014,
those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “shared responsibility payment”
to the Federal Government. The Act provides that this “penalty” will be paid to the
Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected
in the same manner” as tax penalties. In 2016, for example, individuals making $35,000
a year are expected to owe the IRS about $60 for any month in which they do not have
health insurance. Someone with an annual income of $100,000 a year would likely owe
about $200. The payment is expected to raise about $4 billion per year by 2017.
C. The CMS Actuary remains doubtful about the feasibility of the statutory productivity
adjustments in the long range. The rate of growth in Medicare prices prior to the
provisions of the ACA, which was assumed to be the same as the rate of private medical
price growth in earlier reports, is now assumed to be 0.4% faster. CMS should give
Medicaid to disability and retirement beneficiaries below the poverty line so they don’t
have to pay Medicare premiums. Sell Medicaid to taxpayers at up to four or even fives
times the Medicare price. A private intermediary is inefficient and expensive. Total
federal and state Medicaid spending is expected to skyrocket under the ACA, going from
$427 billion to $896 billion between 2010 and 2019. Half of ACA costs will come from
payment cuts and the other half from tax increases totally $503 billion between 2010 and
2019. The $129 billion cost of the tax credit for private insurance premium from 2013 to
2019 will be born by general revenues and the extra 0.9% tax on high income earners
might generate $50-100 billion annually for Medicaid. Medicaid has long been the
largest federal program of grants to the States. Since 1982 every State had chosen to
participate in Medicaid. Federal funds received through the Medicaid program have
become a substantial part of state budgets, now constituting over 10 percent of most
States’ total revenue. In 2010, the Federal Government directed more than $552 billion in
federal funds to the States over $608 billion to state and local governments, and state and
local government expenditures from their own sources amounted to $1.6 trillion.
1. The Medicaid expansion, which began in 2014, allows states the option to expand
Medicaid eligibility to individuals under age 65 with family incomes up to 133 percent of
the federal poverty level (or $31,721 for a family of four in 2014). As of January 2014,
25 states and the District of Columbia have elected to expand Medicaid in 2014. The
federal government will pay 100 percent of state expenditures related to newly eligible
127
individuals through 2016. The federal matching rate will then drop gradually to 90
percent in 2020 where it will then remain. By comparison, federal contributions toward
the care of beneficiaries eligible pre-ACA range from 50% to 83%, and averaged 57%
between 2005 and 2008 42USC(7)§1396d (y,b). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
projects that States will spend 0.8% more than they would have, absent the ACA.
Federal Medicaid spending increased by 6.3% between calendar year 2014 and 2015. A
total of 59.1 million person-years were enrolled in Medicaid in 2013, 64.9 million in
2014 and 71.2 million in 2015. There was a 6.3% increase in enrollment between 2014
and 2015 and a 9.8% increase between 2013 and 2014. The majority of the new
enrollment was adults under the age of 65. In 2013 there 5.2 million beneficiaries 65 and
over, 9.7 blind and disabled SSI beneficiaries, 28.3 million children, 14.8 million adults
and 1 million territories. In 2014 there 5.4 million beneficiaries aged 65 and older, 3.9%
growth from 2013, 9.8 million blind and disabled, 1% growth from 2013, 29.5 million
children, 4.2% growth from 2013, 19.2 million adults, 29.7% growth from 2013, and 1
million territories, 0% growth. In 2015 there 5.5 million beneficiaries aged 65 and over,
1.9% growth from 2014, 9.8 million blind and disabled, 0% growth since 2014, 30.8
million children, 4.4% growth from 2014, 24.0 million adults, 25% growth from 2014
and 1 million territories. There has been a one year delay but the extra 0.9% tax on
incomes over $200,000 ($250,000 for couples) that began in 2014 eliminates the HI
account deficit of past 7 years before 2015 until 2023. The SMI trust fund fluctuates with
the payment dates and usually turns a profit thanks to a massive federal subsidy.
D. The PPACA provides for refundable and advance able premium credits to eligible
individuals and families with incomes from 133 to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty
Level (FPL) to purchase insurance through exchanges. 37 States and the District of
Columbia have received over $4.9 billion in grants to operate Marketplaces since 2011.
In 2014 17 states and the District of Columbia began operation of their marketplace.
Seven are conditionally approved to partner with HHS. HHS has begun implementing a
federally-facilitated marketplace (FFM) in the remaining states that chose not to
implement a marketplace. In addition to enrolling individuals, marketplaces also
determine eligibility for premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, or Medicaid
and CHIP in some states. Individuals who enroll in qualified health plans through the
Marketplaces may qualify for insurance affordability programs to decrease their premium
costs and have their out-of pocket health care costs reduced. CMS makes advance
payments of the premium tax credit to issuers each month on behalf of qualifying
individuals with income between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL).
Individuals with income below 250 percent of FPL, and American Indians/Alaska
Natives with income below 300 percent FPL, may also qualify for lower deductibles,
coinsurance, co-pays and out-of-pocket limits, and CMS reimburses Marketplace issuers
for these cost-sharing reductions. These payments are funded by the Department of
Treasury and are therefore not part of HHS’ budget. It is however destroying the
Treasury’s budget to spend roughly as much money as a Medicaid could have brought in
1. CMS is moving forward with making the Basic Health Plan Program available to states
as another option to expand coverage. Between 10-1-2013 and 3-31-2014; 8 million
people have made marketplace plan selections, 6.7 million with financial assistance,
128
averaging about $4,731 each policy if the $31,700 million cost of the refundable tax
credit is to be tested for paying the entire cost of a Medicaid family plan for a middle
class worker, and 1.2 million without subsidy. 54% of new enrollees were women. The
discrimination in coverage against tobacco needs to be abolished. In that same time
period there were 4.8 million new Medicaid/CHIP beneficiaries explaining the 6.3%
growth in Medicaid program spending growth. It could be estimated that if all 8 million
beneficiaries were given the Medicaid Basic Health Plan at one to five times the
Medicare premium rate, depending on how many times over the federal poverty line their
incomes are, 150-500%, all at once, it could drive up Medicaid spending as much as
10.5% in calendar year 2015, $33.4 billion increasing total federal spending on Medicaid
from $318.5 billion to $351.9 billion in 2015. However, annual premiums at 200% of
FPL would be around $2,517.60 for an individual and $5,035 for a family and the
existing 8 million beneficiaries could be estimated to pay exactly $31,700 million in
premiums in matching funds with the refundable tax credit.
Fig. 41 Medicaid with Premiums; Deficit Neutral Revenues and Outlays 2013-2020
Medicaid
State
Revenues
Federal
Premium Current
New
AdminRevenues Revenues Benefit
Benefit
istration
Payment Payment
2013
184.1
265.4
251
14.5
2014
169.2
308.6
290
18.6
2015
170.6
336
60.1
318.5
60.1
18.8
2016
172.0
356.2
80.0
337.2
80.0
19.0
2017
173.4
377.5
100
358.3
100
19.2
2018
174.8
400.2
110
380.8
110
19.4
2019
176.2
424.2
120
404.6
120
19.6
2020
177.6
449.6
130
429.9
130
19.7
Source: (Burwell ’14: 77). CMS National Health Expenditure Projection 2013-2023 Total Medicaid spending was $449.5 billion in 2013.
2. The federal government cannot sustain the costs hidden in the deceptive language of
the refundable premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction. These subsidies are
seriously harming the Treasury budget. HHS will need to account for the new Medicaid
premiums off-budget revenues used to reduce federal Medicaid spending in their budget
request, so far, without trust fund, estimated to operate on a -$2.7 billion deficit at its
inception. If the number of beneficiaries doubles to 16 million premium payers in 2015,
paying $60,100 in premiums, the account deficit might double to -$5.2 billion. But for
every eight million people who stop receiving the ESI the federal government should
receive $10.7 billion in old revenues. If Medicaid is kind and remains open to the
Medicaid marketplace, more ESI payers and rich people will choose to buy the policies
and it not inconceivable that the program could pay for itself if the population stays
healthy. Paying 100% of state/federal costs until 2020 the federal government is due
100% of premiums. Why isn’t CMS efficient enough to run a profitable health insurance
company for the price of premiums?
129
Art. 5 Family and Child Economic Supplements
§93 Supplemental Security Income
A. In 1972, Congress enacted the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program to assist
"individuals who have attained age 65 or are blind or disabled" by setting a guaranteed
minimum income level for such persons. The program went into effect January 1, 1974
under Sec. 1611 of Title XVI 42USC(7)XVI-A§1382. SSI is the program whereby the
Commissioner of Social Security ensures that all aged, blind and disabled individuals
who are determined to be eligible on the basis of their income and resources are paid
benefits. About 2 million claims for SSI benefits are adjudicated each year. Of these,
about 100,000 are child-disability claims under Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990).
1. In determining a person’s income the intention is to assure immediate compensation to
the poorest.
2. In determining a person’s resources it is important to count only the cash value of
secure claims such as stock or insurance claims as the sale of household goods is too
unpredictable to make a determination as to a person’s continued insolvency.
3. Payments deferred while selecting a representative shall be entitled to lump sum
payment of back benefits Sec. 1631 42USC(7)XVI-B§1383.
Fig. 42 SSI COLA, Rates, Beneficiaries, Payments, Administrative Costs 1974-2011
Year
COLA
Benefit
Rate
Total
Federal
Admin.
Beneficiary Payments
Costs
(thousand) (millions)
(millions)
1974 4.3%
$146.00
3,996
16,741
1980 14.3%
$238.00
4,142
15,470
668
1990 4.7%
$386.00
4,817
21,724
1,075
2000 2.5%
$513.00
6,602
36,906
2,321
2001 3.5%
$531.00
6,688
38,112
2,397
2002 2.6%
$545.00
6,788
38,935
2,522
2003 1.4%
$552.00
6,902
39,680
2,656
2004 2.1%
$564.00
6,988
40,155
2,806
2005 2.7%
$579.00
7,114
40,824
2,795
2006 4.1%
$603.00
7,236
41,502
2,916
2007 3.3%
$623.00
7,360
42,208
2,857
2008 2.3%
$637.00
7,521
43,143
2,820
2009 5.8%
$674.00
7,677
47,429
3,316
2010 0.0%
$674.00
7,912
48,357
3,629
2011 0.0%
$674.00
7,866
49,038
3,931
2012 3.6%
$698.00
8,057
52,010
3,766
Source: Annual Report of the SSI Program 2011 Table IV. A2. pp. 28; Table IV.B9 pp.
44; Table IV. C3. pp. 48; Table IV.E1. pp. 52
130
B. The SSI program is a means-tested transfer program administered by the Social
Security Administration (SSA) and authorized by Title XVI of the Social Security Act.
Established in 1972 as part of Public Law 92-603, SSI began providing monthly cash
payments in 1974 according to uniform, nationwide eligibility requirements to the needy
aged (65 years of age or older), blind, and disabled. Most states also provide supplements
to federal SSI benefits. The SSI program provides a nationally uniform maximum benefit,
known as the federal benefit rate, which is adjusted annually for inflation. The monthly
federal benefit rate in 2004 is $564 for a single individual and $846 for a couple. SSI is
intended to be a resource of last resort. Accordingly, payments are reduced if an
individual or a couple has earnings or other income and depend as well on a person's
living arrangements. In about half of the states, the federal SSI benefit is augmented by a
state supplemental payment. SSI beneficiaries are also immediately eligible for Medicaid
in most states and, if they live independently, for food stamps. SSI recipients who live
alone have high rates of poverty, with nearly 80% having household income below the
poverty threshold 30% of individuals receiving SSI benefits lived in the same household
with at least one other SSI recipient.
§94 Child Welfare
A. After nearly a decade of decline, the number of children living in low-income families
has increased significantly since 2000. More than 16 million children in the United States
– 22% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level –
$23,550 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an
income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 45% of
children live in low-income families. The number of TANF beneficiaries has declined
dramatically from a high of nearly 14.2 million in 1993 to little less than 5 million in
2003 after the Personal Responsibility and World Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) of 1996 coerced families with children to work.
Fig. 43 Monthly Welfare Benefits 1960-2005
[constant 1990 dollars]
\
131
B
1. In 2011 an estimated 1 in 4 US children, 21%, were growing up in poverty, the highest
rate in the industrialized world, and only 4 million of them received welfare. 108,700
juveniles were in detention on February 15, 1995, that number increased to 125,804 on
October 29, 1997. Approximately 2.3 million non-institutionalized youth between the
ages of 16 and 24 have neither attended school, nor worked at anytime over the last year
according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Research Service.
Additionally, past studies suggest that at least one million children between the ages of
12 to 17 experience some period of homelessness every year. In 1998 2.6 million
juveniles were arrested. In December 1974, only 70,900 children under the age of 18
received SSI payments, representing 3.8% of the total SSI caseload; by December 2005
that number had grown to 1,036,498, or 14.6% of the SSI caseload.
B. Under Sec. 403 of Title IV 42USC(7)IV-A§603 $2 billion is deposited yearly in a
Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs. State child welfare agencies and courts
shall consult with the individual parent and child under the Age Discrimination Act of
1975 42USC(76)§6101 to develop an individual responsibility plan for the individual,
that:
1. Sets forth an employment goal for the individual and a plan for moving the individual
immediately into private sector employment;
2. Sets forth the obligations of the individual, which may include a requirement that the
individual attend school, maintain certain grades and attendance, keep school age
children of the individual in school, immunize children, attend parenting and money
management classes, or do other things that will help the individual become and remain
employed in the private sector;
3. To the greatest extent possible is designed to move the individual into whatever private
sector employment the individual is capable of handling as quickly as possible, and to
increase the responsibility and amount of work the individual is to handle over time;
4. Describes the services the State will provide the individual so that the individual will
be able to obtain and keep employment in the private sector, and describe the job
counseling and other services that will be provided by the State; and
132
5. May require the individual to undergo appropriate substance abuse treatment.
C. Child welfare services are involved in: Protecting and promoting the welfare of all
children, including handicapped, homeless, dependent, or neglected children; Preventing
or remedying, or assisting in the solution of problems which may result in, the neglect,
abuse, exploitation, or delinquency of children; Preventing the unnecessary separation of
children from their families by identifying family problems, assisting families in
resolving their problems, and preventing breakup of the family where the prevention of
child removal is desirable and possible; Restoring to their families children who have
been removed, by the provision of services to the child and the families; Placing children
in suitable adoptive homes, in cases where restoration to the biological family is not
possible or appropriate; and assuring adequate care of children away from their homes, in
cases where the child cannot be returned home or cannot be placed for adoption.
1. The state provides assistant to foster care and adoption assistance programs taking into
consideration the special needs of the children. These programs shall ensure that
orphanages or foster homes, uphold standards related to admission policies, safety,
sanitation, and protection of civil rights. Record checks reveal whether a felony
conviction for child abuse or neglect, for spousal abuse, for a crime against children
(including child pornography), or for a crime involving violence, including rape, sexual
assault, or homicide, but not including other physical assault or battery, if a State finds
that a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the felony was committed at
any time, such final approval shall not be granted under Sec. 472 of Title IV-E
42USC(7)IV-E§672. A care plan shall assure that the child receives safe and proper care
and that services are provided to the parents, child, and foster parents in order to improve
the conditions in the parents' home, facilitate return of the child to his own safe home or
the permanent placement of the child, and address the needs of the child while in foster
care, including a discussion of the appropriateness of the services that have been provided
to the child under the plan.
D. In 2006 there were 4,265,996 births out of nearly 6.6 million pregnancies, a 3 percent
increase from the year before, the largest single-year increase since 1989 and the highest
total number of births since 1961, near the end of the baby boom. For the first time in 35
years, the U.S. fertility rate has climbed high enough to sustain a stable population,
solidifying the nation's unique status among industrialized countries as a growth
state. The overall fertility rate increased 2 percent between 2005 and 2006, nudging the
average number of babies being born to each woman to 2.1 the highest level since 1971.
In 2007 the total population growth rate was estimated at exactly 1 percent - the birth rate
was 14.2, net migration 3.05 and death rate 8.3 per thousand. The infant mortality rate
was 6. 4 death per 1,000 live births. In normal pregnancy there are few restrictions
concerning work. The traditional time designated for maternity leave is approximately 1
month before the expected date of delivery and extending until 6 weeks after birth. The
United States is not party to the International Labor Organization (ILO) Maternity
Protection (Convention 183) of 2000. The Family and Medical Leave Act of February 5,
1993 (PL-303-3) is considered substandard and the U.S. provides only 12 weeks of
unpaid leave to approximately half of mothers in the U.S. and nothing for the remainder.
133
45 countries ensure that fathers either receive paid paternity leave or have a right to paid
parental leave. The United States guarantees fathers neither paid paternity nor paid
parental leave. At least 96 countries around the world in all geographic regions and at all
economic levels mandate paid annual leave. The U.S. does not require employers to
provide paid annual leave. At least 37 countries have policies guaranteeing parents some
type of paid leave specifically for when their children are ill. Of these countries, twothirds guarantee more than a week of paid leave, and more than one-third guarantee 11 or
more days. 139 countries provide paid leave for short- or long-term illnesses, with 117
providing a week or more annually. The U.S. provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for
serious illnesses through the FMLA. The following ILO Conventions await ratification
by the United States a. Holidays with Pay Convention (Convention 132) of 1970; b.
Workers with Family Responsibilities (Convention 156) of 1981; c. Maternity Protection
(Convention 183) of 2000.
§95 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
A. The number of TANF beneficiaries has declined dramatically from a high of nearly
14.2 million in 1993 to little less than 5 million in 2003 after the Personal Responsibility
and World Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 coerced families with
children to work. In 2011 an estimated 1 in 4 US children, 21%, were growing up in
poverty, the highest rate in the industrialized world. Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) was a federal assistance program in effect from 1935 to 1996 created
by the Social Security Act (SSA) and administered by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services that provided financial assistance to children whose families
had low or no income. This program grew from a minor part of the social security
system to a significant system of welfare administered by the states with federal funding.
However, it was criticized for offering incentives for women to have children, and for
providing disincentives for women to join the workforce. ADC dispensed scant relief to
poor single mothers. The federal government authorized case workers, supervisors, and
administrators with discretion to determine who received aid and how much. ADC was
primarily created for white single mothers who were expected not to work. Black mothers
who had always been in the labor force were not considered eligible to receive benefits.
The words "families with" were added to the name in 1962, partly due to concern that the
program's rules discouraged marriage. The Civil Rights Movement and the efforts of the
National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) in the 1960s expanded the scope of
welfare entitlements to include black women. The welfare rolls racial demographics
changed drastically. The majority of welfare recipients still remained white and most
black women recipients continued to work. Starting in 1962, the Department of Health
and Human Services allowed state-specific exemptions as long as the change was "in the
spirit of AFDC" in order to allow some experimentation. By 1996 spending was
$24 billion per year. When adjusted for inflation, the highest spending was in 1976,
which exceeded 1996 spending by about 8%.
1. In 1996, AFDC was replaced by the more restrictive Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program. In 1996, President Bill Clinton negotiated with the
Republican-controlled Congress to pass the Personal Responsibility and Work
134
Opportunity Act which drastically restructured the program. Among other changes, a
lifetime limit of five years was imposed for the receipt of benefits, and the newly limited
nature of the replacement program was reinforced by calling AFDC's successor
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Many Americans continue to refer to
TANF as "welfare" or AFDC. In 1996, Congress created the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program. This $20 billion a year block grant to States was
established under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA), which replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and other
related welfare programs in 42USC(7)IV-A. The purpose of TANF is to provide
assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in
the homes of relatives, end the dependence on government benefits by promoting job
preparation, work, and marriage; prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock
pregnancies and encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Fig. 43 Number of AFDC/TANF Families and Recipients 1960-2003
Families
Recipients
1960
784,572
2,982,093
1970
2,044,813
7,897,583
1980
3,642,380
10,597,443
1990
3,974,321
11,460,379
2000
2,264,806
5,943,450
2001
2,117,389
5,423,300
2002
2,065,423
5,148,497
2003
2,032,140
4,966,631
Source: Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin, 2002 Edition, Statistical
Report on Recipients under Public Assistance Emergency TANF, Data Report and TANF
Data Report
B. In fiscal year (FY) 2003, combined Federal and State expenditures for the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program totaled $26.3 billion, an increase of
$926 million from FY 2002. States spent $10.1 billion, or 41.8% of their total
expenditures, on cash assistance. There has been a decline in beneficiaries since 1994
that continued after the PRWORA. Participation in public assistance programs by
custodial parents fell from 40.7 to 28.4% between 1993 and 2001. While the rate of
program participation for custodial mothers decreased from 45.2% to 31.0% during that
time, it was still about double that of custodial fathers in 2001 (14.9%).
1. States also spent significant amounts on various non-cash services designed to promote
work, stable families, or other TANF objectives, including work activities ($2.6 billion),
child care ($3.5 billion), transportation and work supports ($543 million), administrative
and systems costs ($2.5 billion), and a wide range of other benefits and services ($6.3
billion). In addition to these expenditures, States also can transfer up to 30% of their
TANF block grant into the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) or the Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG). In FY 2003, States transferred $1.8 billion into the CCDF
and $927 million into the SSBG. These expenditure patterns represent a significant shift
135
since the enactment of TANF, when spending on cash assistance amounted to 73.1% of
total expenditures. Assistance to families with children must grow. Deprivation of relief
benefits has not prevented the Millennials from outnumbering the Baby Boomers.
§96 Child Support
A. In the spring of 2004, an estimated 14.0 million parents had custody of 21.6 million
children under 21 years of age while the other parent lived somewhere else. Five of every
six custodial parents were mothers (83.1%) and 1 in 6 were fathers (16.9%).
1. 28% of children live in single parent households as the result of the dramatic increase
in divorce rates to 50% of all marriages. In 1999 there were 2.2 million marriages and 1.1
million divorces.
2. Only 10% of children living with both parents were below the poverty line whereas
40% living with only one parent were below the poverty line. Children living only with
their mothers were twice as likely to live in poverty as those living only with their
fathers.
B. In 2001, 6.9 million custodial parents who were due child support under the terms of
agreements or current awards were due an average of $5,000; an aggregate of $34.9
billion in payments due.
1. Of this amount, about $21.9 billion (62.6%) was received, averaging $3,200 per
custodial-parent family. Overall, custodial parents reported receiving $22.8 billion
directly from the non-custodial parent for support of their children in 2001, which
included $900 million received by parents without current awards or agreements.
2. In 2001, the average annual amount of child support received (for custodial parents
receiving at least some support) was $4,300, and did not differ between mothers and
fathers (as support recipients).
3. The 2001 proportion of custodial parents receiving every child support payment they
were due was 44.8%. Among these parents, the average amount received was $5,800, and
did not differ significantly between mothers and fathers.
4. The average family income for the 3.1 million custodial parents who received all the
child support they were due in 2001 was $32,300, and their poverty rate was 14.6%.
C. Title IV of the Social Security Act provides assistance to needy families so that
children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; ending the
dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation,
work, and marriage; and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families while educating people from teenage, out of wedlock pregnancies and screening
families for domestic violence.
136
1. The procedures involved in child support enforcement are best laid out in Sec. 466 of
Title IV-D 42USC(7)IV-D§666 to include the establishment of paternity and of support
enforcement orders and of their modification, withholdings from tax refunds, and
withholdings from income checks administrated by financial institution by means of an
“account'' means a demand deposit account, checking or negotiable withdrawal order
account, savings account, time deposit account, or money-market mutual fund account.
2. In making the determination as to the amount collected the income of the non-custodial
parent is taken into consideration. It is very important not to force people living below
the poverty to pay more than the small sum they can afford, if anything. The state must
take responsibility in these cases. In no case should a person be incarcerated for failing
to pay child support if they live at or below the poverty line.
3. Child support manages to collect more than half of the revenues that are due. The
enforcement of child support extends to foreign countries under Sec. 459A 42USC(7)IVD§659a.
D. Child welfare workers must support and facilitate non-custodial parents' access to and
visitation of their children, by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary
and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation
enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup), and
development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements under Sec.
469B 42USC(7)IV-D§669b.
1. The federal parent locator under Sec. 453 42USC(7)IV-D§653 determines without
charge the whereabouts of any parent or child when such information is to be used to
locate such parent or child for the purpose of - (1) enforcing any State or Federal law
with respect to the unlawful taking or restraint of a child; or (2) making or enforcing a
child custody or visitation determination.
§97 Children’s Health Insurance
A. State Children’s Insurance Program provides the initiation and expansion of the
provision of child health assistance to uninsured, low-income children in an effective and
efficient manner that is coordinated with other sources of health benefits coverage for
children under Sec. 2102 42USC(7)XXI§1397bb for which there is allotted $3.15 billion
for 2004 and $4 billion for 2005.
1. Although 82%, 52 million, children enjoy good health, 11% are diagnosed with
asthma, 20% suffer from allergies, 8% had a learning disability and 6% suffered from
Attention Deficit Disorder.
2. Among children with a usual source of medical care, 76% visited a doctor's office,
21% received care in a clinic, 2% used a hospital. An estimated 3.2 million children had
unmet dental needs that their family could not afford.
137
3. In 1999 of the 71.1 million children 61.4 million were covered by health insurance,
86.2%, 47 million, 66.1% were privately insured, 16.5 million, 23.2% were publicly
insured and 9.8 million, 13.8% were completely uninsured.
B. To facilitate the 4 million births that occur in the United States every year services are
provided for maternity care and children to reduce infant mortality and preventable
disease. Programs are designed to immunize the populace, give health assessments to
low income children and pregnant mothers under Sec. 502 of Title V 42USC(7)V§702.
Sec. 1908A of Title XIX 42USC(7)XIX§1396g-1 prohibits an insurer from denying
enrollment of child under the health coverage of the child's parent on the ground that –
1. the child was born out of wedlock,
2. the child is not claimed as a dependent on the parent's federal income tax return, or
3. the child does not reside with the parent or in the insurer's service area.
C. Normal full coverage benefits to low income children include;
1. Inpatient hospital services.
2. Outpatient hospital services.
3. Physician services.
4. Surgical services.
5. Clinic services (including health center services) and other ambulatory health care
services
6. Prescription drugs and biologicals including vaccinations
7. Over-the-counter medications.
8. Laboratory and radiological services.
9. Prenatal care and pre-pregnancy family planning services and supplies.
10. Inpatient mental health services or other 24-hour therapeutically planned structured
services.
11. Outpatient mental health services, including community-based services.
12. Durable medical equipment and other medically-related or remedial devices (such as
prosthetic devices, implants, eyeglasses, hearing aids, dental devices, and adaptive
devices).
13. Disposable medical supplies.
14. Home and community-based health care services and related supportive services
15. Nursing care services (such as nurse practitioner services, nurse midwife services,
advanced practice nurse services, private duty nursing care, pediatric nurse services, and
respiratory care services) in a home, school, or other setting.
16. Abortion only if necessary to save the life of the mother or if the pregnancy is the
result of an act of rape or incest.
17. Dental services.
18. Inpatient substance abuse treatment services and residential substance abuse
treatment services.
19. Outpatient substance abuse treatment services.
20. Case management services.
21. Care coordination services.
138
22. Physical therapy, occupational therapy, and services for individuals with speech,
hearing, and language disorders.
23. Hospice care.
24. Any other medical, diagnostic, screening, preventive, restorative, remedial,
therapeutic, or rehabilitative service prescribed by or furnished by a physician or other
licensed or registered practitioner.
§98 Social Services
A. On January 4, 1975, a new Title XX was added to the Social Security Act, which
authorized an entitlement to States for the provision of social services. Prior to Title XX,
States received matching Federal funds for specified categories of services, with
eligibility for the services limited to receipt of public assistance under several titles of the
Social Security Act.
1. Social Service are administrated by Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
that offer protective services for children and adults, in foster care, services related to the
management and maintenance of the home, day care services for adults, transportation
services, family planning services, raining and related services, employment services,
information, referral, and counseling services, the preparation and delivery of meals,
health support services and appropriate combinations of services designed to meet the
special needs of children, the aged, the mentally retarded, the blind, the emotionally
disturbed, the physically handicapped, and alcoholics and drug addicts; and convicted
criminals under sec. 2001 of Title XX 42USC(7)XX§1397a.
B. Under Title XX, States were given increased flexibility to offer a wider range of
services to a broader population of adults and children. The statute also included
requirements regarding planning, public participation, income eligibility, and
administration.
1. In 1981, Title XX was amended to establish the Social Services Block Grant
(SSBG) program. The block grant statute gave States even greater flexibility in their
use of these funds. Within the limitations specified by law, States determine what
services are provided, the eligible categories and populations of adults and children,
the geographic areas of the State in which each service will be provided, and whether
the services will be provided by State or local agency staff or through grants or
contracts with private organizations.
2. Funds are allocated to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, and the Territories of Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands,
and the Northern Mariana Islands. To receive SSBG grants, matching funds are not
required. In fiscal year 2005, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
four insular areas received grants each quarter amounting to $1.7 billion.
C. The Social Services are consolidated into one federal grant to
139
1. Achieve or maintain economic self-support to prevent and reduce dependency;
2. Preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults unable
to protect their own interests, or preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting families;
3. Preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care by providing for communitybased care, home-based care, or other forms of less intensive care.
Art. 6 Welfare Programs
§99 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
A. The Food Stamp Program serves as the first line of defense against hunger. It enables
low-income families to buy nutritious food with Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)
cards. Food stamp recipients spend their benefits to buy eligible food in authorized retail
food stores. The Program is the cornerstone of the Federal food assistance programs, and
provides crucial support to needy households and to those making the transition from
welfare to work. The Food Stamp Act of 1977 codified at 7USC(51)§2011 set forth a
program of food stamps to guarantee low income people and families an adequate
nutritious diet to eliminate hunger and malnutrition. Participation in the food stamp
program is limited to those households whose incomes and other financial resources, held
singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in
permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet, upper limit of household income is set at
130% of the poverty line. SSI beneficiaries are automatically eligible under
7USC(51)§2014.
1. Under SNAP rules, the maximum benefit levels for each fiscal year — which are the
benefit amounts that go to households with no disposable income after deductions for
certain necessities — are set at 100 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, USDA’s
estimate of the minimum amount that a family needs to afford a bare-bones, nutritionally
adequate diet, for the preceding June.
2. The Secretary of Agriculture pays 50% of the administrative costs associated with the
purchase and provision of food assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with state and
local governments under 7USC(51)§2025 for (1) the certification of applicant
households, (2) the acceptance, storage, protection, control, and accounting of coupons
after their delivery to receiving points within the State, (3) the issuance of coupons to all
eligible households, (4) food stamp informational activities, (4) fair hearings, (5)
automated data processing and information retrieval systems.
Fig. 44 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs
(Data as of June 5, 2015)
Fiscal Year
Average
Participation
--Thousands--
Average
Benefit Per
Person
--Dollars--
Total
All Other
Benefits
Costs
Total Costs
----------Millions of Dollars---------140
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2,878
4,340
9,368
11,109
12,166
12,862
17,064
18,549
17,077
16,001
17,653
21,082
22,430
21,717
21,625
20,854
19,899
19,429
19,113
18,645
18,806
20,049
22,625
25,407
26,987
27,474
26,619
25,543
22,858
19,791
18,183
17,194
17,318
19,096
21,250
23,811
25,628
26,549
26,316
28,223
33,490
6.63
10.55
13.55
13.48
14.60
17.61
21.40
23.93
24.71
26.77
30.59
34.47
39.49
39.17
42.98
42.74
44.99
45.49
45.78
49.83
51.71
58.78
63.78
68.57
67.95
69.00
71.27
73.21
71.27
71.12
72.27
72.62
74.81
79.67
83.94
86.16
92.89
94.75
96.18
102.19
125.31
228.80
549.70
1,522.70
1,797.30
2,131.40
2,718.30
4,385.50
5,326.50
5,067.00
5,139.20
6,480.20
8,720.90
10,629.90
10,208.30
11,152.30
10,696.10
10,743.60
10,605.20
10,500.30
11,149.10
11,669.78
14,142.79
17,315.77
20,905.68
22,006.03
22,748.58
22,764.07
22,440.11
19,548.86
16,890.49
15,769.40
14,983.32
15,547.39
18,256.20
21,404.28
24,618.89
28,567.88
30,187.35
30,373.27
34,608.40
50,359.92
21.70
27.20
53.20
69.40
76.00
119.20
233.20
359.00
394.00
380.50
459.60
485.60
595.40
628.40
694.80
882.60
959.60
1,033.20
1,103.90
1,167.70
1,231.81
1,304.47
1,431.50
1,556.66
1,646.94
1,744.87
1,856.30
1,890.88
1,958.68
2,097.84
2,051.52
2,070.70
2,242.00
2,380.82
2,412.01
2,480.14
2,504.24
2,715.72
2,800.25
3,031.25
3,260.09
250.50
576.90
1,575.90
1,866.70
2,207.40
2,837.50
4,618.70
5,685.50
5,461.00
5,519.70
6,939.80
9,206.50
11,225.20
10,836.70
11,847.10
11,578.80
11,703.20
11,638.40
11,604.20
12,316.80
12,901.59
15,447.26
18,747.27
22,462.34
23,652.97
24,493.45
24,620.37
24,330.99
21,507.55
18,988.32
17,820.92
17,054.02
17,789.39
20,637.02
23,816.28
27,099.03
31,072.11
32,903.06
33,173.52
37,639.64
53,620.01
141
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
40,302
133.79
64,702.16
44,709
133.85
71,810.92
46,609
133.41
74,619.34
47,636
133.07
76,066.32
46,536
125.35
69,999.81
Source: USDA Food and Nutrition Service
3,581.78
3,875.62
3,791.27
3,866.98
4,130.17
68,283.94
75,686.54
78,410.61
79,933.30
74,129.98
B. Food stamp statistics date to 1969 when $250.5 million fed 2.8 million people. The
Food Stamp Act of 1977 wrongly reduced benefits from $5.7 billion for 18.6 million
beneficiaries in 1976 to $5.5 billion for 17 million beneficiaries in 1977. Beneficiaries
rose to 21 million in 1981 but fluctuated downward until Public Law 100-435, the
Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 was signed into law September 19, 1988. Following this
initiative, Public Law 101-624, the Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief
Act of November 28, 1990 established EBT as an issuance alternative and permitted the
Department to continue to conduct EBT demonstration projects. Following the
communist fascination of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) that removed the entitlement of recipients to
AFDC and replaced that with a new block grant to states called Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF) food stamp benefits languished.
1. After the Farm Bill of 2002 food stamp participation increased from about 17.2 million
in fiscal year 2000 to 26 million people in July 2006. The rate of payment accuracy in the
FSP improved 34 percent between FY2000 and FY2004 and the 94.12 percent overall
payment accuracy rate was the highest achieved since the inception of the program.
USDA awarded $48 million to 24 States for their exemplary administration of the
program in fiscal year (FY) 2005. By August 2008, participation had reached an all-time
(non-disaster) high of 29 million people per month. The participation increases occurred
at a time when eligibility for food stamp benefits expanded as a result of the 2002 Farm
Bill. Moreover, there was a consistent focus on outreach and improved access to FSP
benefits. Some of the most recent increase in participation may be caused by the current
economic slowdown and the recent rise in unemployment rates. During this time,
payment accuracy continued to improve and the program set a new payment error rate
record for fiscal year 2007 of 5.64.
2. The 2008 farm bill (H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) was
enacted May 22, 2008 through an override of the President’s veto. The new law increased
the commitment to Federal food assistance programs by more than $10 billion over the
next 10 years. In efforts to fight stigma, the law changed the name of the Federal program
to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP as of Oct. 1, 2008, and
changed the name of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
Additional Recovery Act funds were terminated as of October 31, 2013 in accordance
with an illegitimate Republican interpretation of section 442 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-296). The cuts were deep and totalitarian, as has
happened so many times before under the Food Stamp Act of 1977. SNAP beneficiaries
did not get the tenure promised by Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 H.R.
2419 and the longest uninterrupted growth in good stamp from the Farm Bill of 2002 was
142
brought to end. The Agriculture Secretary must not cut SNAP benefits anymore under
penalty of deprivation of relief benefits 18USC§246.
§99a Food Bank
A. A food bank or foodbank is a non-profit, charitable organization that distributes food
to those who have difficulty purchasing enough food to avoid hunger. Religious use of a
foodbank may be the most reliable way for a person on a tight budget to save. The
world's first food bank was the St. Mary's Food Bank Alliance in Arizona, founded by
John van Hengel in 1967. Hunger within the US was widely considered to be a solved
problem until the mid-1960s. By the mid-sixties, several states had ended the free
distribution of federal food surpluses, instead providing an early form of food stamps
which had the benefit of allowing recipients to choose food of their liking, rather than
having to accept whatever happened to be in surplus at the time. However, there was a
minimum charge and some people could not afford the stamps, leading to severe hunger.
One response from American society to the rediscovery of hunger was to step up the
support provided by soup kitchens and similar civil society food relief agencies - some of
these dated back to the Great Depression and earlier.
1. In 1965, while volunteering for a community dining room, van Hengel learned that
grocery stores often had to throw away food that had damaged packaging or was near
expiration. He started collecting that food for the dining room but soon had too much for
that one program. He thought of creating a central location from which any agency can
receive donations. Described as a classic case of "if you build it they will come", the first
food bank was created with the help of St. Mary's Basilica. Food banks spread across the
United States, and to Canada. By 1976, the precursor to Feeding America had been
established. As of the early 21st century, their network of 200+ foodbanks provides
support for 90,000 projects. Other large networks exist such as AmpleHarvest.org,
created by CNN Hero Gary Oppenheimer which lists some 7,100 food pantries (1 out of
every 5 in America) that can utilize overproduction of fresh produce. According to a
comprehensive government survey completed in 2002, over 90% of food banks were
established in the US after 1981. As early as the 1980s, food banks had also began to
spread from the United States to the rest of the world. The first European food bank was
founded in France during 1984. In the 1990s and early 2000s, food banks were
established in South America, Africa and Asia, in several cases with van Hengel acting as
a consultant. In 2007, The Global FoodBanking Network was formed.
B. With thousands of food banks operating on six of the seven continents, there are many
different models.
1. A major distinction between food banks is whether or not they operate on the "front
line" model, giving out food directly to the hungry, or whether they operate with the
"warehouse" model, supplying food to intermediaries like food pantries, soup kitchens
and other front-line organizations.
143
2. Food banks run by charities often place relatively more weight on the salvaging of
food that would otherwise go to waste, and on encouraging voluntarism. For many US
food banks, most of their donated food comes from food left over from the normal
processes of for-profit companies. It can come from any part of the food chain, e.g. from
growers who have produced too much or whose food is not sufficiently visually
appealing; from manufacturers who overproduced; or from retailers who over-ordered.
Often the product is approaching or past its "sell by" expiration date. In such cases, the
food bank liaises with the food industry and with regulators to make sure the food is safe
and legal to distribute and eat. As a rule of thumb, the only food that does not perish
after its expiration date as a fresh product, is preserved by freezing. Other sources of food
include the general public, sometimes in the form of "food drives", and government
programs that buy and distribute excess farm products mostly to help support higher
commodity prices. Food banks can also buy food either at market prices or from
wholesalers and retailers at discounted prices, often at cost. Sometimes farmers will allow
food banks to send gleaners to salvage leftover crops for free once their primary harvest
is complete. A few food banks are supplied by their own community gardens and
cooperating farmers.
C. Following the financial crisis of 2007–08, and the lasting inflation in the price of food
that began in late 2006, there has been a further increase in the number of individuals
requesting help from American and Canadian food banks. By 2012, according to Food
Banks Canada, over 850,000 Canadians needed help from a food bank each month. For
the United States, Gleaners Indianna Food bank reported in 2012 that there were now 50
million Americans struggling with food insecurity (about 1 in 6 of the population), with
the number of individuals seeking help from Food banks having increased by 46% since
2005. According to a 2012 UCLA Center for Health Policy Research study, there has
been a 40% increase in demand for Californian food banks since 2008, with even married
couples who both work sometimes requiring the aid of food banks. Second Harvest Food
Bank in Orlando has said that even college educated professional couples have begun to
turn to food pantries. Since the SNAP cuts of October 2013 even more people have
become reliant upon the food bank system.
D. Since the 1980s foodbanking has spread around the world. There are over 25 countries
with active food bank groups under the umbrella of The Global FoodBanking Network.
Countries in the international network include Australia, Israel, Turkey, Russia, India,
Taiwan, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Hong
Kong, Singapore, South Korea and the UK. There are also several countries with
foodbanks but which have not yet joined the network, either as they don't yet meet the
required criteria or as they have not applied. An alternative facility offering food to the
hungry can be found worldwide wherever there are sizable Sikh communities. Long
before foodbanks were invented, Langar has been making free vegetarian food available
to Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike. The rise of food banks has been broadly welcomed. Not
only do they provide a solution to the problem of hunger that doesn't require resources
from the state, but they can be viewed as evidence of increasing community spirit and of
active, caring citizenship.
144
§100 Rental Assistance
A. 4.5 million families receive HUD rental assistance. Altogether, over 50 percent of
HUD-assisted households are elderly or disabled, in addition to over 56,000 households
served through HUD’s Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program.
The median income of HUD assisted households is $10,200 or 17% of area median
income and 72% are below 30% of area median income. In FY2013, HUD anticipates
serving a total of 5.4 million families through its core rental programs, in addition to
programs such as HOME, Sections 202 and 811, Native American initiatives, and
Homeless Assistance programs. Public housing stock of 1.1 million units is shrinking at
a rate of 10,000 units per year. Rental assistance is a cost-effective substitute.
1. Over the last 50 years, HUD’s Section 202 program has provided over 400,000
affordable homes for very low income elderly individuals. HUD’s Section 811 program
provides affordable housing for persons with disabilities for 23,330 existing units and
1,850 new units in FY2013. Since 2009 a total of 7,816 special Non-Elderly Disabled
vouchers have been awarded to non-elderly persons with disabilities, including those
individuals who wish to transition out of institutions.
B. Forcible relocation is an international crime for which just compensation is due for
private property taken for public use under the United States Constitution arbitrarily at
UN Compensation Commissioner Rates of $2,000-$10,000 per family. Should repairs be
deemed more cost effective the State may pay for the renovation of the dilapidated home
under Sec. 1119 42USC(7)XI-A§1319. When a beneficiaries’ home is so defective that
continued occupancy is unwarranted, unless repairs are made to such home, rental
quarters will be necessary for such individual. The prevailing party must pay for these
costs in a civil eviction under Buckannon Board & Care Home Inc. v. West Virginia Dep.
Of Health and Human Resources No. 99-1848 (2001). Free camping within ten miles
from an urban food bank is plentiful in rural North America.
§101 Scholarships
A. Scholarships are a form of student financial aid that does not need to be repaid.
Scholarships are awarded by foundations, philanthropists, non-profit organizations,
businesses and colleges to help students pay for college. Some scholarships are awarded
for academic merit, while others may focus on artistic or athletic talent or other personal
characteristics such as a person’s minority status.
B. In counseling people to greater self-sufficiency scholarships to universities and trade
schools when accompanied with grants and loans grant the individual total selfsufficiency are invaluable. Scholarships are usually granted when the applicant,
(1) has a proven aptitude for the courses being studied;
145
(2) was referred by a trustee;
(3) does not qualify for other tax supported educational programs;
(4) maintains a passing grade in each course; and
(5) maintains the minimum attendance requirements of the educational institution.
§102 Emergency relief
A. FEMA offers assistance in major disasters that cause loss of life, human suffering, loss
of income, and property loss and damages and have been declared an emergency by the
President. FEMA renders aid, assistance, and emergency services, and the reconstruction
and rehabilitation of devastated areas, as necessary under 42USC(68)§5170B-3.
B. Any trustee, as administrator of poor relief, shall investigate and grant temporary relief
as needed to cover emergency shortfalls in rent and utilities.
1. If a trustee determines by investigation that an applicant or a poor relief applicant's
household requires assistance, the trustee shall, after determining that an emergency
exists, furnish to the applicant or household the temporary aid necessary for the relief of
immediate suffering.
2. Before any further final or permanent relief is given, the trustee shall consider whether
the applicant's or household's need can be relieved by means other than an expenditure.
3. For the purpose of making such payments a budget of up to $1,000 to cover a person’s
monthly needs such as keeping up rent and utility payments, most cases range from $10$500. Emergency relief should be issued the same day it is applied for, if possible.
4. Each administrator of relief for the poor should have a daily budget for this emergency
relief. In no case should an application take more than a month to process. One week is
a reasonable wait.
§103 Utility services payment
A. To minimize health and safety risks that result from high energy burdens on lowincome Americans in order to prevent homelessness as a result of inability to pay energy
bills; increase the efficiency of energy usage by low-income families; and target energy
assistance to individuals who are most in need Home Energy Assistance under
42USC(94)§8621 allocates $2 billion by the federal government to defray the cost of the
provision of energy to low income homes and in emergency situations. The Federal
government must ensure that the low income energy assistance program is managed by
the Department of Energy to control energy prices.
B. The trustee may, in cases of necessity, authorize the payment from poor relief money
for essential utility services, including the following:
146
(1) Water services.
(2) Gas services.
(3) Electric services.
(4) Fuel oil services for fuel oil used for heating or cooking.
(5) Coal, wood, or liquid propane used for heating or cooking.
C. The trustee may authorize the payment of delinquent bills when necessary to prevent
the termination of the services or to restore terminated service if the delinquency has
lasted not longer than twenty-four (24) months. The trustee has no obligation to pay a
delinquent bill for the services or materials if the delinquency has lasted longer than
twenty-four (24) months.
§104 Aid in securing employment
A. Welfare offices shall make all possible efforts to secure employment for an ablebodied applicants in the locality where the applicant resides through the operation of
vocational rehabilitative services under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
29USC(16)1A§720. The office may call upon residents to aid in finding employment for
a poor relief applicant who is able to work and distribute classified listings of
employment opportunities to applicants and recipients. Under the Ticket to Work and
Work Incentive Act of 1999 the Social Security Commissioner shall issue tickets to
participating employment agencies taking the cases of difficult to employ disabled
people. These tickets shall grant the employment agency a reasonable monthly payment
for every month that that disabled person does not become gainfully employed and
retains the service of the human resources company under Sec. 1148 of 42USC(7)XIA§1320b-19. SSA shall work in cooperation with other Federal, State, and private
agencies and nonprofit organizations that serve disabled beneficiaries, and with agencies
and organizations that focus on vocational rehabilitation and work-related training and
counseling for the Developmental Disabled.
1. As a condition of continuing eligibility, a trustee may require a recipient of welfare or
any member of a recipient's household to participate in an appropriate work training
program that is offered to the recipient or a member of the recipient's household within
the county or an adjoining township in another county by a federal, state, or local
governmental entity; or nonprofit agency. A trustee may conduct rehabilitation programs,
training programs, retraining programs, work programs, employ personnel to supervise
the programs, pay the costs of the programs from poor relief money or contract with
employers to hire welfare recipients.
§105 Homeless Shelters
A. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness reports that on a single night in
January 2011, there were over 630,000 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people
nationwide. Approximately 1.6 million people experience homelessness between October
1, 2009 and September 30, 2010. On any given night an estimated 754,000 persons will
experience homelessness and between 330,000 and 415,000 will stay at a homeless
147
shelter or transitional housing throughout the U.S. depending upon the season. This
results in about 300,000 more people then shelter beds in the U.S. Over a five-year
period, about 2-3 percent of the U.S. population (5-8 million people) will experience at
least one night of homelessness. For the great majority of these people, the experience is
short and often caused by a natural disaster, a house fire, or a community evacuation. A
much smaller group, perhaps as many as 500,000 people have greater difficulty ending
their homelessness. Most homeless people about 80%, exit from homelessness within
about 2-3 weeks. They often have more personal, social, and economic resources to draw
on than people who are homeless for longer periods of time. About 10% are homeless for
up to two months, with housing availability and affordability adding to the time they are
homeless. Another group of about 10% is homeless on a chronic, protracted basis-as long
as 7-8 months in a two-year period. Disabilities associated with mental illness and
substance abuse are common. On any given night, this group can account for up to 50%
of those seeking emergency shelter.
Fig. 45 Change in National Capacity to House Homeless Persons 1996-2005
1996
15,900
2005
19,500
Change
3,600
% Change
23%
Total Number of
Programs
Emergency Shelters 9,600
6,200
-3,400
-35%
Transitional Housing 4,400
7,400
3,000
68%
Permanent Housing
1,900
5,900
4,000
211%
Total Bed Capacity
607,700
647,000
39,300
6%
Emergency Shelters 333,500
217,900
-115,600
-35%
Transitional Housing 160,200
220,400
60,200
38%
Permanent Housing
114,000
208,700
94,700
83%
Source: HUD Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress February 2007
B. The term “homeless” or “homeless individual or homeless person” means an
individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate residence and includes an individual
who is sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship or
a similar reason, is living in a motel, hotel, or camping ground due to the lack of
alternative adequate accommodations or is living in an emergency or transitional shelter
or is discharged from an institution. The term "shelter" means a facility that provides
temporary emergency assistance. (A) helping low-income families avoid becoming
homeless; (B) addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of
homeless persons (including a brief inventory of facilities and services that meet such
needs within that jurisdiction); and (C) helping homeless persons make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living under the McKinney Vento Homeless
Assistance Act under 42USC(130)§12705
The reasons why people become homeless are as varied and complex as the people
themselves. Several structural factors contribute greatly to homelessness.
148
Poverty. People who are homeless are the poorest of the poor. In 1996, the median
monthly income for people who were homeless was $300, only 44% of the Federal
poverty level for a single adult. Decreases in the numbers of manufacturing and
industrial jobs combined with a decline in the real value of minimum wage by 18%
between 1979 and 1997 have left significant numbers of people without a livable income.
Housing. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that there
are five million households in the U.S. with incomes below 50% of the local median who
pay more than half of their income for rent or live in severely substandard housing. This
is worsened by a decline in the number of housing units affordable to extremely low
income households by 5% since 1991, a loss of over 370,000 units. Federal rental
assistance has not been able to bridge the gap; the average wait for Section 8 rental
assistance is now 28 months.
Disability. People with disabilities who are unable to work and must rely on entitlements
such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) can find it virtually impossible to find
affordable housing. People receiving Federal SSI benefits, which were $674 per month
(+/- $666 without COLA) from 2009-2011, cannot cover the cost of an efficiency or onebedroom apartment in any major housing market in the country. The Medicare medical
home also makes homelessness (camping) a healthy alternative.
C. In Fiscal Year 2013, HUD is requesting a total of $2.23 billion for Homeless
Assistance Grants (HAG). An estimated one out of every six men and women in our
nation’s homeless shelters are veterans, and veterans are 50 percent more likely to fall
into homelessness compared to other Americans. A collaborative applicant is an entity
that serves as the applicant for project sponsors who jointly submit a single application
for a grant, in an amount not to exceed $200,000-$400,000, for the acquisition,
rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation, of an existing structure (including a small
commercial property or office space) to provide supportive housing other than emergency
shelter or to provide supportive services for homeless people; and for not more than 75%
of annual operating costs may be made under McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
42USC(119)IVC§11383.
1. Houses acquired or rehabilitated under this act must be committed to the care of
homeless persons for a period of not less than 20 years. Supportive housing may be
transitional housing of not more than 24 months or permanent housing for people with
disabilities. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, on a quarterly
basis, request information from each landholding agency regarding Federal public
buildings and other Federal real properties (including fixtures) that are excess property or
surplus property or that are described as unutilized or underutilized and shall identify
which of those buildings and other properties are suitable for use to assist the homeless.
The Secretary shall provide assistance directly to a jurisdiction only if the jurisdiction
submits a comprehensive housing affordability strategy. A $1 per capita federal grant is
a reasonable estimate for establishing a new homeless shelter under the McKinney Vento
Homeless Assistance Act.
149
§106 Camping
A. Camping is a great way to eliminate rental expenses while waiting for gainful and safe
rural employment in an organic garden. Logging is the most dangerous career in the
United States with more than 100 fatalities per 100,000 labor years. Commercial
agricultural risks are also quite high at about 22 fatalities per 100,000 labor years; the
norm is 3.3. Although camping obviously has its safety risks and discomforts, a
reasonably prudent camper can be much healthier than a sedentary city dweller. Social
Security beneficiaries automatically qualify for a lifetime of free entrance fees into the
National Parks. On federal land campers are expected to move at least 100 yards every
14 days. Camping can be an extremely healthy and rewarding lifestyle all year long, for
people who are adequately prepared for the risks and obey the land and water (law).
Private property, particularly farms, are particularly desirable locations to camp, with a
work-trade agreement. When looking for a new campsite, stash the luggage and scout
out the public land for a discrete camping location. Rats and bears are best treated with a
compost pile about 50 yards from a rat proof box of food. Do not camp under snags,
dead trees, because treefall can be fatal, and if trapped under a fallen tree it is unlikely
anyone would hear. Camp in the open, or under small trees, on flat, high ground, above
the high water line, during storm season.
1. Drinking water is a chore. Make sure the water is safe to drink. Mountain spring
water is often safe to drink but should be boiled to be sure. Cattle manure contaminated
water must be boiled and may not be fit to drink. Mining permanently contaminates the
groundwater with arsenic that is known to cause leukemia, lymphoma and death. Lowlying, creek, river, road run-off or ditch water should not be drunk. Great effort must be
taken to drink only potable water. Do not eat the wild edibles without an experienced
local wildcrafting guide with a guide book that distinguishes common edible plants from
the possibility of poison lookalikes. Potable water and an adequate diet are essential for
the good health of a natural athlete. The poor must be able to commute to a food bank.
2. Campfires are generally allowed in stone pits, except during a dry season in areas with
forest fire risks. Local burn ordinance imposes up to $3,000 fine, up to $5,000 fine on
federal land, for out of control burn-piles. Cooking fires and fire warmed winter huts are
generally permissible because they are essential to life. The smoke from campfires can
give away the location of a person's campsite and some care should be taken to keep fires
small and discrete. Campfire smoke is noxious and is known to cause nasal cancer in
aboriginal women and willow and contaminated wood smoke can be quite toxic. Propane
camping stoves are very useful because boiling water over a campfire in wet weather is a
great skill that requires more than adequate preparation.
3. Private property owners of rural forests and forested farmland are encouraged to
benefit from picnic based work-trade and/or reasonable rental payments of campers for
the suggested price of +/-$20-50 a month with potable water, electricity, washer, dryer,
shower and chores. Private property owners who wish to exercise their power to trespass
well-behaved campers should be considerate of daylight, weather conditions and the
150
availability of public lands where free camping is permitted, as a rule. Campers property
should be respected for at least a week after leaving a written notice. Campers
environmental responsibility is primarily to pack it in, pack it out, including all the trash
other campers have left, at every nice campsite near town, to the closest dumpster, in
quantities not to exceed its weekly capacity. Campers in arrears can be appraised to buy
gloves, trash bags and pay for private trash trucking and disposal or curbside pick-up. No
camping signs arbitrarily posted by a government agency on public lands may be
federally fined under criminal civil rights statute as deprivation of rights under color of
law under 18USC§241 for an injunction. Private ownership of the riparian land on both
sides of waterways is not permissible, if the waters are so large as to be considered
navigable, and should not be fenced off or posted with no trespassing signs.
§107 Free Medical Examination
A. Check-ups and preventative medicine are much cheaper than emergency and
catastrophic care and the government needs to ensure that the poor regularly see a doctor.
Check-ups are not covered by Medicare Part A or B however Medicaid frequently pays.
What is needed is for the Trustee of community funds for the poor such as jailers and
social service organizations to pay for the following primarily preventative medical
services:
(1) Prescription drugs and insulin as prescribed by an attending practitioner, (2) Yearly
check-ups provided by a physician or another medical provider.
(3) Yearly dental cleanings and to treat pain or infection or to repair cavities.
(4) Repair or replacement of dentures.
(5) Emergency room treatment that is of an emergency nature.
(6) Pre-operation testing prescribed by an attending physician
(7) Over-the-counter drugs prescribed by a practitioner.
(8) X-rays and laboratory testing as prescribed by an attending physician (9) Physical
therapy prescribed by an attending physician
(10) Eyeglasses.
(11) Prosthetic limbs and their repair and replacement
B. A list of approved medical providers who provide medical services to the poor should
be prepared in every community for any medical provider who can provide the particular
medical services demanded are willing to provide the medical services for the charges
established by the trustee; is entitled to be included on the list.
C. The administration of Medicare and Medicaid locally shall be appointed by the
Secretary from a substantial number of the licensed doctors of medicine and osteopathy
engaged in the practice of medicine or surgery in the area and who are representative of
the practicing physicians in the area. At least one consumer shall also participate in the
board to assure that adequate peer review is provided by the administrators of Medicare
and Medicaid to the various medical specialties and subspecialties to ensure that services
and items paid for were reasonably and medically necessary under Sec. 1154
42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-3.
§108 Dental Care
151
A. Public dental insurance is not specifically guaranteed under social security statute for
any part of the population but juveniles who often need expensive orthodontics.
Medicare payments sometimes cover only 45% of the procedure and although this pays
for the cost of the procedure many dentists and physicians, it should be added, are
unhappy with the profits from public health insurance. Medicare enrollees must shop for
providers of dental checkups, X-rays, fillings and extractions.
B. Dental practitioners graduate dental school with $50,000-$100,000 of debt and the
cost of opening a new dentistry office runs around $75,000-$100,000. FTC v. Indiana
Federation of Dentists 476 U. S. 447, 459 (1986) and California Dentist Association v.
FTC No. 97-1625 (1999) clearly demonstrate that the non-profit American Dental
Association is often in restraint of advertising regarding pricing to keep market prices
artificially high for the for profit dentists. In regards to Medicare the advertising block
prevents low-income people from knowing which dentists accept Medicare or offer free
or discount services for the poor.
§109 Community gardens and donations
A. The charitable giver may fill out a form and receive tax credit for the value of their
donation of food or clothing.
B. The trustee, as administrator of poor relief, may receive materials provided by
charitable or governmental agencies to the extent that they are equipped to give these
items to the poor.
1. The trustee, may accept donations of food materials, clothing and supplies of any item
of relief distribute them to the poor.
2. The trustee, may buy garden seeds and plant and maintain gardens for poor relief
purposes.
C. The provision of food to the poor requires particular care that the food is fresh and of
good quality. Spoiled, moldy and bad food needs to be thrown out.
§110 Funeral and burial or cremation expenses
A. If an individual dies without leaving money; real or personal property; other assets
that may be liquidated; or other means necessary to defray funeral expenses; and
the trustee, shall provide a funeral director to contact family members, superintend and
authorize either the funeral and burial or cremation of the deceased individual.
B. The necessary and reasonable expenses of the funeral and burial or cremation,
including a burial plot, shall be paid in the same manner as other one-time claims for
poor relief. A trustee shall determine the cost for the items and services required by law
for the funeral and burial of an individual, including a burial plot, and for the cremation
of an individual, and include in the township's poor relief standards the maximum funeral
152
and burial or cremation amount to be paid from poor relief funds. The trustee may deduct
from the maximum amount the following:
1. Any monetary benefits that the deceased individual is entitled to receive from a state or
federal program.
2. Any money that another person provides on behalf of the deceased individual.
3. If an individual is a resident of a state institution at the time of the individual's death,
the division that has administrative control of the state institution shall reimburse the
township trustee for the necessary and reasonable expenses of the funeral and burial or
cremation of the deceased individual.
4. The cost of the funeral may not be more than the cost of the least expensive funeral,
typically cremation, available from the funeral director under the funeral director's price
list disclosed to the Federal Trade Commission.
§111 Freedom
A. As part of the pre-release procedures for institutionalized persons the Commissioner
of Social Security shall develop a system under which an individual can apply for
supplemental security income benefits prior to the discharge or release of the individual
from a public institution. The Commissioner shall provide notice written in simple and
clear language under Sec. 1631 42USC(7)XVI(B)§1383(m,n,o) and Sec. 1611
42USC(7)XVI§1382.
B. Blakely v. Washington No. 02-1632 (2004) calls for a general review of sentencing as
there has been a severe rash of over sentencing compounding 20 years of oppression
under mandatory minimum sentencing that has been overturned in this decision.
1. When there is reasonable cause to believe that any State or political subdivision of a
State, official, employee, or agent thereof, or other person acting on behalf of a State or
political subdivision of a State is subjecting persons residing in or confined to an
institution, to egregious or flagrant conditions which deprive such persons of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United
States causing such persons to suffer grievous harm, and that such deprivation is pursuant
to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or
immunities, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may institute a
civil action in any appropriate United States district court against such party for such
equitable relief as may be appropriate to insure the minimum corrective measures
necessary to insure the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immunities under
42USC(21)I-A§1997a.
2. If a beneficiary does considerable work in judicial reform and discipline and maintains
their innocence and successfully overturns their conviction they may petition for the
remittance of funds probated while they were incarcerated as in Bloom v. Social Security
Adminstration (10th Cir.) No. 02-3362 (2003)
153
C. Mandatory Restitution shall be issued by probation officers and trial attorneys under
18USC(77)§1593 to obtain and include in its report, or in a separate report, information
sufficient for a restitution order.
1. The report shall include, to the extent practicable,
a. A complete accounting of the losses,
b. Any restitution owed pursuant to a plea agreement,
c. Information relating to the economic circumstances of each defendant.
2. Each defendant, shall plaintiff their own case, and shall prepare and file with the
probation officer an affidavit fully describing the financial resources of the defendant,
including a complete listing of all assets owned or controlled by the defendant as of the
date on which the defendant was arrested, the financial needs and earning ability of the
defendant and the defendant's dependents, and such other information pursuant to the
minimum wage and maximum working hours of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
29USC Chapter 8.
3. Under Art. 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 23
March 1976, when a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence
and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the
ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a
miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such
conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the nondisclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.
4. Under Art. 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 26 June 1987 the State shall ensure in its legal
system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to
fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.
In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall
be entitled to compensation.
§111a Free Government Cell Phone, Discount Internet and Computer
A. Information and computer technology has become extremely troublesome. Cell
phones are vulnerable to GPS (global positioning system) surveillance by Cisco routers
and should be kept in airplane mode or dissassemble the battery. NASA might be able to
abolish the cell phone vulnerability to GPS tracking by satellite. To compensate cell
phone consumers Lifeline Assistance is a program of the FCC that helps over 10 million
Americans who cannot afford a phone and service, in order to help them keep in contact
with employers, family, and medical and emergency services. The Lifeline program is
funded by the Universal Service Fund fees that are required by law to be collected by
telecommunications companies. A household is eligible for a free government cell phone
if a member of the household participates in any of the following public assistance
programs: Food Stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), The
154
National School Lunch Program (Free Lunch Program), Federal Public Housing
Assistance (Section 8), Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP),
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). A household is also eligible if the
total household income is at or below 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for that
state. Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island and
Texas. California, Nevada and Vermont allow 150%.
1. The cell phone companies receive $9.95 for each subscriber (higher for Tribal) in order
to provide the cell phone and service free to the subscriber. The program is free in nearly
every state, but some states require very small monthly fees ($1 per month in Oklahoma,
$1 from some companies in Alaska, and a $5 monthly fee was proposed but rejected in
Georgia). Lifeline began under the Reagan administration to help low-income Americans
afford their landline phone service, and was updated during the Bush administration to
include mobile phones. Lifeline was nicknamed Obamaphone since the popularity of the
program exploded under the Obama Administration. Obamaphones are available from
companies in 49 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. U.S. citizenship is
not a requirement to receive an Obamaphone. Only one Lifeline phone per household is
allowed, whether it be a discounted-service landline phone or a cell phone. There are
over 50 companies offering Obamaphones. The largest company, Safelink Wireless, has
3.6 million customers, and is owned by Tracfone, a company owned by the richest man in
the world, Mexico’s Carlos Slim. Most companies offer 250 to 350 minutes of talk and
text a month.
B. The FCC has also encouraged major internet providers to provide high-speed
broadband to the very same people that qualify for the Obama Phone. Only $9.95 a
month. There are several major, “competing” low-income internet service programs
designed for financially-struggling Americans – Comcast’s Internet Essentials,
CenturyLink’s Internet Basics, and Cox and Bright House Networks’ low income internet
plans. Qualifying families will even be able to purchase a computer for only $149.99.
1. Discount computers for the poor should have Microsoft Office factory installed to
rekindle literacy. Furthermore, outdated copies of Microsoft Office and Windows should
be made available as free Internet downloads to the public. In 2014 Microsoft reports a
profit of $27.8 billion, with revenues of $86.8 billion in revenues and expenses, a gross
margin, of $59.9 billion. Although revenues increased 12% from 2013 to 2014 earnings
per share increased 2%, although earnings per share increased by 29% in 2013 over 2012
when revenues increased by 6%. In 2014 Microsoft’s leading source of income was
$24.3 billion from Microsoft Office followed by $16.9 billion from Windows operating
systems. $9.95 a month is the free cell phone subsidy and cheap Internet rate, maybe
$9.95 is the one-time price for the Microsoft Office software subsidy for the poor. The
FCC should not hesitate to impose a $9.95 fee on Microsoft Office license sales to afford
the new free or $9.95 Microsoft Office program for the poor, without raising prices, in
fact, seriously considering selling this software for $9.95 because it is necessary for
computer literacy to stay out of PRISM.
155
C. Free Internet downloads are another voluntary form of welfare from the entertainment
industry, so popular that government subsidy, or elitist royalty lawyer approval, is not
necessary, that requires special protection against unlawful search and seizure by jealous
competitors and overzealous child pornography spam prosecutors known to be lethal in
every case the Supreme Court was not strictly liable to the victims. In the USA, the
World Copyright Treaty was enacted into law in 1998 as the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (the DMCA). Under the Notice and Takedown if someone thinks a file
hosted on a server is infringing on their copyright, they tell the website manager (Notice)
to remove it (Takedown). A few years later, the European Union created the EU
Copyright Directive (EUCD), which each EU country then turned into law in its national
body. What that means is that most of the world’s industrialized counties have some
version of the WCT on the books. Every country that joins the World Trade Organization
also has to sign something called the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement) which in turn requires them to agree to the Berne
Convention. 1. Starting in 2008, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was
negotiated in secrecy between ten countries and the EU. The EU negotiator refused to
disclose treaty drafts to the European Parliament, and objections by its member countries
ultimately led to the EU’s withdrawal from the treaty, at the end of 2012). In the U.S.,
2011 saw the introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its senate
equivalent, the Protect-IP Act (PIPA). PIPA and SOPA sparked a global storm of
Internet-driven protests, and resulted in millions of calls and emails to the U.S. Congress
and Senate and ultimately the withdrawal of the legislation. But the ideas behind the
proposals live on in treaties like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which has been
undergoing formal negotiations since 2010, and the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement
(TAFTA), which has been under negotiation since 2013. Both have been brokered
outside the public eye. 2. Now that the White House Intellectual Property (WHIP)
Enforcement Coordinator has been abolished under the Slavery Convention of 1926.
1. The United States must drop their charges and pay compensation to Megavideo.com,
to free the free Internet download industry from hypocritical lawbreaking “enforcement
of things” that consequently don’t make money such as: (1) complaining about piracy, (2)
calling your customers thieves, and (3) treating your customers like thieves. When a
creator tries to make money, she becomes an entrepreneur – a businessperson.
Businesspeople are prone to all sorts of madness. Succeeding in business requires that
you avoid this madness, this crazy bureaucracy. One particular strain of madness is the
overwhelming, irrational concern that you might be letting someone benefit from your
work for free – what an economist would call aversion to positive externalities” –
worrying that someone else is getting some benefit from your investment of labor or
capital. Fame won’t make you rich, but you can’t get paid without it. Being famous
won’t, in itself, make you rich. But if nobody knows about your work, nobody’s going to
buy it. Telecommunication has always been bigger than entertainment. U.S.
telecommunications businesses – companies that let people talk to other people – brought
in $750 billion in 2011. The U.S. entertainment sector, in 2012, brought in $480 billion.
Enough for the entertainment industry to provide those patient enough, to stream and
download all the best new and old music, movies, games and software for free.
156
§111b Public Library
A. The Library of Congress is the nation's oldest federal cultural institution and serves as
the research arm of Congress. It is also the largest library in the world, with millions of
books, recordings, photographs, maps and manuscripts in its collections. The Joint
Committee on the Library (the oldest continuing Joint Committee of the U.S. Congress)
was created on April 24, 1800, when President John Adams signed the bill establishing
the federal government in Washington and creating the Library of Congress. The act
appropriated $5,000 for "the purchase of such books as may be necessary for the use of
Congress" after it moved to the new capital city of Washington. The Library's
appropriation for fiscal year 1811 officially made the Joint Committee on the Library a
standing committee. The original library was housed in the new Capitol until August
1814, when invading British troops set fire to the Capitol Building, burning and pillaging
the contents of the small library. In January 1815, Congress accepted Jefferson's offer,
appropriating $23,950 for his 6,487 books, and the foundation was laid for a great
national library. In 1886, after many proposals and much controversy, Congress
authorized construction of a new Library building in the style of the Italian Renaissance.
From the 95th Congress forward, the Joint Committee on the Library has been composed
of the chairman (or designee) and four members each from the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administration. The
chairmanship and vice chairmanship alternate between the House and Senate every
Congress.
1. The United States Government is the largest publisher in the world. It distributes
materials in a variety of formats, including electronic, CD, microfiche, and paper. As part
of its publishing program, the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) through the
Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) distributes certain classes of Government
documents free of cost to designated libraries throughout the United States and its
territories. These libraries are known as Federal depository libraries and are usually in
college libraries. Federal depository libraries must offer free, public access to their
Federal collections, even if the depository library is part of a private academic institution.
In addition, information specialists are available at these libraries to assist the American
public to locate Federal information.
B. The vast majority of public lending libraries are organized by the County. Librarian
salaries have median pay ranges between $48,000 and $58,000 depending on the location
of employment and the level of experience. According to national statistics, roughly 3 out
of every 4 employees at libraries are women. In 2010 the mean salary for librarians with
ALA-accredited master’s degrees was $60,734 and the median salary was $55,883. These
numbers were up 3 percent and 2 percent respectively from 2009. Starting salaries in
2010 for librarians with ALA-accredited master’s degree were an average of $48,317.
Beginning public librarians averaged $48,749 and beginning academic librarians
averaged $47,000. Those numbers were up 5.9 percent and 1.2 percent from the prior
year. The survey showed a salary range of $22,000 to $320,000. The $22,000 was
probably in a very small rural library. The $320,000 is probably at one of the largest
libraries in the world the like the New York Public Library or the Harvard Library.
157
ALA-certified librarians with master’s degrees working at public or college libraries
average around $50k a year starting and around $58k in general.
Art. 7 Assistance Applications
§112 Consent; filing
A. The administrative process is begun when a claim is filed. As required of the Social
Security Administration by 20 CFR 404.603.
1. If the claim is administratively denied, regulations permit administrative
reconsideration within a six-month period as set forth in 20CFR404.909.
2. Should a request for reconsideration prove unsuccessful, the claimant may, within 60
days, ask for an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge under Sec. 205
42USC(7)II§405.
B. The types of information being solicited, including the following:
(A) Countable income.
(B) Countable assets.
(C) Wasted resources.
(D) Relatives capable of providing assistance.
(E) Past or present employment.
(F) Pending claims or causes of action.
(G) A medical condition if relevant to a disability determination.
(H) Any other information required by law.
C. Once an application for supplemental security income is made to the trustee the
trustee, as administrator, shall carefully investigate the circumstances of the applicant and
each member of the applicant's household utilizing the Income and Eligibility
Verification System set forth in Sec. 1137 42USC(7)XI-A§1320b-7 (in regards to the
verification of tax information) to ascertain the following:
1. Legal residence.
2. Names and ages.
3. Physical condition relating to sickness or health.
4. Present and previous occupation.
5. Ability and capacity to perform labor.
6. The cause of the applicant's or household member's condition of need.
7. Whether the applicant is entitled to income in the future from:
a. Past or present employment.
b. A pending claim or cause of action that may result in a monetary award.
c. A pending determination for assistance from another governmental entity.
8. The family relationships of the poor relief applicant.
9. Whether the applicant or members of the applicant's household have relatives able and
158
willing to assist the applicant or a member of the applicant's household. If an applicant or
a member of the applicant's household has a relative living in the area who is able to
assist the applicant or member of the applicant's household, the trustee shall, before
granting aid a second time, ask the relative to help with allowance, housing, material
relief or by furnishing employment.
§113 Eligibility
A. All trustees will need to make determinations dependant upon a person’s income and
resources as set forth in the poverty line for individuals and families. The financial
reports of the applicant shall be verified against the records of the Income and Eligibility
Verification System Sec. 1137 of Title XI-A 42USC(7)XI-A§132b-7.
B. Retirement benefits require that a person be at least 62 years of age and earn less than
$2,500 a month, and disability benefits require that a person be diagnosed with a physical
or mental disability that prevents them from gainful employment. Under current law, the
age at which workers become eligible for full retirement benefits—known as the normal
retirement age, or NRA—varies, depending on the individual’s year of birth. For workers
born before 1938, the NRA is 65. For workers born in subsequent years, the eligibility
age increases in two-month increments until it reaches 66 for workers born in 1943. For
workers born between 1944 and 1954, the NRA remains at 66 but rises, again in twomonth increments, until it reaches 67 for workers born in 1960 or later. Workers can still
receive benefits at age 62, but the benefit they receive at that age will represent a smaller
share of what they could have qualified for if they had waited until the normal retirement
age to claim benefits under Sec. 202 42USC(7)II§402.
C. Social Security benefits are based on a formula that essentially averages earnings over
a worker’s life. Unfortunately, women generally have lower wages and are also more
likely than men to adjust their work lives to the demands of children, home, and older
relatives needing care. As a result, women have more years of very low or no earnings,
greatly reducing their potential Social Security benefits. The maximum monthly benefit
for people first retiring at full retirement age (66) is $2,642 in 2014. Workers covered by
Social Security (virtually all workers other than about 25 percent of state and local
government employees (contribute 6.2 percent of their earnings (with an equal employer
match) up to a maximum taxable ceiling $117,000 in 2014) into two trust funds: the OldAge and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund, or what
is more conveniently called the combined OASDI Trust Fund. Self-employed workers
make contributions to those made by regular employees and their employers. 209
1. To be what the Social Security Administration calls “fully” or permanently” insured,
workers must have contributed to Social Security for forty “quarter of coverage”. In
2014, one credit is given for contributions made on each $1,200 of earnings anytime in
the calendar year, up to a maximum of four quarters or credits in any calendar year, up to
a maximum of four quarters or credits in any calendar year. Because workers can
become disabled or die at any time, workers under age 31 may become insured for those
benefits with fewer than forty quarters ,as few as six quarters out of the last three years
159
for the youngest workers. Disability insurance applicants must meet an additional
requirement of recency of work usually twenty out of the last forty quarters, except that
in the case of workers under age 31, it may be as little as six quarters out of the last three
years. Monthly benefits vary according to such factors as type of benefit, prior
contributions, age when benefits begin, and the number of people receiving benefits in a
household. Retirement, disability, survivor, spousal and widow(er), divorced, children’s
benefits – essentially all benefits – make use of the same benefit formula The benefit
formula produces the primary insurance amount, which is best understood as the amount
workers are eligible for if they claim benefits in the first month of their full retirement
age, currently 66. For purpose of calculating disability and survivor benefits, the
disability or death is assumed to be at age 66. To calculate benefits, a worker’s career
earnings are indexed to adjust for realy wage growth, averaged to determine a monthly
amount (the average indexed monthly earnings, or AIME) inserted in Social Security’s
progressive formula, and then adjusted, absed on the age at which the worker first retires
and other factors. The formula for 2014 is: The sum of: 90 percent of the first $816 of
average indexed monthly earnings, plus 32 percent of average indexed monthly earnings
over $816 and through $4,917, plus 15 percent of average indexed monthly earnings over
$4,917. Workers who have earned higher salaries over their careers receive benefits that
are larger in absolute dollars, but are smaller in proportionate terms, than those received
by lower-paid workers. For workers retiring at the full retirement age of 66 years old in
January 2014, Social Security benefits replaced about 26 percent of earnings for those
with earnings consistently at the maximum taxable earnings ceiling ($117,000 in 2014),
about 41 percent for average earners and about 55 percent for low-wage workers with
earnings at 45 percent of median wage, just $26,965 in 2012..
D. When covered workers become severely disabled, they may be eligible, after a fivemonth waiting period, to receive monthly Disability Insurance (DI) benefits. After an
additional twenty-four months, disabled workers (as well as disabled widow(er)s age 50
through 64) and disabled adult children (of retired, disabled, or deceased workers) are
eligible for all Medicare benefits. Roughly 9 million people receive DI benefits each
month. The disability criteria are strict. To be considered disabled, in 2014 a person
must be unable to engage in substantial gainful activity (SGA), defined as earning $1,070
a month ($1,800 for the blind) in 2014, because of a physical or mental impairment that is
expected to last at least a year or result in death. Anybody who is unable to engage in
any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months is eligible for
Disability insurance. An individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if
his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only
unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work
experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the
national economy under Sec. 223 42USC(7)II§423.
1. SSI is the program whereby the Commissioner of Social Security ensures that all aged,
blind and disabled individuals who are determined to be eligible on the basis of their
income and resources are paid benefits. In determining a person’s income the intention is
160
to assure immediate compensation to the poorest. In determining a person’s resources it
is important to count only the cash value of secure claims such as stock or insurance
claims as the sale of household goods, loans and welfare is too unpredictable to make a
determination as to a person’s continued insolvency. As of 2009 the first $20 and first
$65 of income earned in a month and ½ other earning over $65 received in a month. The
resource limits are $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a couple. The income limit is
the maximum benefit amount $623 (2007) under Sec. 1611 42USC(7)XVI-A§1382.
§114 Disability Determination
A. Disability determination is the system whereby the disbursement of government and
private disability insurance is certified in accordance with Sec. 221 42USC(7)II§421 and
the regulations of the Commission of Social Security. Plan administrators may not
arbitrarily refuse to credit a claimant's reliable evidence, including the opinions of a
treating physician. Under 20CFR§404.1527(d)(2) in determining whether a claimant is
entitled to Social Security disability benefits, special weight is accorded opinions of the
claimant's treating physician that state that the physical or mental illness or injury is so
debilitating that the person can no longer perform their gainful employment. Travel,
medical and court expenses shall be paid by the Commissioner of Social Security for
making the determination of disability under Sec. 202 42USC(7)II§402(j).
B. Under 42USC(7)II§423 an individual shall be determined to be under a disability only
if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not
only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work
experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the
national economy.
1. An individual shall not be considered to be under a disability unless he furnishes such
medical and other evidence of the existence thereof as the Commissioner of Social
Security may require. An individual's statement as to pain or other symptoms shall not
alone be conclusive evidence of disability as defined in this section; there must be
medical signs and findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory
diagnostic techniques, which show the existence of a medical impairment that results
from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which could reasonably
be expected to produce then pain, poverty or other symptoms alleged.
2. Every individual who - (A) is insured for disability insurance benefits (B) has not
attained retirement age of 62 (C) has filed application for disability insurance benefits,
and (D) is under a disability shall be entitled to a disability insurance benefit beginning
with the first month during all of which he is under a disability and in which he becomes
so entitled to such insurance benefits that shall not terminate until the third month after
such physical or mental disability is determined to have ceased and a period of trial work
yielding substantial gains bringing the person above the determined poverty line has been
completed.
161
C. Secretary of Labor's regulations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) give rise to a "full and fair" assessment of claims that permits the
employer and plan administrator to order other medical examinations that provide a less
favorable opinion regarding the person’s medical inability that were overruled in Black &
Decker Disability Plan v. Nord No. 02-469 (2003).
§115 Denial of relief; Reconsideration
A. Under 29USC(18)1BV§1133; the Trustee,
1. Must provide adequate notice in writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim
for benefits under the plan has been denied, setting forth the specific reasons for such
denial, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the participant, and
2. Afford a reasonable opportunity to any participant whose claim for benefits has been
denied for a full and fair review by the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision
denying the claim.
§116 Notification of Action
A. In a case of emergency, a trustee shall accept and promptly (that same day) pay for a
completed application from an individual requesting assistance. In a non-emergency
request for poor relief assistance, the trustee shall file completed applications not later
than seventy-two (72) hours after receiving the application, excluding weekends and legal
holidays for inclusion in the Internet Publication with decision regarding inclusion on
monthly payroll. The trustee's office shall retain a copy of each application and affidavit
whether or not relief is granted.
B. The actions that a trustee may take on a completed application for poor relief, except
in a case of emergency, are the following:
(1) Grant assistance.
(2) Deny assistance, including a partial denial of assistance requested.
(3) Leave the decision pending.
C. A trustee shall promptly notify in writing each applicant for poor relief of action taken
upon a completed application for poor relief. The trustee shall do the following:
1. Mail notice or provide personal notice not later than seventy-two (72) hours, excluding
weekends and legal holidays, after the completed application is received, advising the
applicant of the right to appeal an adverse decision.
2. Included in the notice required the trustee shall provide the following:
a. The type and amount of assistance granted.
b. The type and amount of assistance denied or partially granted.
162
c. Specific reasons for denying all or part of the assistance requested.
d. Information of the procedures for appeal to the board of commissioners.
D. A copy of the notice described shall be filed with the recipient's application and
affidavit in the trustee's office. An application for poor relief is not considered complete
until all adult members of the requesting household have signed:
1. the poor relief application; and
2. any other form, instrument, or document:
(A) required by law; or
(B) determined necessary for investigative purposes by the trustee.
§117 Appeals Council
A. The Commissioner of Social Security has delegated to and Appeals Council and to
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), the
authority to hear and decide appealed determinations of claims for retirement, survivor,
disability, supplemental security income and statutory blindness benefits under Title II;
special benefits to World War II benefits under title VIII; aged, blind and disability
benefits under Title XVI; and initial and continuing entitlement to benefits under Title
XVIII.
1. In general under 20CFR§404.929 one is entitled to a hearing before an administrative
law judge if dissatisfied with one of the determinations or decisions listed in
20CFR§404.930 and may request a hearing. The Associate Commissioner for Hearings
and Appeals, or his or her delegate, shall appoint an administrative law judge to conduct
the hearing. If circumstances warrant, the Associate Commissioner, or his or her delegate,
may assign your case to another administrative law judge. The hearing office (HO) must
acknowledge receipt of each valid request for hearing (RH) as soon as possible, but no
later than 30 days after the HO receives the RH. When a case is assigned to an ALJ for a
hearing and decision, the ALJ is responsible for all actions necessary to process the case.
The ALJ's principal responsibilities are to hold a full and fair hearing and issue a legally
sufficient and defensible decision.
B. The Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law (HALLEX) manual conveys the guiding
principles, procedural guidance and information from the Associate Commissioner of
Hearings and Appeals to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) staff. They should
be edited for an amendment of Sec. 206 of Title II of the Social Security Act
42USC(7)II§406 for social workers, non-social representatives.
C. After a case has been denied by an administrative law judge it may be appealed to the
Appeals Council.
§118 Representation
163
A. Representatives who want to charge or collect a fee from a claimant or a third party,
for services provided in any proceeding before the Social Security Administration (SSA)
under the Social Security Act, must first obtain SSA's authorization Payment for
professional representation has been set by the Commissioner of Social Security at 25%
of the total amount of past due benefits or $4,000 whichever is the lesser, only in
favorable claims, under Sec. 206 42USC(7)§406(2,A).
B. A Non-social worker as Representative may also be appointed by the claimant to
represent their dealings before the Commissioner if the person a. is generally known to
have a good character and reputation; b. is capable of giving valuable help to the claimant
in connection with the claim; is not disqualified or suspended from acting as a
representative in dealings before the Commissioner; and c. is not prohibited by any law
from acting as a representative 20 CFR §§ 404.1705 and 416.1505
§119 Hearing on appeal; written procedures
A. The appellate board shall develop uniform written procedures, including provisions
for:
1. before the hearing, an opportunity for the appellant or the appellant's legal
representative to review the appellant's poor relief file and any documents or evidence
used by the township trustee to make the determination under appeal;
2. the order of the proceeding and the procedure for subpoena:
(A) of a witness; or
(B) for production of evidence; if reasonably requested; and
3. the issuance of a written hearing decision within the period prescribed.
B. The applicant may appeal a decision of the Administrative Law Judge to a court. In
hearing an appeal, the court shall be governed by the local poor relief standards for
determining eligibility. If legally sufficient standards have not been established, the court
shall be guided by the circumstances of the case and national protocol.
1. In the event that the Secretary subsequently determines that his initial determination
was incorrect he shall certify restitution forthwith in a lump sum of any funds incorrectly
withheld or otherwise denied.
§120 Equal Access to Justice
A. The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was enacted to eliminate the barriers that
prohibit small businesses and individuals from securing vindication of their rights in civil
actions and administrative proceedings brought by or against the Federal Government
and authorizes the payment of attorney's fees to a prevailing party in an action against the
United States absent a showing by the Government that its position in the underlying
litigation "was substantially justified” under 28USCVI(161)§2412 (d)(1)(A).
1. EAJA sets a deadline of 30 days after final judgment for the filing of a fee application
and directs that the application include: (1) a showing that the applicant is a "prevailing
164
party"; (2) a showing that the applicant is "eligible to receive an award" ie. net worth did
not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed," §2412(d)(2)(B; and (3) a
statement of "the amount sought, including an itemized statement from any attorney ...
stating the actual time expended and the rate" charged under Scarborough v. Anthony J.
Principi, Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs No. 02-1657 (2004).
2. After the Social Security Appeals Council adopted the ALJ's recommended decision
that respondent was disabled and instructed the Secretary to pay her benefits, the District
Court granted the Secretary's motion to dismiss the judicial review action on the ground
that respondent had obtained all the relief prayed for however the Court found that it had
jurisdiction under the EAJA in Sullivan v. Hudson 490 US 977 (1989).
3. Sec. 205(h) 42USCII§405(h) states, “the findings and decisions of the Secretary after a
hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearings. No
findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal or
government agency except as herein provided” under Cappadora v. Anthony J.
Celebreeze 356 F 2d. 1, 4 (CA2 1996).
4. Sec. 205(g) 42USCII§405(g) however provides that any individual after a final
decision of the Secretary may obtain review of such decision by civil action commenced
within 60 days by filing a civil action. The district court; in such action, has the power to
enter "a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the [Secretary's] decision, with or
without remanding the cause for a rehearing" under Mathews v. Weber 423 US 261
(1973) and Sullivan v. Finkelstein 496 US 617 (1990).
5. Constitutional questions are unsuited for administrative hearing procedures and
therefore access to the courts is essential for the answer of these questions. Written
submissions provide the disability recipient with an effective means of communicating
his case to the decision-maker. The judicial model of an evidentiary hearing is neither
required, nor even the most effective, method of decision-making in all circumstances.
One should exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review under
Mathews v. Eldridge 424 US 319 (1976)
§121 No-Residency Requirement
A. As a rule there are no residency requirements for social security disability or
retirement beneficiaries, who may wish to go on a permanent vacation for health reasons.
An individual is considered a "resident" if they live in the State or political subdivision
administrating the supplemental relief, if the individual: has located in the area; and
intends to make the area the individual's sole place of residence or is traveling through
the area who needs emergency assistance and/or has a mailing address in the area. For
the purpose of the administration of social security and relief residency is important
because local and state administrations are expected to contribute to Social Security
benefits through Medicare, foods stamps and state supplemental security income.
165
B. Any State (or political subdivision) making supplementary payments may at its option
impose as a condition of eligibility for such payments, and include a residence
requirement which excludes individuals who have resided in the State (or political
subdivision) for less than a minimum period prior to application for such payments under
Sec. 1616 42USC(7)XVI(A)§1382e (c)(1). State agencies shall administrate aid to the
Permanently and totally disabled to guarantee the recipients are granted steady benefits
without residency requirement of more than five years under Sec. 1402
42USC(7)XIV§1352 (b)(1).
C. Since 1986, United States immigration law has prohibited employers from knowingly
hiring or continuing to employ aliens who are not authorized to work under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Since 1996, employers have had the option of
verifying names and Social Security numbers (SSNs) of new hires against SSA’s
database through an employment eligibility verification system (EEVS, formerly known
as the Basic Pilot) operated jointly by SSA and DHS. Until 2003, the Basic Pilot was
restricted to operate in only five states, but has since been expanded nationally.
Currently, about 16,700 employers at 73,000 hiring sites (less than 1 percent of all
establishments) participate in the EEVS. Most participating employers do so voluntarily,
but some are required to use the EEVS by law or because of prior immigration violations.
In 2006, the system received over 1.6 million requests for verification. Of these, 1.4
million cases were resolved by SSA. The bulk of the remaining cases were referred to
DHS for further verification of work-eligibility.
D. Alien nationals are not generally eligible for social security benefits. Generally, a
non-citizen may be eligible for SSI if lawfully admitted for permanent residence under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and have a total of 40 credits of work in the
United States, a spouse’s or parent’s work may also count. Not more than 4 credits may
be granted any given year. For purposes of determining eligibility for and the amount of
benefits of an individual who is an alien, the income and resources of any person who
executed an affidavit of support or similar agreement with respect to such individual, and
he income and resources of the sponsor's spouse, shall be deemed to be the income and
resources of such individual for a period of 3 years after the individual's entry into the
United States. Any such income deemed to be income of such individual shall be treated
as unearned income of such individual under Sec. 1621 42USC(7)XVI(A)§1382j.
1. The Secretary is authorized under Sec. 1113 42USC(7)XI-A§1313 to provide
temporary assistance to citizens of the United States and to dependents of citizens of the
United States, if they are identified by the Department of State as having returned, or
been brought, from a foreign country to the United States because of the destitution of the
citizen of the United States or the illness of such citizen or any of his dependents or
because of war, threat of war, invasion, or similar crisis renders them eligible for asylum
or refugee status. Social Security benefits for stateless (undocumented) individuals and
international refugees of political or natural disaster are protected under the Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees.
§122 Non-discrimination
166
A. The trustee shall process all applications for relief according to uniform written
standards and without consideration of the race, creed, nationality, or gender of the
applicant or any member of the applicant's household. When an entity is engaged in a
discriminatory pattern or practice in violation of basis of age under the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975 42 USC(76)§6101, on the basis of handicap under section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 29USC(16)V§794, on the basis of sex under title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 20USC(38)§1681, or on the basis of race,
color, or national origin under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
42USC(21)V§2000d. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 42USC (126)§12101
prohibits discrimination of the physically and mentally disabled. Should any such
violation regarding discrimination occur the Secretary shall refer the matter to the
Attorney General with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted.
B. When an agency or administrator is convicted by court or administration of any crime
of falsification, or fraud or deprivation of relief benefits under 18USC(13)§246 directly
related to the provision of health and welfare they shall be excluded from serving as
financial representatives for the Trust fund until such a time when there are reasonable
assurances that such event will not again occur. When petitioners are guilty of falsely
misrepresenting themselves under 42USC(7)XI-A1320a-8a(c) the duration of the
applicable exclusion period, with respect to the determination by the Commissioner that a
person has engaged in administrative misconduct shall be –
1. six consecutive months, in the case of the first such determination with respect to the
person;]
2. twelve consecutive months, in the case of the second such determination with respect
to the person; and
3. twenty-four consecutive months, in the case of the third or subsequent such
determination with respect to the person.
C. The term “discrimination on the basis of disability” means any distinction, exclusion
or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or
nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil
or any other field. Discrimination on the basis of disability with regard to all matters
concerning all forms of employment, including conditions of recruitment, hiring and
employment, continuance of employment, career advancement, and safe and healthy
working conditions are prohibited. The right of persons with disabilities to work, on an
equal basis with others; includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work
freely chosen or accepted in a labor market. Disabled people shall be employed in both
the public and private sector under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities HA-30-3-07
D. Poverty is the result of factors like the denial of human rights and human dignity,
discrimination and unequal access to resources. The realization of human rights –
including the fight against poverty -- is a duty, not a mere aspiration. People living in
poverty are typically victims of discrimination. If Governments are responsible for such
167
discrimination, they are under an obligation immediately to prohibit and cease all
discriminatory laws and practices. If discriminatory attitudes are caused by traditions
among the population, Governments shall adopt and enforce laws prohibiting any
discrimination by private actors. All persons are entitled to equal protection under the
law against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment by private actors. In this regard, the
law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective
protection against discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability and health
status, including HIV/AIDS, age, sexual orientation or other status.
Art. 8 Poor Relief
§123 Township, municipal, county, state and federal government co-operation
A. Every level of government, township, municipal, county, state, federal and
international shall be responsible for the administration of welfare relief to the poor.
1. A trustee, as administrator of poor relief, shall cooperate with the state and federal
government in the furnishing of poor relief so that the poor relief is furnished adequately
and economically.
2. A trustee, shall provide facilities for relief headquarters and storage and transportation
of commodities for poor relief purposes as are demanded.
3. A trustee, shall primarily be required to list all local providers of shelter, food,
counseling and health care for the poor.
4. The trustee, may participate in surplus agricultural commodities distributions provided
by the United States Department of Agriculture to the state and all applicable Social
Security Programs.
5. A township trustee, may establish the trustee's own distribution plan; or shall
participate with other local administrators of Social Security and relief.
B. The term “Poor Relief” was invented and then repealed from the Indiana Code IC-1220 now known as “Township Assistance” and supported by “County Welfare
Administration and Financing” in IC-12-19.
1. The 3,066 counties in the United States vary greatly in size and population. They range
in area from 67 square kilometers (Arlington County, Va.) to 227,559 square kilometers
(North Slope Borough, Alaska). The population of counties varies from Loving County,
Texas, with 140 residents to Los Angeles County, California, which is home to 9.2
million people.
2. Forty-eight of the 50 states have operational county governments. Connecticut and
Rhode Island are divided into geographic regions called counties, but they do not have
functioning governments. Alaska calls its counties boroughs and Louisiana calls them
parishes. The District of Columbia is the capitol city and seat of government. Tribal
governments also have a right to social security.
168
3. In Europe social security benefits are administrated at the local level and public works
are administrated nationally. Early American towns had almshouses. Before SSI in 1974
states administered welfare benefits. It makes a lot of sense for local officials to help
administrate welfare benefits, rather than injustice and oppression, to their people. It also
makes a lot of sense for the federal government to administrate public works.
§124 County auditor clerical help
A. Each county auditor is entitled to reasonable additional clerical help to carry out the
auditor's responsibilities under this article, as determined to be necessary by each county's
fiscal body.
1. The county fiscal body shall make an appropriation for the payment of additional
clerical help under this section.
2. The county auditor shall faithfully account for all income and expenditures of the
government in the county.
3. When auditing administrators of poor relief the county auditor must ensure that claims
are actually paid.
§125 Expenditure of Funds
A. A trustee may not, acting as administrator of poor relief, disburse any money or incur
any obligation in the furnishing of poor relief in excess of the amount appropriated for
that purpose.
1. Appropriations for poor relief purposes must be made in the manner provided by law.
2. When preparing the annual budget for a county, city or township the commission shall
set out in the budget the amount of expenditures estimated to be reasonably required for
current poor relief in the following calendar year. If the amount provided for poor relief
in the annual budget as finally adopted and approved is insufficient to meet the
requirements for that purpose, additional appropriations may be made in the manner
provided by law for the making of additional appropriations for other purposes.
3. An expenditure of money may not be made under this chapter except being approved
by the board of trustees in the manner provided by law.
4. An appropriation may not be made or approved unless a sufficient amount of money to
cover the proposed expenditure is included in the annual budget of the trust for poor
relief purposes.
5. The right of any person to payment is not be transferable or assignable, at law or in
equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this chapter shall
be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the
operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law Sec. 207(a) 42USC(7)II§407 (a).
6. The County shall account for poor relief payments in three major categories, (a)
supplemental security income making direct payments to poor people, (b) health
insurance payments covering their preventative, emergency and long term medical care,
(c) food card and nutrition pamphlet.
169
B. If a trustee, as administrator of poor relief, grants poor relief to an indigent individual
or to any other person or agency on a poor relief order or obligates the trust for an item
properly payable from poor relief money, the claim against the township, city, county,
state or federal government must be:
a. itemized and sworn to as provided by law;
b. accompanied by the original poor relief order, which must be itemized and signed; and
c. checked with the records of the trustee, as administrator of poor relief, and audited and
certified by the trustee.
§126 County general fund appropriation
A. If the board of commissioners determines from the quarterly reports filed by the
trustees with the county auditor that the levies made by the respective townships for poor
relief purposes will be insufficient to provide free and available money during the
following year for poor relief purposes.
1. the board of commissioners may include estimates for the advancements in the county
general fund budget;
2. the county fiscal body may appropriate for the advancement in the budget and levy as
adopted by the county fiscal body; and
3. the department shall include that amount in the final county general fund levy
4. tax levies may be placed on the county ballot for the electorate to decide.
B. A trustee and board may levy a specific tax on the county ballot for the purpose of
providing money for the payment of poor relief expenses in the following year. The tax
may be sufficient to meet the entire requirement of the township in the following year or
the part that is determined to be proper.
1. If a tax levy is established, all proceeds derived from the tax levy shall be distributed to
the trust fund at the same time and in the same manner as proceeds from other property
tax levies are distributed to the county, municipality or township. The proceeds of the tax
levy shall be held free and available for the payment of poor relief obligations.
2. The poor relief administration must furnish the required number of signatures to get
the tax levy on the ballot, if the levy is so large as to require the consent of the voters.
§127 Borrowing to pay claims
A. If money is not available for the payment of poor relief claims the county, city or
township fiscal body shall promptly pass necessary ordinances and make the necessary
appropriations to enable this to be done, after determining whether to borrow money by
any of the following methods:
(1) A temporary loan against taxes levied and in the process of collection.
(2) The sale of county poor relief bonds or other county obligations.
(3) Any other lawful method of obtaining money for the payment of poor relief.
170
B. The Managing Trustee may determine that borrowing authorized under Sec. 201(k)(1)
42USC(7)II§401 (k)(1) is appropriate in order to best meet the need for financing the
benefit payments from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund there
shall be transferred on the last day of each of each month after such loan is made, from
the borrowing Trust Fund to the lending Trust Fund, the total interest accrued to such day
with respect to the un-repaid balance of such loan at a rate equal to the rate which the
lending Trust Fund would earn. If in any month after a loan has been made to a Trust
Fund the Managing Trustee determines that the assets of such Trust Fund are sufficient to
permit repayment of all or part of any loans made to such Fund under paragraph (1), he
shall make such repayments as he determines to be appropriate.
C. If the board of commissioners of a county finds that the amount of money required by
the townships of the county for the providing of poor relief is greater than can be
reasonably advanced by the county out of available money, the board of commissioners
of the county may borrow on behalf of the county sufficient money for that purpose,
subject to the limitations set forth in this chapter.
D. Before making a loan, the board of commissioners shall, in either a regular or special
session, enter of record the following:
1. A finding that the necessary advancements are in excess of the amount that can be
reasonably advanced by the county out of available money.
2. The period to be provided for from the proceeds of the proposed loan.
3. The estimated requirements for each township of the county for that period.
4. Before making a loan, the board of commissioners also shall direct the county auditor
to call the county fiscal body into special session for the purpose of considering the
making of the loan.
E. An ordinance adopted by a county fiscal body authorizing a loan must do the
following:
1. Authorize the issuance of the bonds of the county to evidence the loan.
2. Fix the maximum amount of the bonds, subject to subsection (b).
3. Fix the maximum rate of interest to be paid on the bonds,
4. Fix the number of semiannual series in which the bonds must be payable,
5. After receiving notice under subsection that poor relief account will be exhausted
before the end of a fiscal year, the board shall appeal for the right to borrow money on a
short term basis to fund poor relief services in the township. In the appeal the board must
do the following:
a. Show that the amount of money contained in the township poor relief account will not
be sufficient to fund services required to be provided within the township by this article.
b. Show the amount of money that the board estimates will be needed to fund the deficit.
(3) Indicate a period, not to exceed five (5) years, during which they would repay the
loan.
171
F. If the county council determines to allow the loan to be made, the county auditor shall
borrow the money from a financial institution on behalf of the township board.
1. the Secretary of Health and Human Services also makes loans, repayable in 3 years,
particularly in anti-welfare fraud cases under Sec. 406 42USC(7)IV-A§606.
§128 County Bonds
A. After the adoption of a bond ordinance by the county fiscal body, the board of
commissioners shall enter an order fixing the following:
1. The exact amount of the proposed loan within the maximum amount provided in the
ordinance.
2. The exact rate of interest on the bonds or providing that the interest rate must be the
lowest interest rate bid on the bonds, not exceeding the maximum interest rate provided
in the ordinance.
3. The board of commissioners may fix the denominations of the bonds or may provide
that the bonds must be in the denominations requested by the successful bidder.
However, the denominations so selected must not change the amount of the serial
maturities of the bonds.
4. The board of commissioners shall adopt the form of bond to be used in the issuance of
the bonds.
5. The provisions of general statutes relating to the preparation and sale of bonds by
counties apply to the preparation and sale of bonds.
B. Before the sale of bonds, the county auditor shall cause notice of the sale to be
published:
1. at least one (1) time each week for two (2) weeks in at least two (2) newspapers
published in the county; and
2. one (1) time in a newspaper published in the capitol city of the state;
at least seven (7) days before the date fixed for the sale of the bonds.
3. If the order of the board of commissioners provides for a bid rate on the bonds, the
notice of sale must state the following:
(a) The bid rate.
(b) That the highest bidder for the bonds will be the person that offers the lowest net
interest cost to the county, to be determined by computing the total interest on all of the
bonds to maturity and deducting from the amount the premium bid if any.
172
C. The county auditor shall sell the bonds to the highest bidder. If a satisfactory bid is not
received for all of the bonds at the time fixed in the notice of sale, the county auditor may
continue the sale from day to day and sell the bonds in parcels, until otherwise directed
by an order of the board of commissioners.
1. All bonds issued by the county are the direct general obligations of the county issuing
the bonds, payable out of unlimited ad valorem taxes to be levied and collected on all of
the taxable property within the county. Each official and body having to do with the
levying of taxes for the county shall ensure that sufficient levies are made to meet the
principal and interest on the bonds at the time fixed for the payment of the bonds, without
regard for the provisions of any other statute. If an official or a body fails or refuses to
make or allow a sufficient levy, the bonds and the interest on the bonds are payable out of
the general fund of the county without an appropriation being made for the payment.
Art. 9 Poor Relief Employees
§129 Trustee
A. The poor relief trustee is the chief executive officer of a trust fund designated to pay
for poor relief. The Managing Trustee is responsible for accounting and budgeting for
the expenditure of poor relief in accordance with the decisions of the board of trustees
while supervising employees and ensuring that the great majority of poor relief funds go
directly to the poor rather than operational costs that should run around 5%.
B. If a township, city or county trustee, who serves as administrator of poor relief, dies, is
removed from office, resigns, or in any other way vacates the office, all books, papers,
and other materials concerning the office shall be delivered to the county auditor and the
trustee's successor upon the successor's appointment.
C. The trustee, as administrator of poor relief, in each township is responsible for the
oversight and care of all poor individuals in the township as long as the individuals
remain in the trustee's charge. The trustee shall see that the individuals are properly taken
care of in the manner prescribed by law.
§130 The Board of Trustees
A To be eligible for community block grants under 42USC(106)§9910 the Board of
Trustees shall be comprised of no less than 5 people selected for their expertise and
inspiration in the administration of charity as a non-profit organization.
1. a public official shall sponsor the non-profit organization and review all reports to
guarantee financial responsibility;
2. not fewer than 1/3 of the members are persons chosen in accordance with democratic
selection procedures adequate to assure that these members are representative of lowincome individuals and families in the neighborhood served; and
173
3. a lawyer and social worker or mental health professional or medical doctor shall be
retained;
4. a banker from the bank where the Board makes their deposits and withdrawals.
5. the remainder of the members shall be officials or members of business, industry,
labor, religious, law enforcement, education, or other major groups and interests in the
community served.
B. The Board of Trustees shall appoint a leader from amongst their members to sign the
executive signature of the non-profit corporation.
1. The Board shall review denied poor relief claims on weekly basis and make decisions
in a monthly public meeting regarding the adequacy of funds and the success of research
projects, the minutes and reports of which must be published on the Internet.
2. Trustees must be paid for their time spent working and are encouraged to work in the
poor relief office in their professional capacity every day.
3. The Board shall publish a quarterly and yearly financial report for the county auditor.
4. The Board shall hear the grievances of employees, poor relief applicants, poor relief
recipients and residents of the community to settle disputes in a literate fashion.
§131 Community Banking
A. Public and congressional concerns about the deteriorating condition of America's
cities, particularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods, led to the enactment of the
Community Reinvestment Act. Community development investment means investment
in activities that revitalize and stabilize low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and
directly benefit low- and moderate-income individuals, including investment in
affordable housing, community services, small-business development, and economic
development. The program shall include a method for evaluating the number and dollar
amount of community reinvestment by every security firm and for preventing
discrimination.
1. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) obligates insured depository institutions to
help meet the credit needs of their entire local communities, including low- and
moderate-income borrowers and neighborhoods, consistent with the institutions’ safe and
sound operation. The Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2007 H.R.1289
recalls that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 has leveraged more than $4
trillion in loans and investments for low- and moderate-income communities according to
the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. Section 809(a) of the Community
Reinvestment Act of 1977 12USC(30)§2908(a) is amended so that all regulated financial
institutions shall be examined at least once in each 2-year period. There shall be no
exemptions for institutions valued less than $1 billion.
Fig. 46 Community Reinvestment Act reporting as % of all Loans 1997-2005
Business
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2,560,795
3,287,974
6,094,606
8,004,463
7,951,110
174
Loans
Thousands
159,401,302 174,538,571 224,914,485 278,612,596 271,615,447
of Dollars
CRA as %
71.0%
67.8%
84%
90.5%
73.2%
of Loans
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Analysis of CRA
2. The CRA of 1977 has leveraged a tremendous increase in home mortgage lending to
minority and low- and moderate-income borrowers as compared to whites and middleincome borrowers; from 1993 through 2002, home mortgage lending has increased by
79.5 percent to Blacks, by 185.8 percent to Hispanics, by 29.6 percent to whites, by 90.6
percent to low- and moderate-income borrowers, and by 51.4 percent to middle-income
borrowers. While the CRA of 1977 has been effective, significant wealth disparities
remain; in the fourth quarter of 2004, the white homeownership rate was 76.2 percent
while the African-American and Hispanic homeownership rates were 49.1 percent and
48.9 percent, respectively. In 2002, the median net worth for Hispanic and AfricanAmerican households was $7,932 and $5,988 respectively, while, in sharp contrast, the
median net worth for White households was $88,651.
§132 Ratio of supervisors to investigators; compensation
A. The ratio of supervisors to poor relief investigators should not exceed one (1)
supervisor for the first four (4) poor relief investigators. If there are more than four (4)
poor relief investigators, the trustee may employ one (1) additional supervisor for each
twelve (12) poor relief investigators or major fraction of that number.
B. The pay for supervisors of poor relief investigators shall be fixed in the manner
provided by law for other city or township salaries in the county. An individual may not
be employed as a poor relief investigator unless the individual:
1. is a high school graduate or possesses an equivalent degree;
2. is at least eighteen (18) years of age; and
3. is a resident of the county where the township is located.
4. An individual may not be employed as a supervisor of poor relief investigators unless
the individual:
a. is a US citizen
b. has had at least one (1) years experience as a poor relief investigator.
c. has a college degree.
d. is knowledgeable of Social Security law.
§133 Pay; vacation; sick leave
A. A poor relief supervisor, representative, investigator, assistant, or other necessary
employee shall be paid only for the number of days the employee is actually engaged in
employment during each month.
175
1. A poor relief supervisor, representative, investigator, assistant, or other necessary
employee shall be paid at the rate established by the trustee from an appropriation by the
township board.
2. A poor relief supervisor, investigator, assistant, or other necessary employee shall be
paid out of the same money as claims for poor relief are paid. Claims for pay are payable
upon presentation of a sworn claim itemizing each day or successful claim for which pay
is requested. Claims are to be made and filed in the same manner as other claims for poor
relief expenditures are payable, at least once each month.
B. Each poor relief chief deputy, investigator, supervisor, assistant, or other necessary
employee may be granted paid vacation leave or sick leave.
1. The trustee having a population of at least ten thousand (10,000) may appoint a chief
deputy. A chief deputy may be paid from poor relief funds.
§134 Paying representatives on a case by cases basis
A. The trustees shall employ reputable representatives, namely social workers, to
investigate the validity poor relief applicants and recipients and represent them.
B. Payment for professional representation has been set by the Commissioner of Social
Security at 25% of the total amount of past due benefits or $4,000 whichever is the lesser,
only in favorable claims, under Sec. 206 42USC(7)§406(2,A).
§135 Equitable Contracting by the Trustee
A. The board of trustees may adopt rules concerning the distribution of poor relief
designed to reduce the cost and improve the delivery of poor relief. The rules may
include provisions governing the following:
1. The minimum quality of goods and services required to be provided by poor relief
vendors.
2. The rate of reimbursement to be provided to vendors of goods and services under the
poor relief program.
3. The types of assistance that are to be provided to poor relief recipients.
4. Competitive bidding requirements for purchases of goods and services for poor relief
recipients, other than food, other perishable products, and goods or services needed on an
emergency basis.
5. The time within which providers of poor relief are to present claims for
reimbursement, may not exceed sixty (60) days from the date the poor relief was
provided.
6. The purchase of goods and services to meet the emergency needs of poor relief
applicants without competitive bids.
a. If practicable and prudent, poor relief purchases should be made from local vendors.
176
B. Religious organizations are eligible, on the same basis as any other private
organization, as contractors to provide assistance, or to accept certificates, vouchers, or
other forms of disbursement, so long as the programs are implemented consistent with the
Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Neither the Federal Government
nor a State receiving funds under such programs shall discriminate against an
organization which is or applies to be a contractor to provide assistance, or which accepts
certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement, on the basis that the organization
has a religious character under Sec. 404(a) 42USC(7)IV§604(a).
§136 Adequate access ensured; telephone number; office
A. The trustee shall ensure adequate access to poor relief services, including a published
telephone number in the name of the county, city or township. A poor relief office, if
separate from the trustee's residence, must be designated by a clearly visible sign that lists
the:
(1) trustee's name;
(2) availability of poor relief assistance; and
(3) poor relief office's telephone number.
B. The sign must conform to all local zoning and signage restrictions.
1. This section does not apply to a trustee who has assisted less than fifty-one (51)
households during each of the two (2) years immediately preceding the date of the
trustee's annual report to the county auditor and public.
C. To ensure minimum accessibility, a trustee operating a poor relief office in a township
with a population of at least ten thousand (10,000) shall provide scheduled office hours
for poor relief and staff each office with an individual qualified to:
1. determine eligibility; and
2. issue relief sufficient to meet the poor relief needs of the township.
3. Provide poor relief office hours for at least fourteen (14) hours per week.
4. Provide for after hours access to by use of an answering machine or a service:
(A) capable of taking messages; and
(B) programmed to provide information about poor relief office hours.
5. Respond to a telephone inquiry for poor relief services within 24 hours
6. Respond to mail inquiries within 1 week.
7. Post poor relief office hours, telephone numbers and mailing address at the entrance to
each poor relief office.
§137 Group Health Plan
A. Poor relief administrations should offer Group Health Plans to employees and health
care providers, that is not government insurance, purchased by an employer of more than
2 employees. With this investment the corporation shall contract with preferred
177
physicians, hospitals and medical providers who wish to provide medical care for both
the paying employees and the general non-profit beneficiaries that are cared for by the
non-profit corporation. These investments in employee health insurance are a tax
deductible business expense.
B. A group health plan may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued
eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan based on any of the
following factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual:
1. Health status.
2. Medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses).
3. Claims experience.
4. Receipt of health care.
5. Medical history.
6. Genetic information.
7. Evidence of insurability (including acts of domestic violence).
8. Disability 26USC(K)(100)(A)§9802
C. A group health plan may not – (i) restrict benefits for any hospital length of stay in
connection with childbirth for the mother or newborn child, to less than 48 hours, or (ii)
restrict benefits for any hospital length of stay in connection with childbirth for the
mother or newborn child, following a caesarean section, to less than 96 hours; copayments and deductibles are as applicable as always.
Art. 10 Reports
§138 Records
A. State agencies and non-profit corporations shall compile the following records taking
care to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the personally identifying records under
5USCI(5)II§552a(b) that states, “No agency shall disclose any record which is contained
in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another
agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the
individual to whom the record pertains”
(I) vital statistics (including records of marriage, birth, and divorce);
(II) State and local tax and revenue records (including information on residence address,
employer, income and assets);
(III) records concerning real and titled personal property;
(IV) records of occupational and professional licenses, and records concerning the
ownership and control of corporations, partnerships, and other business entities;
(V) employment security records;
(VI) records of agencies administering public assistance programs;
(VII) records of the motor vehicle department; and
(VIII) corrections records.
178
§139 Copies of yearly budgets filed with Auditor
A. Copies of all Trustee budgets for current poor relief shall, as finally adopted and
approved, be placed on file in the office of the county auditor and made accessible on the
Internet, as possible. If an additional appropriation for current poor relief is made:
1. a certified copy of the action of the township, city or county board in making the
additional appropriation; and
2. a certified copy of the order of the department approving the additional appropriation;
shall be filed in the office of the county auditor.
B. A trustee may not pay any poor relief order or claim in excess of the amount
appropriated for current poor relief purposes, except as otherwise provided by law.
C. The state auditor shall adopt uniform forms and necessary rules under this chapter to
make the method of budgeting and appropriating poor relief money uniform in all
counties.
§140 Census Report and Recommendation
A. As soon as the trustee has completed the financial, compliance, economy, and
efficiency audits the trustee shall make a report to the board or trustees. The report must
include the following:
1. The findings of the financial, compliance, economy, and efficiency audits.
2. An estimate of the overall poor relief needs of the community
3. An itemization of claims made in the previous year
4. A proposed operating budget for the poor relief trustee's office.
5. An estimate of future operating costs for poor relief.
6. The amount of outstanding poor relief bonds issued and loans incurred by the county
and advancements made by the county.
7. The maximum permissible poor relief tax levy.
B. Upon receipt of the required report the board of trustees shall adopt the following:
1. An operating budget for the trustee's office.
2. A financial plan that will ensure that future revenue will do the following:
a. Cover operating expenses and pay poor relief claims.
b. Satisfy the outstanding valid and reasonable claims of creditors.
c. Retire outstanding bonded indebtedness, the proceeds of which were advanced to the
distressed township, and repay outstanding loans or advances made for poor relief in the
distressed township within three (3) years.
C. If the county fiscal body submits a financial plan, the board of trustees shall review the
plan and determine, in writing, whether it wants to adopt the fiscal body's plan.
179
§141 Quarterly reports
A. To keep in sync with the Internal Revenues Service, the trustees shall compile
quarterly financial reports that account for the operations of the quarter;
1.
2.
3.
4.
the total number of claims processed and result- approval or denial;
the total number of claims paid and how much,
administrative costs;
payroll information;
B. Quarterly reports shall be forwarded to the state auditor and appropriate state
administration to permit the state to make reasonable estimates to avoid overpayment or
underpayment by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Social Security
Commissioner who administrate on a quarterly basis to the states Sec. 405
42USC(7)IVA§605.
§142 Health corporation reports
A. For the purposes of reporting the cost of services provided by, of planning, and of
measuring and comparing the efficiency of and effective use of services in, hospitals,
skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, home health agencies, health
maintenance organizations, and other types of health services facilities and organizations
to which payment may be made each such type of health services facility or organization,
a uniform system for the reporting by a facility or organization of that type of the
following information:
1. The aggregate cost of operation and the aggregate volume of services.
2. The costs and volume of services for various functional accounts and subaccounts.
3. Rates, by category of patient and class of purchaser.
4. Capital assets, as defined by the Secretary, including (as appropriate) capital funds,
debt service, lease agreements used in lieu of capital funds, and the value of land,
facilities, and
equipment.
5. Discharge and bill data.
B. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consolidate and total these health
corporation reports in order to make a national annual report to Congress under Sec. 1161
42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-10.
C. In Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates PC v. Wells No. 01-1435 (2003) the Court
recognized that the small size of many health corporation makes it difficult for them to
keep up on current legislative regulations and the intricacies of non-discrimination law
and that their role as both employer and employee in indistinct and in cases of a dispute
they should be given the benefit of the doubt due to their small size.
§143 Distressed township supplemental poor relief fund Report
180
A. When a township is particularly economically distressed a thorough report of the
population and living conditions is required to elicit support from the state; the report
must contain;
1. an accurate description of the location of this township;
2. an accurate census of the township;
3. an estimate of how many people live below the poverty line;
4. a list of non-profit corporations and government agencies working in the area;
5. a description of the development needs of the distressed township;
6. a plan of action to address the specific needs of the distressed township;
7. an estimate as to the cost of this grant and how it would be spent.
B. The report shall establish a distressed township supplemental poor relief fund to assist
economically the reported distressed townships, who demonstrate that their community
lives substantially below the poverty line. The treasurer of state shall administer the fund.
(a) State support provided from the distressed township supplemental poor relief fund: (1)
is supplemental to other financing for poor relief; (2) may be used to satisfy poor relief
claims incurred during the period the management committee is in control of the
township trustee's office.
C. The distressed township supplemental poor relief fund consists of appropriations made
to the fund by the general assembly. Interest earned on the money in the fund remains in
the fund. The balance remaining in the fund at the end of a state fiscal year remains in the
fund and does not revert to the state general fund.
§144 Annual statistical report
A. The annual public report of a welfare agency should regularly report such things as;
1. The total number of requests for assistance.
2. The total number of poor relief recipients.
3. The total value and type of benefits provided poor relief recipients.
4. The total number of poor relief recipients receiving utility assistance.
5. The total value of benefits provided for the payment of utilities.
6. The total number of poor relief recipients receiving housing assistance.
7. The total value of benefits provided for housing assistance.
8. The total number of poor relief recipients receiving food assistance.
9. The total value of food assistance provided.
10. The total number of poor relief recipients provided health care.
11. The total value of health care provided.
181
12. The total number of burials and cremations.
13. The total value of burials and cremations.
14. The total number of nights of emergency shelter provided to the homeless.
15. The total number of referrals of poor relief applicants to other programs.
16. The total number of hours of training programs or.
17. The total number of job placements found for poor relief recipients.
18. The total number of scholarship granted by the poor relief trustee
19. The total value of scholarships granted by the poor relief trustee
B. If the total number or value of any item required to be reported under this subsection is
zero (0), the township trustee shall include the notation "0" in the report where the total
number or value is required to be reported.
C. The annual report must be furnished to the public upon request.
§145 Annual reports to Congress
A. Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the
current and projected financial status of the two programs in April. The Trustees are
required to Report to the Congress not later than the first day of April of each year on the
operation and status of the Trust Fund during the preceding fiscal year and on its
expected operation and status during the current fiscal year and the next 2 fiscal years.
They are to Report immediately to the Congress whenever the Board is of the opinion
that the amount of the Trust Fund is unduly small, less than 20% of the budget. The
Trustees also review the general policies followed in managing the Trust Fund, and
recommend changes in such policies, including necessary changes in the provisions of
law which govern the way in which the Trust Fund is to be managed.
B. Annual Reports under Sec. 1161 42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-10 require the Secretary shall
submit to the Congress not later than April 1 of each year, a full and complete report on
the administration, impact, and cost of the program.
1. April fool’s day is not a federal holiday. SSA cannot afford to be played for a fool
anymore. Congress, with the consent of the SSA and Medicare Actuaries,
Commissioners and Trustees must select a more appropriate date in 2016, preferably
earlier in the year, perhaps March 1, for National Social Work Month, with which to
amend Sec. 1161 of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-10
Art. 11 System of National Accounts
§146 National Accounts
A. The 1993 System of National Accounts (SNA) calculates the GDP in table 2.4 at
Section 2.222
182
1. Gross domestic product (GDP) at market prices = Output + taxes, less subsidies on
products – intermediate consumption.
2. Gross domestic product (GDP) at market prices = Final consumption expenditure/
actual final consumption + changes in inventories + gross fixed capital formation +
acquisitions less disposals of valuables + exports of goods and services - imports of
goods and services.
B. Levels of GDP or, alternatively, gross national income (GNI) per head in different
countries are used by international organizations to determine eligibility for loans, aid or
other funds or to determine the terms or conditions on which such loans, aid or funds are
made available.
1. GDP is a measure of production. Levels of GDP or, alternatively, gross national
income (GNI) per head in different countries are also used by international organizations
to determine eligibility for loans, aid or other funds or to determine the terms or
conditions on which such loans, aid or funds are made available. When the objective is
to compare the volumes of goods or services produced or consumed per head, data in
national currencies must be converted into a common currency by means of purchasing
power parities and not exchange rates. The level of production is important because it
largely determines how much a country can afford to consume and it also affects the level
of employment. The consumption of goods and services, both individually and
collectively, is one of the most important factors influencing the welfare of a community,
but it is only one of several factors. There are also others, such as epidemics, natural
disasters or wars that can have major negative impacts on welfare, while others, such as
scientific discoveries, inventions or simply good weather, may have significant positive
impacts.
2. Since the Industrial Revolution which began in 1750 the era of modern economic
growth has led the GWP per capita to increase in a sustained basis, though in a very
uneven way across different regions of the world. A few of the world’s poorest countries
have not achieved the takeoff of modern economic growth that other countries
experienced two centuries ago. There are two kinds of economic growth. One kind of
growth is the growth of the world’s technological leaders. In the early nineteenth century
that was certainly England; in the middle to end of the nineteenth century, it was
Germany and the United States; in the twentieth century the United States was by far the
most technologically dynamic country in the world. The “technological leaders” had a
very particular kind of economic growth driven by relentless technological advance, in
which advances in one technology tend to spur advances in other technologies as well,
through new innovations and new combinations of processes. Economists call this kind
of growth endogenous growth meaning something that arises from within a system, rather
than from the outside. There is a second kind of economic growth, the growth of a
“laggard” country that for whatever reasons of history, politics, and geography lagged
behind as the technological leaders charged ahead. This kind of growth is very different
from endogenous growth. It is sometimes called “catch-up” growth. The technologies
that fuel it come from outside the economy engaged in rapid catching up. The essence of
the import strategy is to import technologies from abroad rather than develop them at
183
home. Catch-up growth can be considerably faster than endogenous growth.
Technological leaders have tended to grow at around 1-2 percent per capita, while the
fastest catching up countries, like South Korea and China, have enjoyed per capita GDP
growth of 5-10 percent per annum. No technological leader has ever sustained such rapid
growth rates, and no laggard country has sustained them after the point of catching up
with the leading countries. Super-rapid growth is about closing gaps, not about inventing
wholly new economic systems or technologies. The failure to recognize the fundamental
differences between endogenous growth and catch-up growth has led to all sorts of
confusion in the discussion of economic development. The age of information and
communication technology (ICT) has given rise to the new “knowledge economy” in
which massive amounts of data can be stored, processed, and transmitted globally for use
in just about every sector of the economy. The invention and spread of mobile phones,
and now smartphones and other handheld devices, has made the ICT revolution also a
mobile revolution, wherein information can readily reach every nook and cranny of the
planet. The ICT revolution builds on waves of scientific and technological innovations.
B. Total welfare depends on many other factors besides the amounts of goods and
services consumed. Apart from natural events such as epidemics, droughts or floods,
welfare also depends on political factors, such as freedom and security and inventions
making improvement to the quality of life. Obviously, as a measure of production, GDP
is not intended to embrace non-economic events, such as political revolutions, wars,
natural disasters or epidemics. GDP may also be expected to rise in response to natural
disasters and wars. "Economic welfare depends on the psychic enjoyment of life," not
just the production of goods. Neither gross nor net domestic product is a measure of
welfare. No different value judgments are attached to certain goods or services in
comparison with others: a given amount of tobacco consumption is equivalent to the
same amount of milk consumption; the same is true for education and defense, etc.
1. GNI is equal to GDP less taxes (less subsidies) on production and imports,
compensation of employees and property income payable to the rest of the world plus the
corresponding items receivable from the rest of the world. Thus GNI at market prices is
the sum of gross primary incomes receivable by residents. It is worth noting that GNI at
market prices was called gross national product in the 1953 SNA, and it is commonly
denominated GNP. In contrast to GDP, GNI is not a concept of value added, but a
concept of income (primary income). Gross national disposable income is equal to GNI at
market prices. Gross national disposable income measures the income available to the
nation for final consumption and gross saving. National disposable income is the sum of
disposable income of all resident.
C. SNA reveals that SNA is the system used for reporting to international or
supranational organizations national accounts data that conform to standard,
internationally accepted concepts, definitions and classifications. The resulting data are
widely used for international comparisons of the volumes of major aggregates, such as
GDP or GDP per head, and also for comparisons of structural statistics, such as ratios of
investment, taxes or government expenditures to GDP.
184
1. Such comparisons are used by economists, journalists and other analysts to evaluate
the performance of one economy against that of other similar economies. They can
influence popular and political judgments about the relative success of economic
programs in the same way as developments over time within a single country. Databases
consisting of sets of national accounts for groups of countries can also be used for
econometric analyses in which time-series and cross-section data are pooled to provide a
broader range of observations for the estimation of functional relationships. Useful as
they are as a source of information for anybody in charge with macroeconomic
governance tasks, National Accounts can also be misused in the context of governance.
D. Philosophy regarding the calculating of national accounts is attributed to have been
founded by William Petty (1623-1687), whom Marx lauded as ‘father of Political
Economy, and to some extent the founder of Statistics’, who was the first to provide
rough estimates of ‘national income’ in his Political Arithmetick that appeared in print
posthumously in 1690. This remarkable work is considered crucial for national
accounting up to the present day. Not only does Petty acknowledge that ‘The Labour of
the People’ is the source of national income, which is echoed in modern ‘Production
Accounts’, but he also estimates the division of national income between wages, rents,
interest, and profit; and opposes this with the disposition of income by giving an estimate
of annual domestic consumption expenses. For the next two hundred years, progress in
national accounting was slow.
1. François Quesnay’s Tableau économique (of 1766) envisaged exchanges in an
economy as a circular flow, was a precursor of later Input- Output-Tables that now form
a part of National Accounts. Also, there was an important contribution coming from
Adam Smith who, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), laid emphasis on productive
activities that ‘fix themselves’ in commodities rather than services. This concept was
later adopted by Karl Marx (although the theory of the latter, in principle, does not
preclude the provision of services from being productive as long as it is organized along
capitalist lines and thus yields surplus value) and became the basis of the ‘Material
Product System’ of National Accounts prevalent in the Soviet Union and other
communist countries – even in France, for some time. It was only later under the
influence of Alfred Marshall that production was fully understood to include the
provision of services; and this concept was adopted by the United Nations in their
recommendations for compiling National Accounts.
2. Two incidents fostered the final breakthrough of national accounting: first, J. M.
Keynes’s General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) encouraged
thinking in terms of macroeconomic aggregates such as consumption and investment
demand. Contrary to post-Keynesian college economics textbooks, Keynes did not
advocate for random subsidies, that he called “unpredictable”. Also, Keynes proposed an
appropriate delineation for these aggregates to show that production, distribution and
appropriation aspects of national income are in fact inextricably interwoven. The final
impetus for National Accounts came from the outbreak of World War II. In urgent need
of a reliable basis for its war budgets, the British government advised economists at the
Central Statistical Office to prepare a set of income and expenditure estimates. The chief
185
impetus to the development of economic accounts has come from central governments,
which probably remain their chief users. By monitoring economic movements, policymaking agencies including the central bank can see if they are on track with respect to
national objectives regarding growth, price inflation, the trade balance, unemployment,
and so on, and, if not, they can take appropriate actions.
3. National Accounts are the main source of information about the state of the economy.
Their data serve as input for growth predictions and business cycle forecasts, which are
usually made with the help of intricate econometric models and techniques. Also,
medium-term budgeting is typically done within the framework of National Accounts. It
has to be stressed, though, that National Accounts synthesize data usually. If, in a
country, fiscal policy follows an activist approach, then it will react to an unsatisfactory
growth or business cycle outlook by taking discretionary measures.
§147 Balanced Budget Amendment
A. Strong revenues, together with spending restraint, are critical to the task of reducing
the deficit to balance the budget. The budget process of the federal government is led by
the President who is responsible for presenting a balanced budget for the State of the
Union address under Art. 2 Section 3 of the US Constitution and 31USC(11)§1105
whereby the President must submit his/her budget to Congress after the first week of
January and before the first week of February every year and §1106 whereby the
President must submit and supplemental or additional budgeting changes and reappraisements to Congress before July 16th of every year and 1USC(2)§105 whereby 30
September appropriations occur for the next fiscal year beginning 1 October. A balanced
budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been proposed by several Congresses.
For a balanced budget amendment to be worth a constitutional amendment it is
hypothesized that the Congress must both: (1) produce the mythical balanced budget they
hold in their undocumented $666 disability beneficiary, who asks for his square $1,000 a
month to afford the search engine oligopoly, and (2) for the first time annotate the
constitution with a footnote to the Supreme law, and repeal and replace the Second
Amendment, with a balanced budget amendment, so aggrieved Americans might be left
with the peace to sue the government for money in writing.
1. Congress is responsible for balancing the budget under Art. 1 Section 7 and Art. 1
Section 9 Clause 7 that states, No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of
the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
The goal of a balanced budget is settled law in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public
Law 105-33) that was improved in the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999.
Congress is responsible for establishing spending limits to reduce the deficit under
2USC(20)§901.
B. The power of Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States is however
conferred by the Constitution at Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 2 and Sec. 4 of the 14th Amendment to
186
the US Constitution wherefore it has been determined that a Constitutional Amendment is
needed as the result of the supremacy clause.
1. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had granted to the Continental
Congress the power to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States,
transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so
borrowed or emitted.
2. Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 of the Constitution grants to the United States Congress
the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.
3. At the time that the Constitution came into effect, the United States had a significant
debt, primarily associated with the Revolutionary War. As early as 1798, Thomas
Jefferson wrote,
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be
willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government;
I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.
I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know
that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But
not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion;
besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas.
4. Although Jefferson made a point of seeking a balanced budget during the early years of
his administration, he seems to have later reversed himself, to effect the Louisiana
Purchase. But note also that he made no exception for war, but rather saw the
requirement of maintaining a balanced budget as a salutary deterrent.
5. The issue of the federal debt was next addressed by the Constitution within Section 4
of the Fourteenth Amendment (proposed on 13 June 1866 and ratified on 9 July 1868):
whereby the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including
debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
C. Several balanced budget Amendments have been proposed however no one proposed
Amendment has been agreed to. Four follow,
1. The text of the version presented to the Senate and to the House of Representatives
which (after revision) was approved by the Senate (by a vote of 69 to 31) on 4 August
1982 but supported by an inadequate majority of the House of Representatives (with a
vote of 236 to 187) on 1 October 1982:
Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress shall adopt a statement of receipts and
outlays for that year in which total outlays are no greater than total receipts. The
Congress may amend such statement provided revised outlays are not greater than revised
receipts. Whenever three-fifths of the whole number of both Houses shall deem it
187
necessary, Congress in such statement may provide for a specific excess of outlays over
receipts by a vote directly to that subject. The Congress and the President shall ensure
that actual outlays do not exceed the outlays set forth in such statement.
Section 2. Total receipts for any fiscal year set forth in the statement adopted pursuant to
this article shall not increase by a rate greater than the rate of increase in national income
in the last calendar year ending before such fiscal year, unless a majority of the whole
number of both Houses of Congress shall have passed a bill directed solely to approving
specific additional receipts and such bill has become law.
Section 3. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in
which a declaration of war is in effect.
Section 4. The Congress may not require that the states engage in additional activities
without compensation equal to the additional costs.
Section 5. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those
derived from borrowing and total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States
except those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 6. This article shall take effect for the second fiscal year beginning after its
ratification.
2. Here is a version introduced into the House of Representatives with 160 sponsors on 7
January 1997:
Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal
year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by
law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be
increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for
such an increase by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a
proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total
outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of
the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in
which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for
any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an
imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint
188
resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes
law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate
legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except
those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States
Government except for those for repayment of debt principal. The receipts (including
attributable interest) and outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and the
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds (as and if modified to preserve the solvency of
the Funds) used to provide old age, survivors, and disabilities benefits shall not be
counted as receipts or outlays for purposes of this article.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second
fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.
3. On 17 February 2005, a similar measure to that of 7 January 1997 was introduced with
24 sponsors, differing in these sections:
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate
legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts. The appropriate
committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate shall report to their respective
Houses implementing legislation to achieve a balanced budget without increasing the
receipts or reducing the disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund to achieve that goal.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except
those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States
Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year
beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2009.
4. And on 13 July 2005, with 123 sponsors, a version whose first five sections were as
those of the previous two above, but which continued thus:
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate
legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except
those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States
Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year
beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2010.
189
D. It is therefore resolved to draft a shorter XXVIII Amendment whereby:
Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal
year in order to balance the federal budget.
Section 2. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a
proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total
outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 3. The Congress shall enforce and implement a balanced budget by appropriate
legislation.
E. Congressman Goodlatte introduced a balanced budget amendment in the 112th
Congress that provides:
Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal
year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by
law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be
increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for
such an increase by a roll-call vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a
proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total
outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of
the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in
which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for
any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an
imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint
resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes
law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate
legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except
those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States
Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
190
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year
beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.
§148 Accounting fraud
A. The federal government usually runs on a deficit, with some famous exceptions, such
as when Andrew Jackson paid off the federal debt in 1835 and more recently when Bill
Clinton ran a surplus in 1998-2000, and is currently running the highest deficit in dollar
terms in national history, -$1.4 trillion in 2009, and -$1.3 trillion in 2010, 2011 and 2012
and is projected to improve to -$900 million in 2013. This deficit is the second highest as
a percentage of GDP since WWII and the Confederacy during the Civil War. Currently
the federal budget teeters on the brink of the European definition of a solvent 3% deficit
at around -$500 billion. The gross federal debt is scheduled by OMB to reach 104.8% in
FY2012 and 107.4% in 2013 unless the United States can learn to account for a federal
debt less than 100% of GDP, CBO provides much lower estimates in the 70% of GDP
range, and after adding the annual federal budget deficit up over the years the actual legal
public debt may be even lower still. It is quite possible to balance the federal budget in
2017 with the surplus revenues from passing an OASDI tax without income limit law
(WILL) on the rich in 2017 instead of waiting until 2035 when the OASI Trust Fund will
be as wretched as the DI trust fund is projected to be in 2016.
1. The OASDI tax rate must be retroactively right from January 1, 2016 – 2.4% DI and
10.0% OASI at no cost to taxpayers. The Free DIRT Act is a matter of existence for the
DI Trust Fund under current actuarial law. If the DI tax rate is not reallocated to a level
of 2.4% in 2016 the DI trust fund will not have any funds and will not produce any
interest beginning sometime in 2016. For all intents and purposes the DI Trust Fund will
be depleted and no longer viable as a trust fund. The Commissioner may fill in the
blanks in DI Trust Fund Figure IV.A.2 and promise that current benefits and moderate
benefit growth will be paid by the OASI Trust Fund that is not expected to show a deficit
in 2019 or 2020. The DI tax rate has been running on a deficit since 2009 and it takes a
week to calculate the multiple tax rates for the first time since 2000. The Commissioner
is responsible for getting the OASDI tax rates right.
B. There is no other need to delay taxing the rich 33 percent of their income. By acting
now, instead of a maximum taxable limit there will be a maximum allowable on-budget
federal deficit. In terms of the Social Security fund, if it needs shoring up, currently
there’s a cap. It’s around $118,500 (2015), above which no OASDI taxes are paid. It is
preliminarily ruled up to 90% of the surplus profits of social security off-budget revenues
may be appropriated for use by the General Fund to balance the federal budget, pay
benefits and save OASDI. By abolishing the OASDI Income Cap on Contributions the
United States OASDI could save and the federal budget could be balanced with up to
90% of surplus revenues. Solvency at any point in time requires that sufficient financial
resources are available to pay all scheduled benefits at that time. Solvency is generally
indicated by a positive trust fund ratio. “Sustainable solvency” for the financing of the
program under a specified set of assumptions has been achieved when the projected trust
fund ratio is positive throughout the 75-year projection period and is either stable or
191
rising at the end of the period. For the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds to remain
solvent throughout the 75-year projection period it is estimated: (1) revenues would have
to increase by an amount equivalent to an immediate and permanent payroll tax rate
increase of 2.83 percentage points (from its current level of 12.40 percent to 15.23
percent; a relative increase of 22.8 percent). With a WILL OASDI may or may not need
to raise taxes in 2035 and is estimated to rise to only 13.58% of the expanded taxable
payroll in 2090.
1. Equality relies upon the accuracy of OMB Table 4.1 Outlays by Agency and OASDI
Table IV.A1-3 in millions of dollars. The Actuary’s letter to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) titled, ‘Potential Reallocation of the Payroll Tax Rate
Between the Disability Insurance (DI) Program and the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
(OASI) Program’ dated February 5, 2015 was wrong to use the actuarial DI shortfall
statistic of 2.7% proposed by the President. The exact same mistake is corrected by this
edition. Now that the math is done OMB and the SSA Actuary would now be ready to
synchronize their books, if a mathematically sustainable budget and/or trust fund account,
did not require that accounting fraud be first abolished as a moral pre-requisite. One
scenario where Congress might not want to pay the full 12.4% OASDI WILL, but
definitely would want to pay the DI WILL to save the DI Trust Fund and potentially pay
the Postal Service, if the 130% growth in revenues is as high as expected at the
reallocated 2.3% rate, is if OMB is unable to abolish the Allowances and Other Defense
Civil Columns row (2009-2015 for $360 billion in debt relief, older years are concealed
in and must be subtracted from undistributed off-setting receipts for a zero sum). A
second, even more likely scenario, is where Congress might want to save the DI Trust
Fund from depletion in 2016, but not want to pay full price for an OASI WILL to balance
the federal budget in 2017, is because the Actuary is unable to agree with the
mathematics of the Free DIRT Act and therefore morally unfit for tax-base expansion,
and a new Actuary has not yet been found. A third scenario in which Congress might be
expected to escrow their OASI portion of the tax dispute with the long-term, maybe
permanent, $500 billion DoD and $1 trillion HHS spending limits, while praying for 3%
income growth in these departments. Federal employees in all other departments shall
aim to achieve a 3% annual increase in income from a 2% annual increase in federal
spending.
C. The accounting fraud theory is that the Other Defense Civil Programs row was
invented in 2007 against undistributed offsetting receipts which were withdrawn 2009present to inflate the deficit and debt. The Allowance for Immigration Reform revenues
row cannot pass Congress and the Allowances row is a completely fraudulent attempt to
account for future disaster insurance that must be abolished. A federal judge in Texas has
issued a temporary order for several new immigration programs to stop-payment. The
Allowance for Immigration Reform revenue row and the Allowances rows are a
completely fraudulent attempt to account for future disaster insurance that must be
abolished. Customs revenues have already been downgraded accordingly in the
Historical Tables and HHS does not turn a profit for the first time in 2015, and maybe
never will. A federal judge in Texas has issued a temporary order for several new
192
immigration programs to stop-payment. The Supreme Court aims to protect
undocumented and resident alien non-criminals with words instead of subsidies.
Fig. 47 Removal of Allowance for Immigration Reform revenue proposal and
Allowances from OMB Outlays by Agency Table, Changes to Total Outlays 20142019
[in millions of dollars]
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Allowance for
n/a
n/a
2,000
12,000
28,000
39,000
Immigration
Reform
revenues
proposal,
abolished
Allowances,
1,875
46,044
56,371
64,070
68,028
29,085
abolished
Total Outlays
3,650,526 3,900,989 4,099,078 4,268,606 4,443,145 4,728,791
Revised Total
3,650,665 3,856,960 4,044,723 4,206,553 4,377,135 4,701,725
Outlays
Source: Undistributed Allowance for Immigration Reform Table 2.5 Composition of
Other Receipts 1940-2020; Allowances Table 4.1 Outlays by Agency 1962-2020
1. It is necessary to abolish the new Allowances row, $0 FY2000, jumping to $46 billion
FY2015, after beginning as a duplicate HHS payment for child refugees valued at $1,875
million in gross federal debt relief FY2014 and $46 billion FY2015 from repealing the
Allowances row from the OMB Outlays by Agency Table, as a matter of fact, that can be
decided by a jury. OMB flippantly explains in one sentence, no longer published, that the
Allowances row pays for Disaster insurance futures. However, the Disaster Insurance
Cap is only about $7 FY 2015 and seems to be paid for off-budget with Customs
revenues. The Allowances row is fictitious and needs to be abolished from the Agency
Outlays Table. The Allowances for Immigration Reform proposal was intended to
mathematically offset the fictitious cost of the fictitious Allowances row but has almost
no likelihood of passing Congress as neither the Congressional proposal nor the
Allowances agency spending row has any basis in fact. The Allowances row amounts to
one count of disaster insurance fraud under 18USC§1040 for Obama. The threatened
embezzlement of Customs employees is one count of bank fraud 18USC§1344 for the
Republican Congress. Congressional power of the purse must not be abused in this way.
Bank fraud and disaster insurance fraud are both subject to a fine and up to 30 years in
prison, the harshest sentences for fraud.
D. Other Defense Civil Programs row was first noted in 2010 as miscellaneous row of
military retirement, base construction, Arlington National Cemetery and Armed Forces
Retirement Home, that are all for the most part self-sufficient on payroll contributions,
resident fees, fines and forfeitures under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Veterans
Administration (VA) and Hospitals & Asylums (HA) statute. The academic law
193
pertaining to the termination of fraudulent war contracts, 41USC101(f) has been replaced
with a definition of “Agency”, which, in my opinion, even more definitively excludes
both the Other Defense Civil Programs and Allowances rows from distorting OMB Table
4.1 Outlays by Agency anymore. It is the Outlays by Agency Table which distinguishes
OMB from CBO critics in regards to OMBs unique ability to serve as a foundation for
debt relief agency budget historical reporting accuracy under Art. 2(2)(1) of the U.S,
Constitution, because CBO doesn’t account for agency spending and must extrapolate
from OMB totals. The extensive changes to the undistributed offsetting receipts from
1962- present that would be incurred by abolishing the Other Defense Civil Programs
row are calculated in this Word document. It would be an simple matter for the President
to request the OMB Director to abolish the Other Defense Civil Programs and
Allowances rows, recalculate the undistributed offsetting receipts (in this case 19622008), total outlays, on-budget outlays, deficit, deficit % of GDP, to reduce the debt by
$360 billion, and debt % of GDP accordingly, in one day’s work, if there is adequate
agreement regarding these facts between the layman opinion of the jury and generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
Fig. 48 Changes made Removing of the Other Defense Civil Programs Row from
OMB Table 4.1 Agency Spending 1962-2019: Changes to Undistributed Offsetting
Receipts 1962-2008, Total Outlays, 2009-present
[in millions of dollars]
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
Other
956
Defense Civil
Programs,
abolished
1,077
1,287
1,465
1,681
1,937
Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
On-budget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Onbudget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
-6,707
-7,274
-7,321
-7,677
-8,443
-9,578
-5,751
-6,197
-6,034
-6,212
-6,762
-7,641
-5,878
-6,450
-6,435
-6,746
-7,464
-8,371
-4,922
-5,373
-5,148
-5,281
-5,783
-6,434
194
Total Outlays
106,821
111,316
118,528
118,228
134,532
157,464
Year
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Other
2,206
Defense Civil
Programs,
abolished
2,557
2,974
3,510
4,002
4,505
Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
On-budget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Onbudget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Total Outlays
-10,712
-11,087
-12,567
-14,869
-14,672
-18,846
-8,506
-8,530
-9,593
-11,359
-10,670
-14,341
-9,289
-9,407
-10,362
-12,288
-11,909
-15,870
-24,095
-23,910
-26,574
-31,496
-29,247
-40,047
178,134
183,640
195,649
210,172
230,681
245,707
Year
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Other
5,216
Defense Civil
Programs,
abolished
6,319
7,358
8,251
9,203
10,315
Total
-23,333
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Total -18,117
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
On-budget
-20,048
Undistributed
Offsetting
-21,267
-22,186
-23,018
-24,250
-27,428
-14,948
-14,828
-14,767
-15,047
-17,113
-17,547
-18,411
-19,390
-20,788
-24,089
195
Receipts
Revised Onbudget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Total Outlays
-14,832
-11,228
-11,053
-11,139
-11,585
-13,774
269,359
332,332
371,792
409,218
458,746
504,028
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Other
11,961
Defense Civil
Programs,
abolished
13,788
14,997
16,004
16,536
15,809
Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
On-budget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Onbudget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Total Outlays
-31,988
-41,852
-42,165
-51,078
-52,329
-58,656
-20,027
-28,064
-27,168
-35,074
-35,793
-42,847
-28,445
-38,134
-38,448
-47,455
-46,975
-52,029
-16,484
-24,346
-23,451
-31,451
-30,439
-36,220
590,941
678,241
745,743
808,364
851,805
946,344
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Other
17,483
Defense Civil
Programs,
abolished
17,962
19,039
20,230
21,690
23,238
Total
-65,036
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Total -47,553
-72,262
-78,789
-89,074
-98,930
-110,005
-54,300
-59,750
-68,844
-77,240
-86,767
Year
196
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
On-budget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Onbudget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Total Outlays
-57,850
-63,672
-66,992
-72,822
-77,371
-83,979
-40,367
-45,710
-47,953
-52,592
-55,681
-60,741
990,382
1,004,017 1,064,416 1,143,744
1,252,99
3
1,324,226
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Other
24,746
Defense Civil
Programs,
abolished
25,957
26,969
27,972
28,947
30,279
Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
On-budget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Onbudget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Total Outlays
-117,111
-119,711
-123,469
-137,632
-134,997
-154,969
-92,365
-93,754
-96,500
-109,660
-106,050
-124,690
-87,372
-86,507
-87,857
-97,895
-92,212
-107,272
-62,626
-60,550
-60,888
-69,923
-63,265
-76,993
1,381,529 1,409,386 1,461,753 1,515,742
1,560,48
4
1,601,116
Year
1998
Year
Other
31,204
Defense Civil
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
31,987
32,801
34,131
35,136
39,874
197
Programs,
abolished
Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
On-budget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Onbudget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Total Outlays
-161,034
-159,036
-173,019
-191,125
-200,706
-210,449
-129,830
-127,049
-140,218
-156,994
-165,570
-170,575
-107,353
-99,581
-105,586
-114,404
-115,009
-117,303
-76,149
-67,594
-72,785
-80,273
-79,873
-77,429
1,652,458 1,701,842 1,788,950 1,862,846
2,010,89
4
2,159,899
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Other
41,726
Defense Civil
Programs,
abolished
43,481
44,435
47,112
45,785
57,276
Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
On-budget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Revised Onbudget
Undistributed
Offsetting
-212,526
-226,213
-237,548
-260,206
-277,791
-274,193
-170,800
-182,732
-193,113
-213,094
-232,006
n/a not
revised,
see outlays
-114,967
-123,436
-128,201
-141,904
-150,928
-142,013
-73,241
-79,955
-83,766
-94,792
-105,143
n/a, not
revised,
see outlays
198
Receipts
Total Outlays
2,292,841 2,471,957 2,655,050 2,728,686
2,982,54
4
3,517,677
Revised Total n/a
Outlays
Year
2010
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3,460,401
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Other
54,032
Defense Civil
Programs,
abolished
54,775
77,313
56,811
57,877
57,368
Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
On-budget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Total Outlays
-267,886
-276,478
-230,682
-249,450
-248,782
-248,437
-134,448
-145,398
-102,697
-127,632
-132,846
-136,208
3,457,079 3,603,059 3,537,127 3,454,605
3,650,52
6
3,900,989
Revised Total 3,403,047 3,548,284 3,459,814 3,397,794
Outlays
3,592,64
9
3,843,621
Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
Other
62,907
Defense Civil
Programs,
abolished
60,315
57,207
63,574
Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
On-budget
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Total Outlays
-254,938
-253,885
-254,541
-258,647
-145,297
-144,639
-145,067
-148,630
4,099,078 4,268,606 4,443,145 4,728,791
Revised Total 4,036,171 4,208,291 4,385,938 4,665,217
Outlays
Source: OMB Table 4.1 Agency Spending (millions of dollars) 1962-2019
199
1. The Other Defense – Civil Programs row from the Outlays by Agency table needs to
be abolished to take $57,368 million off the FY 2015 deficit. The Other Defense Civil
Program row is a duplicate of military construction, and triplicate some military
retirement, Arlington National Cemetery and the Armed Forces Retirement Home, being
protected in part under Hospitals & Asylums (HA) statute and also off-budget by the
Defense, VA and resident fees. In 2012, as OMB Director Lew mistakenly attempted to
reduce VA spending and there was a commensurate decrease in undistributed off-setting
receipts as military retirement overfunding was not returned and of course an increase in
this fraud to a peak of $77 billion. It is hypothesized that abolishing the Other Defense
Civil Programs row from the on-budget and total undistributed offsetting receipts rows
before 2009 and on-budget 2009-present would reduce the FY 2015 deficit by $57.4
billion and the federal debt by $358,084 million FY 2009-2014, $360 billion to make a
down payment on avoiding 100% of GDP debt.
Fig. 49 Reduction to Total Outlays from Abolishing Allowances and Other Defense
Civil Program Rows from the Outlays by Agency Table 2009-2019
Year
2009
2010
2011
Other
57.3
54
54.8
Defense
Civil
Programs
Allowances 0
0
0
Total Fraud -57.3
-54
-54.8
Total
3,518
3,457
3,603
Outlays
Revised
3,461
3,403
3,548
Total
Outlays
Year
2015
2016
2017
Other
57.4
62.9
60.3
Defense
Civil
Programs
Allowances 46
56.4
64.1
Total Fraud -103.4
-119.3
-124.4
Total
3,901
4,099
4,269
Outlays
Revised
3,798
3,980
4,145
Total
Outlays
Source: OMB Table 4.1 Outlays by Agency
2012
-77.3
2013
56.8
2014
57.9
0
-77.3
3,537
0
-56.8
3,455
1.9
-59.8
3,651
3,460
3,398
3,591
2018
57.2
2019
63.6
2020
68
-125.2
4,443
29.1
-92.7
4,728
4,318
4,635
E. Abolishing the Other Defense Civil Programs and $1.9 billion 2014 Allowances rows
from the OMB Outlay by Agency table would prove $360 billion in debt relief FY 20092014 and $103.4 billion in deficit and debt relief FY 2015. The size of this accounting
200
fraud increased dramatically in 2015 to $103 billion from $60 billion in 2014, because of
the sudden increase of the Allowances row from $1.9 billion in 2014 to $46 billion. The
Allowances row is prophesied to reach a high of $68 billion in 2018 before subsiding to
$30 billion in 2019. The Allowances row is not difficult to remove. The current OMB
accounting of the Allowances for Immigration Reform no longer distorts the margins of
Other Revenues. The only double-ledger accounting that would be incurred by removing
the Allowances column is that total outlays would be reduced, which carries over into the
total outlays and deficit, on-budget outlays and deficit and ultimately can reduce the gross
federal debt by adequately proven dangling debt. The dangling debt of the Allowances
row is calculated in addition to the Other Defense Civil Programs fraud. Together,
abolishing the Allowances and Other Defense Civil Programs rows reduces total outlays
in the Outlays by Agency table, making a modest historical reduction in total and onbudget outlays and total and on-budget deficits in the Revenues, Outlays, and Surplus or
Deficit table since 2009. Before 2009 it is believed that the cost of the Other Defense
Civil Programs row were cleverly offset by undistributed offsetting receipts, so as not to
change the historical totals or deficit that people remembered, but in 2009 the
undistributed offsetting receipts were removed and this fictitious federal spending
account began to charge a quantifiable amount of federal debt. It is somewhat tricky.
From 1962-2008 the total undistributed offsetting receipts and the on-budget
undistributed offsetting receipts, must be reduced by the amount of the Other Defense
Civil Programs row. From 2009 through present projections of the future, the
undistributed offsetting receipts are not changed. From 2009 the total outlays is the
double-ledger changed by abolishing the Other Defense Civil Programs and Allowances
rows. This results in some changes Table 1.1 Revenue, Outlays, Surplus or Deficit from
2009 reducing total outlays, on-budget outlays, total deficit and on-budget deficit.
Fig. 50 Changes to Total Outlays, On-budget Outlays, Total Deficit, On-budget
Deficit 2009-2019
[in billions]
Year
Total
Receipts
Total
Outlays
Revised
Total
Outlays
Total
Deficit
Revised
Total
Deficit
Year
Total
Receipts
2009
2,105
2010
2,163
2011
2,304
2012
2,450
2013
2,775
2014
3,022
3,518
3,457
3,603
3,537
3,455
3,506
3,461
3,403
3,548
3,460
3,398
3,446
-1,413
-1,294
-1,300
-1,087
-680
-485
-1,356
-1,240
-1,245
-1,010
-623
-425
2015
3,177
2016
3,525
2017
3,754
2018
3,944
2019
4,135
201
Total
3,759
4,000
4,218
4,423
4,653
Outlays
Revised
3,656
3,881
4,094
4,298
4,560
Total
Outlays
Total
-583
-474
-462
-479
-518
Deficit
Revised
-480
-355
-338
-354
-425
Total
Deficit
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
On-budget 1,451
1,531
1,738
1,881
2,102
2,286
Receipts
On-budget 3,001
2,902
3,105
3,029
2,821
2,800
Outlays
Revised
2,944
2,848
3,051
2,952
2,764
2,740
On-budget
spending
On-budget -1,550
-1,371
-1,367
-1,149
-719
-514
Deficit
Revised
-1,492.7
-1,317
-1,312.2
-1,071.7
-662.2
-454.2
On-budget
Deficit
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
On-budget 2,411
2,724
2,911
3,059
3,209
Receipts
On-budget 3,006
3,201
3,365
3,513
3,684
Outlays
Revised
2,903
3,082
3,241
3,388
3,591
On-budget
Outlays
On-budget -595
-477
-454
-453
-475
deficit
Revised
-491.6
-357.7
-329.6
-327.8
-382.3
On-budget
Deficit
Source: OMB Table 1.1 Summary of Receipts, Outlays, Surplus or Deficit, Total and Onbudget 1789-2020
F. The dangling debt from the Other Defense Civil Programs and Allowances rows
amounts to $360 billion debt reduction from 2009-2014 in both OMB and CBO debt
accounts and $103 billion in deficit reduction 2015. The compulsion to account for this
dangling debt is particularly acute in that it allows OMB avoids 100.6% of GDP debt in
2013, 103.2% in 2014, 102.7% in 2015, 100.3% in 2017 before going down to 98.8% in
2018. The revised debt peaks at a maximum of 100.1% billion in both 2014 and 2015
before receding as the result of GDP growth. CBO debt held by public estimates are in
202
fact more accurate than OMB gross federal debt estimates as a measure of the
indebtedness of the United States by definition that the debt is the amount of money the
US government owes creditors from whom it has borrowed to cover the deficit. The
government borrows money by issuing treasury bills, notes, and bonds. It also borrows
money from within the government, such as money from the Social Security Trust Fund.
Fig. 51 Gross Federal Debt and Debt Held by Public, Dangling Debt from
Allowances and Other Defense Civil Programs rows, Revised Debt, Compared as %
of GDP 2009-2019
Year
Gross
Federal
Debt
% of GDP
Dangling
Debt
Revised
Gross
Federal
Debt
% of GDP
Debt Held
by Public
% of GDP
Revised
Debt Held
by Public
% of GDP
GDP
Year
Debt
% of GDP
Dangling
Debt
Revised
Debt
% of GDP
Debt Held
by Public
% of GDP
Revised
Debt Held
by Public
% of GDP
GDP
2009
11,876
2010
13,529
2011
14,764
2012
16,051
2013
16,719
2014
17,893
82.4
-57
91.5
-111
96.0
-166
99.7
-243
100.6
-300
103.2
-360
11,819
13,418
14,598
15,808
16,419
17,533
82
7,545
90.7
9,019
94.9
10,128
98.2
11,281
98.8
11,983
100.1
12,779
52.3
7,488
60.9
8,908
65.9
9,962
70.4
11,038
72.3
11,683
74.1
12,419
52
14,415
2015
18,714
102.7
-469
60.2
14,791
2016
19,512
101.7
-588
64.7
15,387
2017
20,262
100.3
-712
68.6
16,094
2018
20,961
98.8
-837
72.1
16,619
2019
21,671
97.6
-930
71.7
17,332
18,245
18,924
19,550
20,124
20,741
100.1
13,305
98.7
13,927
96.8
14,521
94.9
15,135
93.4
15,850
74
12,836
73.6
13,339
73
13,809
72.8
14,298
73.1
14,920
70.4
18,219
69.5
19,181
68.4
20,199
67.4
21,216
67.2
22,196
203
Source: OMB Historical Table 1.1 and 1.2
1. Only when the Allowances and Other Defense Civil Programs rows are abolished from
OMB Table 4.1 Outlays by Agency will OMB be morally prepared to take on new
revenues. That is the test of competence for OMB. It is estimated that it would take the
OMB Director no more than eight hours to abolish the fictitious Allowances and Other
Defense Civil Programs rows and correct the book accordingly. Only then could OMB
hope to permanently balance the budget aiming for 2% on-budget agency spending
growth.
§148a On-budget agency rulings
A. In 2015 it is estimated OMB could reduce the deficit by $190.6 billion if OMB would
only report agency budget requests more accurately. This does not include the $103.4
billion that are also saved by abolishing the $57.4 billion Other Defense Civil Programs
and $46 billion Allowances rows, that reduce OMB deficit estimates to $460 billion. Nor
does it include abolishing the $60.1 billion mandatory refundable premium tax credit and
cost-sharing reduction by accounting for Medicaid Basic Health Plan to collect premiums
and pay benefits off-budget in a deficit-neutral account monitored in the HHS budget
request and OMB Table 4.1 off-budget; the United States could reduce the deficit to $209.3 billion in 2015. Provided agencies aim for 2% annual spending growth with a 3%
limit, with the exception of DoD with a $500 billion spending and Health and Human
Services with a $1 trillion limit, balancing the federal budget should become much easier.
1. The Defense Department is seeking to rebalance the Joint Force; it will be reduced in
size but will become more modern. The Defense budget for FY 2013 was $495.5 billion
FY2013, $496 billion FY 2014 and $495.6 billion FY2015. Military pay and benefits
account for the largest share of the budget, $167.2 billion out of $495.6 billion FY2015.
The OMB estimates are much higher, $608 billion FY2013, $593 billion FY2014 and
$584 billion FY2015. The Department of Defense offers OMB the opportunity to reduce
the gross federal debt with three years valued of $295.9 billion including the FY2015
deficit reduction of $88.4 billion. Provided that the Allowances and Other Defense Civil
Program rows are abolished, it would be as though accounting for Defense spending
reductions since 2013 would reduce even OMB’s ridiculously high gross federal debt
estimates, so that they never climbed above 100% of GDP.
2. OMB must account more accurately agency spending in Table 4.1. OMB must
commission an annual review of agency budget requests to improve the accuracy and
predictability of their accounting under Art. 2(2) of the U.S. Constitution. There may be
considerable retroactive relief due for agency budget officers who prove to OMB that
their lower estimates to be more accurate than the figures in the OMB Historical Tables
which are used to calculate the Deficit and Gross Federal Debt. Accurate reporting is
necessary to establish a baseline for predictable 2.5% annual rates of agency spending
growth. In 2015 it is estimated; the executive office of the President at $506 million,
legislative branch at $4.7 billion and judicial branch at $7.6 billion are not contested with
any sort of budget requests available on the Internet. Nor is the $408 million General
204
Services Administration or $140 billion USDA budget contested despite the SNAP
spending reductions resulting in the conviction of the Agriculture Secretary for wrongful
deprivation of relief benefits. The Treasury Department’s total budget request is $573.5
billion about $1 billion more than OMB estimates. Abolishing the refundable premium
tax credit and cost-sharing reduction would reduce Treasury spending by $69.1 billion to
$513.4 billion. The Department of Health and Human Services budget request for more
than $1 trillion, $1,010 billion, is reduced to $996 billion, saving $16 billion and a deficit
neutral off-budget Medicaid Basic Health Plan for people with incomes 150-400% of the
federal poverty line. The Department of Commerce requests $8.8 billion $800 million
less than $9.6 billion OMB estimate. The Department of Defense baseline has been
around $495 billion since 2013, $89 billion less than the $584 billion OMB estimate this
2015. The Department of Justice budget request is $31.7 billion, $2.2 billion less than
$33.9 billion, the request could be reduced by $10 billion if the FBI, DEA and U.S.
Marshall’s Interagency Crime and Drug Task Force were abolished and the ATF renamed
Firearms and Explosives (FE). The Department of Education requests $69 billion, $7
billion less than OMB estimates. The Department of Energy requests $28 billion, $ 1
billion less than $29 billion OMB estimates. The Department of Homeland Security
requests $38.2 billion, $9.3 less than the $47.5 billion OMB estimates and may be able to
justify retroactive debt relief using their new system of accounting for fees and FEMA.
The Department of the Interior budget requests $11.9 billion, $1.8 billion less than the
$13.7 billion OMB estimate and may be able to justify retroactive debt relief. The
Department of Labor requests $53.5 billion, $14.6 billion less than the $68.1 billion
OMB estimates. The President requests $90.9 billion for the Department of
Transportation, far over the $78,606 million for the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund
and Mass Transit Account, $5.7 billion less than the $84.3 billion OMB estimate for
Transportation spending in need of stabilization after a loss of gas tax revenues and
nearly annual demand distorting Congressional subsidies. The Corp of Civil Engineers
requests $3.3 billion $4.3 billion less than the $7.7 billion OMB estimate that we go with
to adequately provide for civil engineers in the historical record $7.7 billion 2015. The
Environmental Protection Agency request of $7.9 billion is $500 million less than the
$8.4 billion OMB estimate. NASA’s $17.5 billion budget request is $600 million less
than the $18.1 billion OMB estimate. The National Science Foundation requests $7.3
billion, $800 million less than the $8.1 billion OMB estimate. The Department of State
requests $50.1 billion, nearly exactly same as the $50.6 billion OMB combined estimate
as $29.0 billion for the Department of State and $21.6 billion for International assistance
programs by OMB that should probably be changed to $14 billion State Department and
$37 billion International Assistance Programs, abolishing narcotic control and law
enforcement completely and limiting the State share of foreign military financing from
$6.1 billion to the legal limit of $53 million and so as not to disturb the agreement
regarding total spending transfer these $6 billion in funds to Multilateral Funds to help
pay for the $16.7 billion request of the United Nations to meet an annual funding
shortfall. The Veteran’s Administration budget request for $160.4 billion is slightly more
than the $158 billion OMB estimates. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is
subsidized by the federal government for their insurance programs a total of $47.75
billion plus $240 million OPM administrative costs, on-budget, this is $45 billion less
than the $93 billion OMB estimate. OPM administrated $132.9 billion in benefit outlays
205
paid for by the $47.8 billion subsidy, $53.5 billion in off-budget contributions and $31
billion in interest income. OPM benefit programs seem to be subsidized $48 billion
annually since 2000, and have saved exactly $1 trillion in total health, life, retirement and
disability, and unpaid postal health assets FY2015.
Fig. 52 Federal Budget FY 2015 2000-2020
[Millions]
2000
Executive
Office of the
President
Legislative
Branch
Judicial
Branch
Postal Service
Department of
Agriculture
Department of
Commerce
Department of
Defense
Department of
Education
Department of
Energy
Department of
Health and
Human
Services
Department of
Homeland
Security
Department of
Housing and
Urban
Development
Department of
the Interior
Department of
Justice
Department of
Labor
Department of
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
283
2015
OMB
506
519
532
545
559
573
2,871
4,694
4,811
4,932
5,055
5,181
5,311
4,057
7,584
7,774
7,968
8,167
8,371
8,581
0
75,071
0
139,727
21,115
143,500
21,643
147,088
22,184
150,765
22,739
154,534
23,307
158,397
7,788
9,607
9,020
9,246
9,477
9,714
9,956
281,028
584,319
495,000
495,000
495,000
495,000
495,000
33,476
76,334
70,315
72,073
73,875
75,722
77,615
14,971
29,374
28,598
29,312
30,045
30,796
31,566
382,311
1,010,38
4
996,000
996,000
996,000
996,000
996,000
13,159
47,456
39,155
40,134
41,137
42,166
43,220
30,781
38,088
39,040
40,016
41,016
42,042
43,093
7,998
13,702
12,198
12,502
12,815
13,135
13,464
16,846
33,859
22,493
23,055
23,631
24,222
24,828
31,873
68,094
54,837
56,208
57,614
59,054
60,530
6,687
28,954
14,389
14,749
15,117
15,495
15,883
206
State
International
Assistance
Programs
Department of
Transportatio
n
Department of
the Treasury
Department of
Veterans
Affairs
Corps of
Engineers-Civil Works
Environmenta
l Protection
Agency
General
Services
Administratio
n
National
Aeronautics
and Space
Administratio
n
National
Science
Foundation
Office of
Personnel
Management
Small
Business
Administratio
n
Social
Security
Administratio
n (OnBudget)
Other
Independent
Agencies
(On-Budget)
12,087
21,577
37,406
38,342
39,300
40,283
41,290
41,555
84,252
90,900
93,173
95,502
97,890
100,337
390,524
572,593
525,005
538,130
551,583
565,373
579,507
47,044
158,039
164,410
168,520
172,733
177,052
181,478
4,229
7,745
7,939
8,137
8,341
8,549
8,763
7,223
8,379
8,087
8,289
8,497
8,709
8,927
74
408
418
429
439
450
462
13,428
18,076
17,938
18,386
18,846
19,317
19,800
3,448
8,103
7,436
7,622
7,813
8,008
8,208
48,655
93,362
48,000
48,000
48,000
48,000
48,000
-421
1,057
500
500
500
500
500
45,121
90,398
70,000
0
0
0
0
8,803
19,413
19,898
20,396
20,906
21,428
21,964
207
Total on1,788,95 3,176,08 2,956,70 2,920,38 2,954,90 2,990,28
budget
0
4
1
2
3
9
outlays
Source: OMB Table 4.1, Agency FY 2015 Budgets + 2.5% annual growth
3,026,560
B. The Treasury Department’s total budget request is $573.5 billion about $1 billion
more than OMB estimates. Abolishing the refundable premium tax credit and costsharing reduction would reduce Treasury spending by $69.1 billion to $513.4 billion, The
Treasury Department reports on pages 125 and 126 of the Budget-in-Brief FY 2015, the
Mandatory Budget includes $558 billion dollars in interest payments ($419 billion),
mandatory accounts ($139 billion), and including offsetting collections ($23 billion).
The discretionary budget for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other Treasury
offices is $15,453 million. Growth in mandatory spending has increased $101 billion,
22.3% growth, mostly due to new refundable premium tax credit and cost sharing
reductions estimated by the Treasury at $60.1 billion FY 2015, that needs to be
immediately abolished. Interest on the public debt has increased by 6.5% from $395
billion 2014 to $419 billion 2015, an increase of $24.1 billion.
Fig. 53 Medicaid with Premiums; Deficit Neutral Revenues and Outlays 2013-2020
Medicaid
State
Revenues
Federal
Premium Current
New
AdminRevenues Revenues Benefit
Benefit
istration
Payment Payment
2013
184.1
265.4
251
14.5
2014
169.2
308.6
290
18.6
2015
170.6
336
60.1
318.5
60.1
18.8
2016
172.0
356.2
80.0
337.2
80.0
19.0
2017
173.4
377.5
100
358.3
100
19.2
2018
174.8
400.2
110
380.8
110
19.4
2019
176.2
424.2
120
404.6
120
19.6
2020
177.6
449.6
130
429.9
130
19.7
Source: (Burwell ’14: 77). CMS National Health Expenditure Projection 2013-2023 Total Medicaid spending was $449.5 billion in 2013.
3. CMS is moving forward with making the Basic Health Plan Program available to states
as another option to expand coverage. Between 10-1-2013 and 3-31-2014; 8 million
people have made marketplace plan selections, 6.7 million with financial assistance,
averaging about $4,731 each policy if the $31,700 million cost of the refundable tax
credit is to be tested for paying the entire cost of a Medicaid family plan for a middle
class worker, and 1.2 million without subsidy. Annual premiums at 200% of FPL would
be around $2,517.60 for an individual and $5,035 for a family and the existing 8 million
beneficiaries could be estimated to pay exactly $31,700 million in premiums in matching
funds with the refundable tax credit. Medicaid spending is estimated to operate on a $2.7 billion deficit at its inception. If the number of beneficiaries doubles to 16 million
premium payers in 2015, paying $60,100 in premiums, the account deficit might double
to -$5.2 billion. But for every eight million people who stop receiving the ESI the federal
208
government should receive $10.7 billion in old revenues. If Medicaid is kind and
remains open to the Medicaid marketplace, more ESI payers and rich people will choose
to buy the policies and it not inconceivable that the program could pay for itself if the
population stays healthy. Paying 100% of state/federal costs until 2020 the federal
government is due 100% of premiums. Why isn’t CMS efficient enough to run a
profitable health insurance company for the price of premiums? To limit regular HHS
spending to less than $1 trillion in 2015 it is necessary to abolish the new, expensive and
unexplained concept of other mandatory programs. Without explanation, other
mandatory programs, increased from $1.9 billion FY2014 to $24.6 billion FY2015. The
other mandatory spending row must be abolished to reduce HHS spending to less than $1
trillion FY 2015, $993.5 billion to be exact.
C. The prison population quintupled from 503,586 in 1980 (220 per 100,000) to
2,085,620 in 2004 (707 per 100,000) and has grown steadily to an estimated 2.4 million
in 2015. The U.S. has the most and densest concentration of prisoners in the world
comprising 24% of the 9 million global prisoners, more than Russia, the runner up, and
more than China. For the U.S. to achieve the legal limit of 250 detainees per 100,000 the
total number of local jails and state and federal prison beds must be limited to less than
740,000. One million is a good goal. Nearly 650,000 people are released from prison to
communities each year. Each year the nation’s 3,200 jails release an excess of 10
million, 3% of the population back into the community. Nearly two thirds of released
State prisoners are expected to re-arrested for a felony or a serious misdemeanor within
three years. In 2005 7% of all prisoners were women, the number of women prisoners
increased 2.6% while male prisoners rose 1.9%. Racial disparities among prisoners
persist, particularly in the 25-29 age group, 8.1% of black men, about one in 13, were
behind bars, compared with 2.6% of Hispanic men and 1.1% of white men. To uphold a
legal limit of 250 prisoners per 100,000 residents SSI shall finance a halfway house
system at 7% of SSI program costs, doubling program growth, the federal Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) and other extra-jurisdictional judicial financing shall be
transferred to 59,000 halfway houses from foreclosure auctions over 10 years, and the
retraining of 207,090 trained, full-time parole and probation officers and social workers;
the only method nearly 100 percent effective at preventing recidivism, that is stubbornly
60 percent within three years after release, is the successful completion of a postconviction college degree.
1. More than 300 economists and 600 churches petitioned the White House to make it
absolutely clear that marijuana should be legalized, and federal police finance and office
of national drug control policy abolished to save $10 billion.
a. The President requests $25.5 billion Fy 2015 in support of the National Drug Control
Strategy, to reduce drug use and its consequences. This fiscal estimate is of little
consequence to the budget, but should definitely be abolished when facing trade-offs with
welfare benefits. The SAMHSA substance abuse programs and drug courts seem above
board however the federal police finance is a flagrant violation of economic law. Nearly
$9.2 billion in FY 2015 Federal resources are requested to support domestic law
enforcement efforts (including state and local assistance, as well as state and local
209
assistance, a decrease of $97.4 million (1.1%) from the FY 2014 level. The High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program costing $193.4 million to bribe
witnesses in 28 regions should definitely be abolished. Methamphetamine Enforcement
and Lab Cleanup Grants ($7.0 million) provide assistance to state, local and tribal law
enforcement agencies in the support of programs designed to address methamphetamine
production and distribution and working with the DEA funding disposal of toxic wastes
generated by clandestine methamphetamine labs. The Department of Homeland Security
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) costs $43.6 million to provide
training and technical assistance to state, local, tribal and territorial and international law
enforcement entities including drug enforcement activities. Federal drug investigation
cost a total of $3,154.2 million including from the Department of Agriculture ($11.3
million), Homeland Security ($505.1 million), Justice ($2,431.7 million), Interior ($16.4
million) and Treasury ($58.4 million) to prepare drug cases for the arrest and prosecution
of leaders and traffickers of illegal drug organizations, seize drugs and assets, and enforce
Federal laws and regulations governing the legitimate handling, manufacturing and
distribution of controlled substances.
2. Economic law is certain that federal police finance to state and local jurisdictions must
be abolished to protect the territorial integrity from the independence of the judiciary –
Office of National Drug Control Policy and Office of Justice Assistance grant programs,
the FBI, DEA and U.S. Marshall Interagency Drug and Crime Taskforce must all be
abolished. Having once corrupted White House drug policy with police finance the
ONDCP must be abolished like the WHIP Enforcement Coordinator as a peculiar form of
forced labor that must not be allowed to generate slavery and slave-like conditions under
the Slavery Convention of 1926. Although ONDP personhood, aggravated by the tenfold
increase in opiate deaths since 2001, faces multiple death penalties for murder, torture,
deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy against rights, kidnapping, etc. for
the sake of abolition under civil rights statute ONDP needs to be abolished under Art.
2(4) and 3(3) of the US Constitution and their law Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations
needs to be repealed whereas Part 1404 Government Wide Debarment and Suspension
(Non-procurement) constitutes deprivation of relief benefits under 18USC§246.
3. The DOJ FY 2015 Budget totals $27.4 billion in discretionary budget authority, which
is 0.4% above the FY 2014 Enacted level. In accordance with the Budget Control Act of
2011 and the office of Management and Budget’s FY 2014 Sequestration Preview
Report, the following mandatory accounts must take a 7.2 percent reduction for
sequestration in FY 2014. September 11th Victims Compensation Fun ($14.4 million),
Fees and Expenses of witnesses ($19.4 million), Diversion Control Fee Account ($25.6
million), Assets Forfeiture Fund ($155.7 million of permanent indefinite authority), and
the Crime Victims Fund ($823 million). In addition the administrative fees for the
following accounts must take a 7.2 percent reduction for sequestration in FY 2014. Public
Safety Officer’s Death Benefits ($72,000) and the Commissary Fund ($8.0 million). It is
troubling that the Commissary Fund is no longer subsidized by the Department of Justice,
at all, hopefully the prisoners have no difficulty purchasing their sundries on the free
market. The most peculiar note regarding the Justice Department budget is the reference
to -$10 billion Crime victim fund, as scorekeeping credits, an outlay offsetting receipt, as
210
if the DoJ were making money from $10 billion in national victim compensation
payments to finance their budget in excess of that authorized by Congress, rather than
paying $10 billion a year. The federal department of justice to take responsibility for
reducing the national prison population 750 detainees per 100,000 to less than the
customary international legal limit of 250 per 100,000 residents. Under current law the
prison population has only gone up. The new Attorney General must obey the prime
directive of the past four decades, the American Bar Association (ABA) reported that the
United States penal system is the largest and most concentrated in the world and the U.S.
Supreme Court issued one directive in Blakely v. Washington (2004) to eliminate
mandatory minimum sentencing and reduce sentencing in litigate and legislative practice.
In federal practice Booker & Fanfan v. United States (2005) released some federal drug
offenders but ran out of time to redress the primary federal penal peculiarity – the federal
prison is more than half drug offenders, and 60% of those for marijuana.
Fig. 54 Justice Department Budget Authority by Appropriation FY 2015
[$1,000]
Appropriation
FY 2015
General Administration
Justice Information Sharing Technology
Administrative Review and Appeals total
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Transfer from Immigration Fees Account
Pardon Attorney
Office of the Inspector General
Working Capital Fund (Rescissions)
U.S. Parole Commission
National Security Division
General Legal Activities total
Solicitor General
Tax Division
Criminal Division
Civil Division
Environmental & Natural Resource Division
Legal Counsel
Civil Rights Division
Interpol
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund
Antitrust
U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Trustees
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
U.S. Marshalls Service total
Salaries & Expenses
128,951
25,342
351,072
343,154
4,300
3,918
88,577
-54,000
13,308
91,800
935,854
11,692
109,171
202,487
298,394
112,487
7,742
161,881
32,000
7,833
162,245
1,955,327
225,908
2,325
2,668,107
1,185,000
% Change FY
2014-15
17.1%
0.0%
11.9%
11.2%
0.0%
39.9%
2.5%
80.2%
5.5%
0.0%
7.9%
4.4%
4.5%
16.2%
4.4%
4.5%
4.6%
12.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.6%
0.7%
10.8%
-2.2%
0.0%
211
Construction
Federal Prisoner Detention
Rescission of Prior Year Balances
Community Relations Service
Assets Forfeiture Fund Current Budget
Authority
Interagency Crime & Drug Enforcement
Federal Bureau of Investigation total
Salaries & Expenses
Construction
Drug Enforcement Administration total
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms &
Explosives total
Federal Prison System total
Salaries & Expense
Building & Facilities
Federal Prison Industries (limitation on
administrative expense)
Commissary Fund
Discretionary Grants Programs
Office of Justice Programs
Justice Assistance
OJP Salaries and Expenses
Juvenile Justice Programs
State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance
Public Safety Officers Benefits
OJP wide rescissions
Community Policing (Includes OJP
Programs)
Salaries & Expenses
Office of Violence against Women
Office
Salaries & Expenses
Subtotal Discretionary
Fee Collections
Offset from Antitrust Pre-Merger Filing Fee
Offset from U.S. Trustees Fees and Interest
on U.S. Securities
Subtotal, Fees Collections
Subtotal, Discretionary w. Fees
Scorekeeping Credits
Crime Victims Fund
Assets Forfeiture Fund
Subtotal Scorekeeping Credits
9,800
1,595,307
-122,000
12,972
20,514
0.0%
4.1%
-100%
8.1%
0.1%
505,000
8,347,291
8,278,219
68,982
2,018,000
1,201,004
-1.8%
0.0%
0.4%
-29.2%
0.0%
1.9%
6,894,000
6,804,000
90,000
2,7000
0.5%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
0
2,084,800
1,426,500
136,900
191,907
299,400
1,032,900
0
-0.5%
-5.1%
14.1%
0.0%
17.0%
-11.9%
16,300
-59,000
248,000
0.0%
0.0%
31.9%
37,374
410,300
422,500
19,959
27,681,409
0.0%
1.4%
1.3%
0.0%
0.4
-104,500
-200,658
1.5%
-10.6%
-305,158
27,376,251
-0.8%
0.4%
-10,526,000
-193,000
-10,719,000
5.9%
130.9%
5.8%
212
16,657,251
-2.7%
Total DOJ Direct Discretionary BA
Mandatory and Other Accounts
Fees and Expenses of Witnesses (Mand.)
270,000
7.8%
Independent Counsel (Permanent Indefinite) 500
0.0%
Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust
82,000
0.0%
Fund (Mand.)
Public Safety Officers Death Benefits
81,000
0.1%
(Mand.)
Assets Forfeiture Fund (Permanent Budget
1,337,078
-58.4%
Authority)
Antitrust Pre-Merger Filing Fee Collections 104,500
1.5%
U.S. Trustees Fee Collections
200,656
-10.6%
Criminal Justice Information Service (FBI)
433,000
0.0%
Diversion Control Fee
366,680
9.4%
9/11 Victim Compensation Fund
326,000
75.6%
Crime Victims Fund
810,000
8.7%
-29.0%
Subtotal, Mandatory and Other Accounts 4,011,416
20,668,667
-9.7%
Total BA, Discretionary & Mandatory,
Dept. of Justice
Healthcare Fraud Reimbursements
HCFAC Mandatory Reimbursement
142,169
146.2%
FBI Health Care Fraud – Mand.
139,118
9.3%
HCFAC Discretionary Reimbursement
309,409
45.1%
20,978,076
-8.7%
Total BA, Department of Justice, with
Offset
Credit: Department of Justice. Summary of Budget Authority by Appropriation FY2015
5. The Department of Justice must abolish the $8.3 billion Federal Budget of
Investigation (FBI) retaining only the $433 million Criminal Justice Information Service
and transfer $139 million in Health Care Fraud reimbursements to the Department of
Justice HCFAC mandatory reimbursements row, and sell the assets, saving $7.9 billion.
The $505 million for the U.S. Marshalls Service Interagency Crime & Drug Enforcement
and their local clones need to be entirely abolished. The concepts of Alcohol and
Tobacco must be liberated from the $1.2 billion Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives (ATF) so that only a $1.2 billion Bureau for Firearms and Explosives
(BFE) remain. The $2 billion Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and any other
government subsidies for “drug enforcement” must cease entirely. The DEA Office of
Diversion, which licenses health care practitioners to dispense drugs regulated under the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is to change its name and be transferred to the Drug
Evaluation Agency (DEA) in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) charged with
reversing the 1,000% increase in fatal opiate overdoses since 2001 and financed with
Drug Evaluation Agency (DEA) license fees, Narcan injectable for emergency
responders and oral naltrexone for opiate consumers reverse fatal respiratory depression
of opiate overdoses. Furthermore, Office of Justice Programs (OJP) federal police
finance gravely interferes with the independence of the judiciary everywhere and the $2
billion OJP discretionary grants programs and their staff must cease. Community
213
Policing (including OJP salaries) and Office of Violence against Women are popular,
cost less and can remain. It is suggested that the Office of Violence against Women
change their name to Office of Woman’s Rights to cease inciting violence in technical
writing. Abolishing the FBI, Interagency Crime & Drug Enforcement, DEA and OJP
saves $11.7 billion. This reduces total justice department spending from $27.4 billion to
$15.7 billion FY 2016. Abolition awaits executive order. An employee to be released,
due to a "reduction in force", shall be given written notice, at least 60 days before such
employee is so released under 5USCIIIB(35)I §3502(d). When a function is transferred
from one agency to another, each competing employee in the function shall be transferred
to the receiving agency for employment in a position for which he is qualified before the
receiving agency may make an appointment from another source to that position
under 5USCIIIB(35)§3503(a). On 60 day’s notice the Department of Justice could
abolish $11.7 billion in harmful federal subsidies and contribute partial savings this FY
2015 with an FY 2016 budget of $17 billion, reducing the deficit by $10 billion and allow
$2 billion and growth for employee retention in the Department of Justice. Those unable
to be reemployed after unemployment insurance would be automatically qualified for
disability insurance.
D. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) subsidized insurance programs total $47.75
billion plus $240 million administrative costs, $48 billion, is $45.5 billion less than the
$93 billion OMB estimate. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) receives “such
sums as necessary” mandatory appropriations for payments from the General Fund; $36.3
billion to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund which has an FY 2015
balance of $875 billion and outlays of $82.4 billion, $11.4 billion to the Employees
Health Benefits Fund which has a balance of $23.3 billion and outlay of $47.7 billion,
and $50 million to the Employees Group Life Insurance Fund which has a balance of
$44.1 billion and outlays of $2.9 billion. The federal government contributes $0 to the
Postal Service Retiree Health Fund which has a balance of $61.3 billion and zero outlays.
OPM assets are estimated at nearly exactly $1 trillion, $1,003.7 million. Due to the
existence of the trust funds it is presumed that the OPM does not use the undistributed
off-setting receipt method with their mandatory benefit accounts. The Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) requests $240.2 million discretionary. OMB estimates costs to be
$93,362 billion. OPM assets are estimated nearly exactly $1 trillion, $1,003.7 million.
This is a major discrepancy amounting to over $93.1 billion. The Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is responsible for the administration of the Federal Retirement
Program covering over 2.7 million active employees and 2.5 million annuitants. Having
discerned that the OPM subsidized insurance programs total of $47.75 billion plus $240
million administrative costs, $48 billion, this is $45.5 billion less than the $93 billion
OMB estimate. This discrepancy reduces the deficit by $45.5 billion. OPM has a new $1
trillion total trust fund balance.
Fig. 55 On-budget Social Security and Other Independent Agency Rows 2000-2020
2000
Social
45,121
2015
OMB
90,398
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
70,000
0
0
0
0
214
Security
Administratio
n (OnBudget)
Other
Independent
Agencies
(On-Budget)
Other
Independent
Agencies (onbudget)
revised
8,803
19,413
19,898
53,924
109,811
89,898
20,396
20,906
21,428
21,964
1. The Social Security Commissioner has two accounts to reconcile with the OMB
Director – (a) the historical discrepancy between OMB and SSA on-budget outlay
estimates for the benefit of accurate accounting, reducing the deficit and the debt and (b)
the removal of on-budget social security row would necessitate combining the
insignificant on-budget social security outlays with the Other independent on-budget
agencies outlays before 2017 when SSA takes over responsibility for SSI and on-budget
social security expenses become a thing of the past accounted for the other independent
on-budget agencies row. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a general assistance
program with the same concept of qualifying disability as disability insurance (DI) but
requiring an extremely low income and not requiring the beneficiary to have made any
contributions. People without a qualifying disability who have made no contributions
their entire life automatically qualify for SSI at age 65.
Fig. 56 OMB On-budget Social Security Spending Errata 2008-2013
5.
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
SSA
+/-50
2,400 102,700 112,100
2,700
Reimbursement
n/a
From General
Fund
SSI
42,040
45,904
47,767 49,038 52,020
55,172
Total
9,677
10,327
11,250 11,000 10,750
11,000
administrative
costs
Actual on-budget 51,717
56,231
61,417 151,738 164,120 68,872
cost
OMB SSA on58,500
78,406
70,198 154,714 188,749 116,657
budget figure
Savings
6,783
22,175
8,781
2,976
24,629
47,785
Differential
Source: Source: OMB 7/12/12 Historical Table 5.2 Budget Authority By Agency
1976-2017; 2012 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age
215
and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds, Table IV.A.3
Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds 2007-21; 2012 Annual
Report of the SSI Program, Annual Report of the Advisory Council 2012 and
Table C.1 SSI Federal Payment in Current Dollars 1974-2012
In 2013 SSI expenditure were $52,911 million. Federal expenditures for cash payments
under the SSI program during calendar year 2012 increased 5.4 percent to $51.7 billion.
SSI payments in calendar year 2013 will increase by $1.9 billion to $53.6 billion, an
increase of 3.7 percent. By 2015 it can be expected that SSI expenditures have reached
$57 billion in the SSI expenditure table Table IV.C1.—SSI Federal Payments in Current
Dollars Calendar Years 1974-2013. The Trust Funds paid $6.166 billion for OASDI net
administrative expenses. Funds made available to administer the SSI program in fiscal
year 2012 decreased 1.2 percent to $3.9 billion and are expected to have increased to $4.4
billion FY2015 for an $11 billion on-budget administrative cost and $57 billion cost of
the SSI program for a total of $68 billion SSA on-budget, $22.6 billion less than the
$90,398 million OMB estimates. OMB has never accurately accounted for on-budget
and off-budget SSA spending and must pay closer attention to the Annual Report of the
Trustees and Commissioner to Congress, usually April 1 of each year. The figures
provided by OMB are however $6.8 billion over in FY 2008 to $22.2 billion high in FY
2009, going down to $8.8 billion over in FY 2010 and $3 billion over in FY 2011 before
becoming statistically significant at $24.6 billion in FY 2012 and $47.8 billion in FY
2013. OMB needs to revise on-budget statistics to reflect actual spending reported in the
Annual Reports from whence considerable retroactive debt relief is due if low SSA
figures prove to be more accurate than high OMB estimates.
§148b Off-budget agency revenues
A. Accounting for the OASDI without income limit law profit sharing provision at a rate
of up 90% to off-set the federal deficit, at least 10% SSA until 2020, 50/50 until 2025 and
5% federal, 95% SSA to 2030 after which time there will not be enough of an OASDI
surplus to pay the General Fund, requires the creation of a new column of on-budget
Social Security Administration (SSA) revenues. The receipts by source summary in
OMB Table 12.1 requires three new rows and a change of name from Social Insurance to
Social Security Administration total and from on-budget social insurance to on-budget
Health Insurance will be necessary.
Fig. 57 Receipts by Source Revised for On-budget/Off-budget OASDI Without
Income Limit and with Medicaid Premiums 2013-2020
Individual
Income Tax
Corporation
Income Tax
(On-budget)
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
1,316.4
1,386.1
1,533.9
1,647.8
1,780.7
1,920.1
2,074.1
2,178.5
273.6
332.7
449.0
501.7
528.0
539.9
414.5
526.6
284.5
287.6
324
329
355.5
379.6
403.5
429
216
HI tax and
premiums
(On-budget)
0
0
0
22.5
208.8
222.9
236.3
OASDI
maximum
allowable
deficit
Excise taxes
84.0
93.5
110.5
115.4
118.9
122.1
126.7
Miscellaneous 102.6
117.6
131.7
103.6
95.9
82.6
88.9
receipts
Estate and gift 18.9
15.7
17.5
19.6
21.2
22.8
39.4
taxes
Customs
31.8
35.0
47.0
52.0
54.6
58.1
62.4
duties
Total on2,101.8 2,269.4 2,587.5 2,794.6 3,163.6 3,348.1 3,445.8
budget
receipts
OASDI
822.9
863.1
962.5
1,076.3 1,124.9 1,205.1 1,265.6
receipts (Offbudget)
Medicaid
0
0
60.1
80
100
110
120
premiums
(Off-budget)
Total receipts
822.9
863.1
1,022.6 1,156.3 1,224.9 1,315.1 1,385.6
(Off-budget)
Total on2,101.8 2,269.4 2,612.5 2,794.6 3,163.6 3,348.1 3,445.8
budget
receipts
Total receipts
2,924.7 3,132.5 3,635.1 3,850.9 4,388.5 4,663.2 4,831.4
Source: OMB Table 12.1, 2013 Annual Report of the OASDI Trustees; Intermediate
projections.
1. Congress should enact a gas, oil, coal and electricity export tax and authorize new
appropriations for the Postal Service with half of new WILL to collect DI revenues.
OMB Table 4.1 would add a United States Postal Service (USPS) row to account for $20
billion +3% annual growth from FY 2014, $20.6 billion FY 2015 + <2.5% annual growth
in subsequent year before refinancing costs go up, and USPS would be expected to
submit an annual budget justification to Congress like other Departments. OMB will
remove the Social Security on-budget row in Table 4.1 and place the historical amounts
paid for SSI and administration in the Other Independent Agency on-budget row because
the OASDI WILL would pay for SSI and administration, $70 billion in 2017. There
should be no obsolete rows in Table 4.1. The Treasury’s mandatory $60,100 million
2015 refundable premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction needs to be abolished.
The retroactivity of its abolishment by Medicaid remains to be negotiated with insurers.
OMB should account for this deficit-neutral market priced premium health insurance in a
new off-budget Medicaid receipt and outlay rows in Table 4.1. If all these spending
217
132
130.3
101.2
42.3
64.8
3,604.7
1,449.1
130
1,579.1
3,604.7
5,183.8
limitations, accurate measure, DI WILL and GET revenue provisions were passed in
2016 there would be a total surplus of $55 billion, a -$70 billion on-budget deficit and a
$146.6 off-budget surplus.
Fig. 58 Gross Federal Outlays and Revenues, Surplus/Deficit 2000-2020
Total onbudget
outlays
Undistributed
Off-setting
receipts (Onbudget)
Total onbudget
receipts
On-budget
surplus/deficit
OASDI
outlays (offbudget)
Other
Independent
Agencies (offbudget)
Off-budget
outlays
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts (Offbudget)
Net Offbudget
outlays
Total Offbudget
receipts
Off-budget
surplus/deficit
Total onbudget
outlays
Off-budget
outlays
Total outlays
2000
1,788,95
0
2015
3,176,08
4
2016
2,956,70
1
2017
2,920,38
2
2018
2019
2,954,90 2,990,28
3
9
2020
3,026,560
-105,586
-136,208
-145,297
-144,639 -145,067 -148,630
-149,793
1,544,60
7
2,612,50
0
2,794,60
0
3,163,60
0
3,348,10
0
3,445,80
0
3,604,700
86,422
-427,326
-16,804
387,857
538,264
615,265
739,335
330,765
863,100
963,300
1,022,30
0
1,087,60
0
1,158,70
0
1,235,200
2,029
-958
-958
450
-413
81
1,215
332,794
862,142
-67,433
-112,229
1,042,34
2
-109,641
1,122,75 1,197,18 1,278,78 1,366,415
0
7
1
-109,246 -109,474 -110,017 -110,256
265,361
749,913
932,701
1,013,50
4
1,087,71
3
1,168,76
4
1,256,159
480,584
757,877
1,079,30
0
1,224,90
0
1,315,10
0
1,385,60
0
1,579,100
215,223
7,964
146,599
211,396
227,387
216,836
322,941
1,788,95
0
3,176,08
4
2,946,37
2
2,909,79
4
2,944,05
1
2,979,16
5
3,015,158
332,794
862,142
4,038,22
1,122,75
0
4,032,54
1,197,18
7
4,141,23
1,278,78
1
4,257,94
1,366,415
2,121,74
1,042,34
2
3,988,71
4,381,573
218
Total
Undistributed
Offsetting
Receipts
Total receipts
Total
surplus/deficit
Gross Federal
Debt
GDP
4
-173,619
6
-248,437
4
-254,938
4
8
6
-253,885 -254,541 -254,647
2,025,19
1
77,066
3,337,42
5
-452,364
4,043,90
0
55,186
4,388,50
0
609,841
4,663,20
0
776,503
4,831,40
0
828,101
5,183,800
5,629,00
0
10,154,0
00
55.4%
18,714,0
00
18,219,0
00
102.7%
18,658,8
14
19,181,0
00
97.2%
18,048,9
73
20,199,0
00
89.4%
17,272,4
70
21,216,0
00
81.4%
16,444,3
69
22,196,0
00
74.1%
15,387,49
6
22,990,00
0
66.9%
-254,645
1,056,872
Debt as % of
GDP
Source: OMB Tables 1.1, 4.1 and FY2015 Agency Budget Requests; Sanders ’14: 91-94
updated to abolish Allowances and Other Defense Civil Program rows and project
revenues for the DI WILL in 2016 and OASDI WILL in 2017
B. The federal government usually runs on a deficit, with some famous exceptions, such
as when Andrew Jackson paid off the federal debt in 1835 and more recently when Bill
Clinton ran a surplus in 1998-2000, and is currently running the highest deficit in dollar
terms in national history, -$1.4 trillion in 2009, and -$1.3 trillion in 2010, 2011 and 2012
and is projected to improve to -$900 million in 2013, down to -$530 billion in 2015 and
going down for a short while before the accounting fraud causes the deficit to grow again
by 2018. This deficit is the second highest as a percentage of GDP since WWII and the
Confederacy during the Civil War. Currently the federal budget teeters on the brink of
the European definition of a solvent 3% deficit at around -$500 billion. The OASDI
WILL tax eliminates the deficit in 2017 with hundreds of billions of dollars of surplus
revenues to expand welfare programs and pay off the federal debt.
§149 Federal debt debate
A. Public debt has risen from $10 trillion in 2008 to $11.9 trillion in 2009, to $13.5
trillion in 2010, to $14.8 trillion in 2011, and is expected to rise to an estimated $16.4
trillion in 2012, exceeding 100% of the GDP from 2013 to 2018 unless the accounting
frauds and major discrepancies with agency budgets can be reconciled to reduce the debt.
For the 41-year period from 1967 to 2007, the real interest rate on Treasury bonds
averaged 2.8% per year. The real interest rates averaged 1.3, -1.0, 5.2, 4.0, and 2.2% per
year over the economic cycles 1967-73, 1974-79, 1980-89, 1990-2000, and 2001-07,
respectively. Interest on the public debt has increased by 6.5% from $395 billion 2014 to
$419 billion 2015, an increase of $24.1 billion.
B. OMB estimates that the “gross federal debt” reached a high of 103.2% of GDP in FY
2014 and is scheduled to reach 102.7% of the GDP FY 2015 before steadily declining
due to GDP growth. CBO offers dramatically lower estimates of “debt held by the
219
public” that reached $13.4 trillion, 74% of GDP FY2015 but does not prove it by
accounting for agency spending. CBO does offer a public debt that is much truer to the
deficit. However CBO debt held by the public also tends to accumulate faster than the
explained by the deficit. For instance in 2001 after a budget surplus of $236 billion the
debt held by the public declined by only $90 billion. OMB on the other hand proves their
revenues and agency spending totals in the calculation of their on-budget deficit but then
inexplicably adds far more than the price of the deficit to the gross federal debt. In 2001
after turning a surplus of $236 billion in 2000 the gross federal debt didn’t decrease, it
increased $200 billion from $5.6 trillion to $5.8 trillion. CBO debt statistics are nearly
exactly explained by the deficit. From 2014 to 2015, the gross federal debt increased by
$900 billion with a $650 billion deficit to $18.7 billion in FY 2015. There is a total of
$1.8 trillion in unexplained debt accumulation 2009-2015 but after reviewing the
historical tables OMB has accumulated debt much faster than is explained by the deficit.
It might be wise to require by law that all future OMB debt be explained by the deficit.
Under current policies, CBO projects that even the smaller national debt held by the
public, as opposed to the gross federal debt, would rocket to 185% by 2035, and to 200%
by 2037, twice as large as our entire economy. This national debt would explode further
to unprecedented levels of 233% of GDP by 2040, and to 854% by 2080. Before the
financial crisis, US federal debt as a percentage of GDP was around 40 percent, not too
much worse than the long-term average of 36 percent. In 2013 the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) projects the debt will reach 62 percent of the GDP, in 2015 it will reach 74
percent and in 2020 it will reach 90 percent, and eventually surpass total economic output
in 2025. By 2037, the debt would exceed 200 percent of GDP. The longer action to deal
with the nation’s long term fiscal outlook is delayed, the greater the risk that the eventual
changes will be disruptive and destabilizing.
Fig. 59 Gross Federal Debt, Surplus or Deficit, Debt Held by Public, Compared as
% of GDP 2000-2019
Year
Gross
Federal Debt
% of GDP
Surplus or
Deficit
Debt Held
by Public
% of GDP
Year
Gross
Federal Debt
% of GDP
Surplus or
Deficit
Debt Held
by Public
2000
2001
5,770
2002
6,198
2003
6,760
2004
7,355
5,629
55.4
236
54.6
128
60.0
-158
59.6
-378
60.8
-413
3,410
3,320
3,540
3,913
4,296
33.6
2005
7,905
31.4
2006
8,451
32.6
2007
8,951
34.5
2008
9,986
35.5
2009
11,876
61.3
-318
61.7
-248
62.5
-161
67.7
-459
82.4
-1,414
4,592
4,829
5,035
5,803
7,545
220
% of GDP
35.6
35.3
35.2
39.3
52.3
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Gross
13,529
14,764
16,051
16,719
17, 893
Federal Debt
% of GDP
91.5
96.0
99.7
100.6
103.2
Surplus or
-1,294
-1,300
-1,087
-680
-649
Deficit
Debt Held
9.019
10,128
11,281
11,983
12,779
by Public
% of GDP
60.9
65.9
70.4
72.3
74.1
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Gross
18,714
19,512
20,262
20,961
21,671
Federal Debt
% of GDP
102.7
101.7
100.3
98.8
97.6
Surplus or
-564
-531
-458
-413
-503
Deficit
Debt Held
13,305
13,927
14,521
15,135
15,850
by Public
% of GDP
74
73.6
73
72.8
73.1
Source: OMB Historical Table 1.1 and 1.2; Sanders ’14: Table 1 Debt and Deficit as % of
GDP 2000-2020, CBO Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses and Debt Held by the
Government since 1965
C. Over the past two centuries, debt in excess of 90 percent of GDP has typically been
associated with average growth of 1.7 percent, versus 3.7 percent when debt is low
(under 30 percent of GDP). High debt loads make it more expensive to borrow and
weakens our global position. Economists at the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
suggest that the public debt of the ten leading developed nations will rise from 78 percent
of GDP in 2007 to 114 percent by 2014. These governments, including those in the
United States and in many European nations, will by then owe around $50,000 for every
one of their citizens. That translates into more than $10 trillion of extra debt accumulated
in less than ten years. The governments of rich nations never borrowed so much in
peacetime. If current trends continue unchecked demographic pressures combined with
political paralysis will send the combined public debt of the largest developed economies
toward 200 percent of their GDP by 2030. An international study, covering the
experience of forty-four countries over two hundred years, found that economic growth
slows substantially when national debt climbs over 90% of GDP. In 2009 the national
debt of Greece reached 115% of GDP. Within a year the international markets refused to
lend the Greek government any more money by buying its government bonds resulting in
a trillion-dollar bailout financed by EU taxpayers. Although SSA and OMB may be
insolvent of the math problems they are faced with, the United States true debt position is
considerably better than OMB estimates in excess of 100% of GDP. The deficit can be
ruled by law to be the exact size of the annual increase in debt, the actual federal debt
maybe even better than CBO 74% debt to GDP ratio. United States will not know the
truth until there is a federal budget surplus with which to pay off the valid federal debt.
221
§150 Federal Reserve
A. The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States, established by
the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary
and financial system.
1. The Federal Reserve System consists of the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C.,
the twelve Federal Reserve Banks with their twenty-five Branches distributed throughout
the nation, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), and three advisory groups - the
Federal Advisory Council, the Consumer Advisory Council, and the Thrift Institutions
Advisory Council - and five standing committees, each made up of up to three Board
members, administer the activities of the Federal Reserve Board - these committees
include the Committee on Consumer and Community Affairs; the Committee on
Economic Affairs; the Committee on Federal Reserve Bank Affairs; the Committee on
Supervisory and Regulatory Affairs; and the Committee on Board Affairs.
2. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was established as a federal
government agency. The Board is composed of seven members appointed by the
President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The full term of a Board
member is fourteen years; the appointments are staggered so that one term expires on
January 31 of each even-numbered year. The Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the
Board are also appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The nominees to
these posts must already be members of the Board or must be simultaneously appointed
to the Board. The terms for these positions are four years.
B. The Federal Reserve System is an independent central bank, but only in the sense that
its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive
branch of government. The entire System is subject to oversight by the Congress because
the Constitution gives to the Congress the power to coin money and set its value--and that
power was delegated to the Federal Reserve by the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal
Reserve System was created by passage of the Federal Reserve Act, which President
Woodrow Wilson signed into law on December 23, 1913. The act stated that its purposes
were "to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic
currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more
effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes." Over the
years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded, and today the Federal Reserve’s
duties fall into five general areas.
1. Conducting the nation’s monetary policy by influencing money and credit
conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment and stable prices
2. Supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness
of the nation’s banking system, maintaining the stability of the financial system,
and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
3. Protecting the credit rights of consumers, and encouraging banks to meet the
credit needs of consumers, including those in low- and moderate-income
neighborhoods
222
4. Playing a major role in operating the nation’s payment systems
5. Providing certain financial services to the U.S. government, the public, financial
institutions, and foreign official institutions
C. In carrying out its responsibilities in 2005, the Federal Reserve System incurred an
estimated $1.6 billion in net operating expenses. Total spending of an estimated $2.9
billion was offset by an estimated $1.4 billion in revenue from priced services, claims for
reimbursements, and other income. In 2005, the Reserve Banks received approximately
$659.2 billion in currency and $5.4 billion in coin from depository institutions,
distributed approximately $698.4 billion in currency and $6.7 billion in coin, and
destroyed $83.2 billion in unfit currency in the 2006 Annual Report: Budget Review
Art. 12 Battle Mountain Sanitarium Reserve
§151 Battle Mountain Sanitarium Reserve
There are reserved from settlement, entry, sale, or other disposal all those certain tracts,
pieces, or parcels of land lying and being situated in the State of South Dakota and within
the boundaries particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of
section 18, township 7 south, range 6 east, Black Hills meridian; thence east to the
southeast corner of said section 18; thence south to the southwest corner of the northwest
quarter of section 20; thence east to the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of
section 21; thence north to the northeast corner of the southeast quarter of section 9;
thence west to the center of section 7; thence south to the southwest corner of the
southeast quarter of section 7; thence west to the northwest corner of section 18; thence
south to the place of beginning, all in township 7 south, range 6 east, Black Hills
meridian, in Fall River County, South Dakota: Provided, That nothing herein contained
shall be construed to affect any valid rights acquired in connection with any of the lands
embraced within the limits of said reserve.
§152 Name; control, rules and regulations
Said reserve shall be known as the Battle Mountain Sanitarium Reserve, and shall be
under the exclusive control of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in connection with the
Battle Mountain Sanitarium at Hot Springs, South Dakota, whose duty it shall be to
prescribe such rules and regulations and establish such service as the Secretary may
consider necessary for the care and management of the same.
§153 Perfecting bona fide claims to lands; exchange of private lands
In all cases of unperfected bona fide claims lying within the said boundaries of said
reserve, which claims have been properly initiated prior to September 2, 1902, said
claims may be perfected upon compliance with the requirements of the laws respecting
settlement, residence, improvements, and so forth, in the same manner in all respects as
claims are perfected to other Government lands: Provided, That to the extent that the
lands within said reserve are held in private ownership the Secretary of the Interior is
223
authorized in his discretion to exchange therefore public lands of like area and value,
which are surveyed, vacant, un-appropriated, not mineral, not timbered, and not required
for reservoir sites or other public uses or purposes. The private owners must, at their
expense and by appropriate instruments of conveyance, surrender to the Government a
full and unencumbered right and title to the private lands included in any exchange before
patents are issued for or any rights attached to the public lands included therein, and no
charge of any kind shall be made for issuing such patents. Upon completion of any
exchange the lands surrendered to the Government shall become a part of said reserve in
a like manner as if they had been public lands at the time of the establishment of said
reserve. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to authorize the issuance of
any land scrip, and the State of South Dakota is granted the privilege of selecting from
the public lands in said State an equal quantity of land in lieu of such portions of section
sixteen included within said reserve as have not been sold or disposed of by said State
and are not covered by an unperfected bona fide claim as above mentioned.
§154 Unlawful intrusion, or violation of rules and regulations
All persons who shall unlawfully intrude upon said reserve, or who shall without
permission appropriate any object therein or commit unauthorized injury or waste in any
form whatever upon the lands or other public property therein, or who shall violate any of
the rules and regulations prescribed hereunder, shall, upon conviction, be fined in a sum
not more than $1,000, or be imprisoned for a period not more than twelve months, or
shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Bibliography
Abelev, Melissa; Vincent, M. Bess; Haney, Timothy J. The Bottom Line: An Excersize to
Help Students Understand How Social Inequality is Actively Constructed. Teaching
Sociology. Vol. 36 No. 2 April 2008. 150-160
Administrative cost-sharing and quality control of Food Stamps 7USC(51)§2025
Administrative procedure for imposing penalties for false or misleading statements
42USC(7)XI-A1320a-8a
Advances to State Unemployment Funds. Eligibility requirements for transfer of funds;
reimbursement by State; application; certification; limitation 42USC(7)XII§1321
Affordable Care Act 42USC(157)§18091 et. seq.
Age Discrimination Act of 1975 42USC(76)§6101
Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 S. 3240
Almanac of Policy Compensation on Unemployment Compensation
224
Altman, Nancy J.; Kingson, Eric R. Social Security Works! Why Social Security Isn’t
Going Broke and How Expanding it Will Help Us All. The New Press. New York.
London. 2015
American Association of Retired People (AARP). Divide We Fail. Congressional Pledge.
2008
American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act (H.R. 5429)
American Medical Association. Code of Medical Ethics
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 42USC (126)§12101
Anderson, William D; Patterson, Miles L. Effects of Social Value Orientations on
Fairness Judgments. Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 148, No. 2. April 2008. 223-250
Andrews, Andy. How Do You Kill 11 Million People? Why the Truth Matters More than
You Think,. Thomas Nelson. Nashville, Tennessee. 2011
Annual Reports 42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-10
Aon Benfield. Annual Global Climate and Catastrophe Report - 2013. Impact
Forecasting. 2014
Application 20 CFR 404.603
Application 404.909-404.915
Assignment of Benefits 42USC(7)I§407
Assistance for United States citizens returned from foreign countries 42USC(7)XIA§1313
Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB). 400 South Ridge Pkwy., Suite B, Culpeper,
VA 22701
Astrue, Michael J. Commissioner, Social Security Administration. Funding Social
Security's Administrative Costs: Will the Budget Meet the Mission? Testimony before
the Senate Finance Committee. And Addendum. May 23, 2007
Astrue, Michael J. Commissioner, Social Security Administration . Compassionate
Allowances Outreach Hearing on Rare Diseases. Social Security Administration.
December 4, 2007
Astrue, Michael J. Commissioner, Social Security Administration. Hearing on Clearing
the Disability Backlog - Giving the Social Security Administration the Resources it
225
Needs to Provide the Benefits Workers Have Earned. Testimony Before the Full
Committee of the House Committee on Ways and Means. April 23, 2008
Astrue Michael J. Commissioner, Social Security Administration. Testimony Before the
Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Hearing
on the Hiring of Administrative Law Judges at the Social Security Administration May
01, 2007
Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security v. Ratliff No. 08-1322 (2010)
Attempt to evade or defeat tax 26USC§7201
Attribution of sponsor’s income and resources to aliens 42USC(7)XVI-A§1382j
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33)
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999
Balanced Budget FY 2007
Balkus, Richard; Wilschke, Susan. Annual Wage Trends for Supplemental Security
Income Recipients. Social Security Bulletin Vol. 65 No. 2 2003-4
Banking Act of 1935
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and the amendments of 1970
Barker, Robert L. Milestones in the Development of Social Work and Social Welfare
Washington, DC NASW Press. 1998
Barnhart, Jo Anne. Commissioner. Disability Service Improvement Initiative. Social
Security Bulletin Vol. 66. No. 3 2005/2006
Barnhart, Joanne. Commissioner of Social Security. 7th Annual Mother’s Day Report on
Most Popular Baby Names. 14 May 2006
Barsky, Allan E. Florida Atlantic University. The Virtuous Social Work Researcher.
Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics. Volume 7 Number 1 (2010)
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000
Berger, Allen N.; Molyneux, Philip; Wilson, John O.S. The Oxford Handbook of
Banking. Oxford University Press, Inc. New York. 2010
226
Berger, Ronald J. Agency, Structure, and the Transition to Disability: A Case Study With
Implications for Life History Research. The Sociological Quarterly. Vol. 49 No. 2 Spring
2008. 309-333
Bernanke, Ben S. Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.
Challenges for Health-Care Reform. At the Senate Finance Committee Health Reform
Summit, Washington, D.C. June 16, 2008
Bernanke, Ben S. Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Energy and the Economy before the
Economic Club of Chicago in Chicago, Illinois of June 15, 2006
Bernanke, Ben S. Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. At The
Washington Economic Club, Washington, D.C. The Coming Demographic Transition:
Will We Treat Future Generations Fairly? October 4, 2006
Bernoski, Ronald G. President of the Association of Administrative Law Judges.
Subcommittee on Social Security. Hearing on the Hiring of Administrative Law Judges at
the Social Security Administration May 01, 2007
Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord No. 02-469 (2003)
Blakely v. Washington No. 02-1632 (2004)
Blanc, Paul Le; Yates, Michael D. A Freedom budget for All Americans: Recapturing the
Promise of the Civil Rights Movement in the Struggle for Economic Justice Today.
Monthly Review Press. New York. 2013
Bloom v. Social Security Administration (10th Cir.) No. 02-3362 (2003)
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2006 Annual Report: Budget Review
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Monetary Policy Report to the
Congress 15 February 2006
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Profits and Balance Sheet
Developments at U.S. Commercial Banks in 2005
Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Appeal of Sly, C-27 593 725 (May 10, 1972)
Bronfenbrenner, Urie; Neville, Peter R. America’s Children and Families. Putting
Families First: America’s Family Support Movement and the Challenge of Change.
Edited by Sharon L. Kagan and Bernice Weissbourd. Josey-Bass Inc. 1994
Buckannon Board & Care Home Inc. v. West Virginia Dep. Of Health and Human
Resources No. 99-1848 (2001)
Budget contents and submission to Congress 31USC(11)§1105
227
Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United
States: 2004
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Situation Summary: May 2009. USDL 09-0588.
June 5, 2009
BLS. Unemployment. No. LNS14000000. 12 June 2006
Cahalane, Helen; Sites, Edward. The Climate of Child Welfare Employee Retention.
Child Welfare League of America. Vol. 87 No. 1. 2008. 91-114
Center for Disease Control. Poisoning in the United States: Fact Sheet. March 13, 2008
Califano v. Boles, 443 U.S. 282, 283 (1979)
Califano v. Goldfarb 430 US 199 (1977)
Califano v. Jobst 434 US 47 (1977)
Califano v. Sanders 430 US 99 (1977)
Califano v. Webster 430 US 313 (1977)
Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979)
California Dentist Association v. FTC No. 97-1625 (1999)
Cappadora v. Anthony J. Celebreeze 356 F 2d. 1, 4 (CA2 1996)
Census Bureau Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States
Certification of Medicare supplemental health insurance policies 42USC(7)XVIIID§1395ss
Chambon, Adrienne S.; Irving, Allan; Epstein, Laura. Reading Foucault for Social Work.
Columbia University Press. New York. 1999
Chatterjee, Pranab; Fauble, Mandy. Toward a Mission-Based Model for Social Work: A
Foundation for Practice. Social Work with Groups. A Journal of Community and Clinical
Practice. Vol. 31 No. 1. 2008. 5-23
Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act of 2003
Children’s Health Act Pub. L. 106-310, Div. B, Title Xxxiv, Sec. 3405(B) of Oct. 17,
2000
228
Civil Rights Act of 1964 42USC(21)V§2000d
Civil Rights Act of 21 November 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166)
Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates PC v. Wells No. 01-1435 (2003)
Class Actions Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23
Clayton Anti-Trust Act 15USC(1)§15
Colvin, Carolyn W. Annual Report of the Supplemental Security Income Program. Social
Security Administration. 2014
Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, other officers 42USC(7)VII§902
Committee on Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Joint Hearing on Economic
Stimulus Payments OV-9. June 19, 2008
Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security Hearing on Protecting
Social Security Beneficiaries from Predatory Lending and Other Harmful Financial
Institution Practices SS-7. June 24, 2008
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 12USC(30)§2908
Conditions of participation for home health agencies; home health quality
42USC(7)XVIII-D§1395bbb
Congressional Budget Office. An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook. 20142024. August 2014
Congressional Budget Office. Background Paper: Factors Underlying the Growth in
Medicare’s Spending for Physicians Services. June 2007
Congressional Budget Office. Budget Options. February 2007
Congressional Budget Office. Monthly Budget Review. June 2007
Consumer Price Index Summary by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of September 15, 2006
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment of 26 June 1987
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities HA-30-3-07
Computation of Benefits 42USC(7)§415
229
Cost of Living Adjustment of October 2005
County Welfare Administration and Financing IC-12-19
Crawford, Malik; Church, Jonathan; Rippy, Darren. CPI Detailed Report. April 2012
Credits against tax 26USC(C)(23)§3302
Danziger, Sheldon, University of Michigan; Gottschalk, Peter, Boston College. Wage
Inequality, Earnings, Inequality and Poverty in the US Over the Last Quarter of the
Twentieth Century. May 2003
Declaration on Social Progress and Development 2542 (XXIV) 1969
Deductions of tax from wages 26USCC(21)A§3102
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 Section 6071
Definitions and Special Rules 26USCA(1)D(I)B414(h)(2)
Demographic Trends in the 20th Century. Washington, DC: Census Bureau.
October 15, 2002
Determination and appeals for Health Insurance for the Aged and Disabled
42USC(7)XVIII-D§1395ff
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Annual Homeless Assessment
Report to Congress. 98 pages. February 2007
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980
Deprivation of Relief Benefits 18USC(13)§246
Determinations 20CFR§404.930
Deyo, Richard A; Patrick, Donald L. Hope or Hype: The Obsession with Medical
Advances and the High Cost of False Promises. AMACOM. 2005
Diamond, Peter; Orszag, Peter. Saving Social Security: a balanced approach. The
Brooking’s Institution. Washington D.C. 2004
Diest, Han van. Possibilities of Democratization in Organizations. Social Epistemology.
Vol. 22 ,No. 1. January-March 2008. 97-117
Disability Benefits Payments 42USC(7)II§423
230
Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984
Disability Determination 42USC(7)II§421
Disability Insurance Benefit Payments 42USC(7)II§423
Disability Provisions Inapplicable if Benefit Rights Impaired 42USC(7)II§420
Doctorow, Cory. Information Doesn’t Want to be Free: Laws for the Internet Age.
McSweeneys’s San Francisco. 2014
Du Boise, W.E. Burghardt. The Freedmen’s Bureau. Atlantic Monthly 87 (1901): 354365
Ducharme, Lori J.; Knudsen, Hannah K.; Roman, Paul M. Emotional Exhaustion and
Turnover Intention in Human Service Occupations: The Protective Role of Coworker
Support. Sociological Spectrum. Vol. 28 No. 1 January-February 2008. 81-104
Duty of Financial Institutions 12USC(35)§3411
Dychtwald, Ken Phd. Age Power: How the 21st Century will be Ruled by the New Old.
Putnam. New York. 1999 HA-4-4-05
Economic Security Act (ESA) H. R. 7260 August 14, 1935
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 P.L. 110-185 February 13, 2008
Eligibility for SSI benefits 42USC(7)XVI-A§1382
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-164)
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendment of 1993 (Public Law 103-6)
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 29 U.S.C. 1002
Employment Act of 1946
Employment Retirement Income Security Program 29USC(18)1BV§1133
Entmacher, Joan. Vice President and Director of Family Economic Security, National
Women’s Law Center. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Social Security of the
House Committee on Ways and Means. Hearing on Social Security Benefits for
Economically Vulnerable Beneficiaries. January 16, 2008
Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) 28USCVI(161)§2412
231
Evaluating Opinion Evidence 20CFR§404.1527
Examination and treatment for emergency medical conditions and women in labor
42USC(7)XVIII-D§1395dd
Exemption from tax certain corporations, trust funds, etc. 26USC(A)(1)(F)I §501
Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007 H.R. 1852
Expedited Funds Availability Act of 1987
Explanation of Medicare Benefits 42USC(7)XVIII§1395b-7
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15USC§1692k
Fair Housing Act of 1988 42 USC(45)§3601
Farm Bill for 2003
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991
Federal Insurance Contributions Act 26USCC(21)B§3121
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 42USC(7)XVIII-A§1395i
Federal loans for State welfare programs 42USC(7)IVA§606
Federal parent locator 42USC(7)IV-D§653
Federal participation in payments for repairs to home owned by recipient of aid or
assistance 42USC(7)XI-A§1319
Federal Reserve Act of 1977
Federal Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund 42USC(7)SVIII-B§1395t
FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists 476 U. S. 447, 459 (1986)
Ferrara, Peter. America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb: How the Looming Debt Crisis
Threatens the American Dream – and How We Cant Turn the Tide Before It’s Too Late.
Broadside Books. Harper Collins. New York. 2011
Final Report of the Presidents Commission titled Strengthening Social Security and
Creating Personal Wealth for all Americans of December 2001
232
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)
Food Stamp Act of 1977 7UC§2011
Ford, Marty. Co-Chair, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Social Security Task
Force. Hearing on Clearing the Disability Backlog - Giving the Social Security
Administration the Resources it Needs to Provide the Benefits Workers Have Earned.
Testimony Before the Full Committee of the House Committee on Ways and Means.
April 23, 2008
Ford, Marty. Co-Chair, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. Hearing on Reducing
the Disability Backlog at the Social Security Administration. FY 2009 Budget Overview.
Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies. House Committee on
Appropriations. February 28, 2008
Foreign Service and Foreign Service Pension system 22USC(52)§4071
Formal Written Request 12USC(35)§3408
Form SSA-1606-U4 “Appointment of Representative”
Form SSA-7004 “Request for Earnings and Benefits Statement” Filed
Form HA-501-U5 “Request for a Hearing with an Administrative Law Judge”
Form SSA-561 “Request for Reconsideration”
Foster care maintenance payments program 42USC(7)IV-D§672
Foster, Leila M. The Story of the Great Society. Cornerstone of Freedom. Children’s
Press. Chicago. 1991
Fraud and False Statements. Statements and Entries Generally 18USC§1001
 Possession of False Paper to Defraud the United States under 18USC§1002
 Bank entries, reports and transactions 18USC§1005
 Federal credit Institution, entries, report and transactions 18USC§1006
 Federal deposit insurance corporation transactions 18USC§1007
 Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing
Administration transactions 18USC§1010
 Department of Housing and Urban Development transactions 18USC§1012
 Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry 18USC§1015
 Official certificates or writing 18USC§1018
 Certificates by Consular Service 18USC§1019
233
 Highway Projects 18USC§1020
 Delivery of certificate, voucher, receipt for military or naval property
18USC§1022
 Insufficient delivery of money or property for military or naval service
18USC§1023
 Purchase or Receipt of Military, Naval or Veteran’s facilities property
18USC§1024
 Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents,
authentication features and information 18USC§1028
 Fraud and related activity in connection with computers 18USC§1030
 Major fraud against the United States 18USC§1031
 Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail 18USC§1037
 Fraud and related activity in connection with obtaining confidential phone records
information of a covered entity 18USC§1039
 Fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits 18USC§1040
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
Fugate, W. Craig. Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Report Through June 30, 2013. July 5,
2013
Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978
Functions of Peer Review Organizations 42USC(7)XI-B1320c-3
Gailey, Jeannine; Lee, Matthew T. Influences and the Assignment of Responsibility for
Wrongdoings in Organizational Settings. Sociological Focus. Vol. 41 No. 1. February
2008. 71-86
Gandy, John; Robertson, Alex; Sinclair, Susan. Improving Social Intervention. St.
Martin’s Press. New York. 1983
Gardner et al. State of the World 2015: Confronting Hidden Threats to Sustainability.
Island Press. Worldwatch Institute. Washington, Covelo, London. 2015
General contents of State child health plan; eligibility; outreach 42USC(7)XXI§1397bb
Go, Julian. Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American
Empires* Sociological Theory 26:3 September 2008
Goodnight, Lynn; Palczewski, Cathy. Enhancing the Quality of Life for Aging Citizens:
What Should the Federal Government Do to Enhance the Quality of Life for United
States Citizens Over Sixty-Five. National Text Book Company. Lincolnwood, Illinois.
1988
234
Goss, Stephen C.; Chief Actuary. The 2013 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of
the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust
Funds. Board of Trustees. July 28, 2014
Goss, Stephen C., Chief Actuary. SSA Office of Policy. The Financial Outlook for the
Disability Program. Social Security Bulletin Vol. 66. No. 3 2005/2006
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Reports Planning Document 2006-09
Governor Donald L. Kohn. Speech on The Effects of Globalization on Inflation and
Their Implications for Monetary Policy. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's 51st
Economic Conference. Chatham, Massachusetts. June 16, 2006
Governor Susan Schmidt Bies Remarks at the Mortgage Bankers Association Presidents
Conference, Half Moon Bay, California on 14 June 2006
Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs 42USC(7)IV-D§669b
Grants to States for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children and Child
Welfare Services 42USC(7)IV§603
Grants to States for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children and Child
Welfare Services. Definitions 42USC(7)IVB§625
Green. Stuart P. Thirteen Ways to Steal a Bicycle: Theft Law in the Information Age.
Harvard University Press. Cambridge Massachusetts. 2012
Group Health Requirements. Increased portability through limitation on preexisting
condition exclusions 26USC(K)(100)(A)§9801
Group Health Plan Requirements. Prohibiting discrimination against individual
participants and beneficiaries based on health status 26USC(K)(100)(A)§9802
Hacker, Jacob S.; Huber, Gregory A.; Nichols, Austin; Rehm, Philip; Craig, Stuart.
Economic Insecurity Across the American States: New State Estimates from the
Economic Security Index. Rockefeller Foundation. June 2012
Haltzel, Laura R. Specialist in Social Legislation, Congressional Research Service.
Hearing on Social Security Benefits for Economically Vulnerable Beneficiaries.
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Committee on
Ways and Means. January 16, 2008
Hansan, John E.; Morris, Robert. The National Government and Social Welfare: What
Should be the Federal Role? Auburn House. Westport, Conn. 1997
235
Hartmann, Heidi; Hill, Hill. Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Strengthening Social
Security for Women: A Report from the Working Conference on Women and Social
Security: Making Social Security Work Better for Women: Report on Reform
Recommendations (1999)
Hartwig, Jochen. On Misusing National Account Data for Government Purposes. Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology. No. 101 of March 2005
Hayt, Leon E.; Wilson, Earl R. Accounting for Government and Nonprofit Entities.10th
Edition. Irwin. Inc. Norwalk, Connecticut. 1995
Heal, Geoffrey. When Principles Pay: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Bottom
Line. Columbia University Press. New York. 2008
Health Care Financing Review. Social Security Independence and Program
Improvements Act of 1994 - Public Law 103-296. Winter 1994
Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled. Definitions. 42USC(7)XVIII-D§1395x
Hearing with an Administrative Law Judge 20CFR§404.929
Heinrich, Carolyn J.; Lynn, Laurence E. Governance and Performance: New
Perspectives. Georgetown University Press. Washington DC. 2000
Herschoff, Helen. “Just Words”: Common Law and the Enforcement of State
Constitutional Social and Economic Rights. 62 Stan. L. Rev:1521-1582 (2010)
Heymann, Jody et al., The Work, Family, and Equity Index: Where Does the United
States Stand Globally? Boston: Project on Global Working Families. Harvard Shool of
Public Heatlh. 2004
Home Energy Assistance 42USC(94)§8621
Hospitals Insurance Benefits for Uninsured Elderly Individuals Not Otherwise Eligible.
Sec. 1818 of the Social Security Act. 42USC(7)(XVIII)§1395i–2
Household Eligible for Food Stamps 7USC(51)§2014
House Ways and Means Committee Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)
How to request reconsideration 20CFR404.909
Huff, Dan. Progress and Reform: A Cyberhistory of Social Work’s Formative Years.
Boise State University. 2000
236
Huntley, James Robert. Pax Democratica: A Strategy for the 21st Century. Fwrd. by
Lawrence S. Eagleburger. St. Martin's Press, Inc. New York. 1998
Income and Eligibility Verification System 42USC(7)XI-B§1320b-7
Individual Development Account 42USC(7)IVA§604
Initiation of Civil Action 42USC(21)I-A§1997a
Insured status for purposes of old-age and survivors insurance benefits 42USC(7)II§414
Interagency Paper on Sound Practices to Strengthen the Resilience of the U.S. Financial
System April 2006
International Banking Act of 1978
International child support enforcement 42USC(7)IV-D§659a
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2200A(XXI)(1966)
Jefferson, Thomas; Letter to John Taylor of Caroline, 26 November 1798; reproduced in
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson v. 10, editted by Lipscomb and Bergh
Jenks, Chris. Square Peg in a Round Hole: Government Contractor Battlefield Torts
Liability and the Political Question Doctrine. Berkeley Journal of International Law. Vol.
28 Is. 1. (2010)
Jennings, Kathy; Zott, Lynn M. The US Deficit. Opposing Viewpoints Series.
Greenhaven Press. Gale Cengage Learning. Farmington Hills, MI. 2013
Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628, 634 (1974)
Johnson, Jeh. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management
Disaster Relief Fund. Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Justification. 2014
Johnson, Sam. Representative from the state of Texas. Opening Statement. Hearing on
Social Security Benefits for Economically Vulnerable Beneficiaries. Before the
Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means. January
16, 2008
Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974)
Joyce, Philip G. The Congressional Budget Office: Honest Number, Power and
Policymaking. Georgetown University Press. Washington DC. 2011
Judicial Review 42USC(7)III§504
237
Justice Story. Minis v. US 40 U.S. 423 (1841).
Kahn, E.J. Jr. Fraud: The United States Postal Inspection Service and some of the fools
and knaves it has known. Harper & Row Publishers. New York. 1973
Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U.S. 351, 354 (1974)
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. “Immediate State Fiscal Crisis
Subsides, but Medicaid Still Faces Long Term Budgetary Challenges” 19 October 2005
Kaiser Family Foundation. Key Medicare and Medicaid Statistics. 2006
Kaiser Family Foundation. Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD
Countries. January 2007
Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits Survey. 2006
Kearney, John R. US Social Security Administration Office of Policy. Social Security
and the "D" in OASDI: The History of a Federal Program Insuring Earners Against
Disability. Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 66 No. 3, 2005/2006
Kendrick, J. W. (1996) “Introduction and Overview”, in: Kendrick, J. W. (ed), The New
System of National Accounts, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 1-23. Kuznets, S.
(1934)
Keynes, JM. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936)
Kohn, Donald L. Governor. The Effects of Globalization on Inflation and Their
Implications for Monetary Policy at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's 51st Economic
Conference in Chatham, Massachusetts of June 16, 2006
Koppel, Nathan; Meckler, Laura. Immigration Ruling Leaves Millions in Limbo; Obama
to Appeal; Republicans cheer judge’s blocking of president’s plan, while
immigration-rights activists show confidence plan will prevail. Wall Street Journal.
February 17, 2015
Krugman, Paul. The Conscience of a Liberal. W.W. Norton & Company. New York.
2007
Lassiter, Mark. Cardiovascular Disease and Multiple Organ Transplants. Social Security
Holds Compassionate Allowances Hearing on Cardiovascular Disease and Multiple
Organ Transplants. Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Lee, Cheryl H.; Willhide, Robert Jessee; Higgins, Nancy I. State Government Finances
Summary 2010. Governments Division Brief. U.S. Census Bureau December 2011
238
Lew, Jacob J. OMB Report on Disaster Relief Funding to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Budget of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.
Director, Office of Management and Budget. September 1, 2011
Lifsher, Mark. California teachers pension faces $65 billion shortfall. Los Angeles Times
April 10, 2012
Liley, Denise G. Exploring the Uncharted: Creating a New Social Work Field Placement.
17 New Social Worker 3 Summer 2010
Litan, Robert E.; Baily, Martin Neil. Moving Money: The Future of Consumer Payments.
Brookings Institution Press. Washington D.C. 2009
Lloyd, Delia. Poverty Rx: Cash Payments Are Best Way to Help Poor, Study Finds. Aol
News. July 4, 2010
Louwers, Timothy J., Ramsay, Robert J.; Sinasin, David H.; Strawser, Jerry R. Auditing
and Assurance Services. McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York. 2005
Low-income Energy Assistance Program. Application and Requirements
42USC(94)(II)§8624
Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934)
McKinney, Jerome B.; Johnston, Michael. Fraud, Waste and Abuse in Government:
Causes, Consequences and Cures. Institute for the Study of Human Issues.
Philadelphia. 1986
Malhotra, Ravi. Expanding the Frontiers of Justice: Reflections on the Theory of
Capabilities, Disability Rights and the Politics of Global Inequality. Socialism and
Democracy. Vol. 22 No.l 1 March 2008. 83-100
Managing Trustees 42USC(7)II§432
Mandatory Restitution 18USC(77)§1593
Martin, Teran; Davies, Paul. Changes in Demographic and Economic Characteristics of
SSI and DI beneficiaries Between 1984 and 1999. Social Security Bulletin Vol. 65 No. 2
2003-4
Maternal and Child Health Service Block Grant. Allotment to States and Federal setaside 42USC(7)V§702
Mathews v. DeCastro 429 US 181 (1976)
239
Mathews v. Eldridge 424 US 319 (1976)
Mathews v. Lucas 427 US 495 (1976)
Mathews v. Weber 423 US 261 (1973)
Mayor, Mara. AARP Board of Directors. The Social Security Administration’s Service
to the Public. Washington DC. April 23, 2008
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 42USC(119)IVC§11383
McNabb, Jennifer; Timmons, David; Song, Jay; Puckett, Carolyn. Uses of Administrative
Data at the Social Security Administration. USSSA Office of Retirement and
Disability Policy. Social Security Bulletin. Vol. 69 No. 1 2009
Medicare-Choice Premiums 42USC(7)XVIII-B§1395w-24
Medicare rural hospital flexibility program 42USC(7)XVIII§1395i-4
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
Millennium Declaration (2000)
Miller, S.M. Employment Challenges. The National Government and Social Welfare:
What Should be the Federal Role? Edited by John E. Hanson & Robert Morris. Auburn
House. Wesport, Conn. 1997
Moakley, Terry. Vice President for Public Affairs, United Spinal Association, Jackson
Heights, New York, on behalf of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities’ Task
Forces on Social Security and Employment and Training. Hearing on Social Security
Benefits for Economically Vulnerable Beneficiaries. Testimony Before the
Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means. January
16, 2008
Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. 460 US 1 (1983)
Nadel, Mark; Wamhoff, Steve; and Wiseman, Michael. Disability, Welfare Reform and
Supplemental Security Income. Social Security Bulletin Vol. 65 No. 3 2003-4
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics
National Association of Social Workers. 2009 Compensation and Benefits Survey:
Summary of Key Compensation Findings. May 2010
National Federation of Independent Businesses et al v. Sebelius, Secertary of Health and
Human Services, et al No. 11-393 June 28, 2012
240
National Income 1929-1932, US Congress, S. Doc. 124, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session
National Poverty Center (NPC). The University of Michigan. Gerald R. Ford School of
Public Policy
Neuman, Tricia; Cubanski, Juliette. The Social Security COLA and Medicare Part B
Premium. Kaiser Family Foundation. May 2009
Neumark, David; Powers, Elizabeth T. The Effect of the SSI Program on Labor Supply:
Improved Evidence from Social Security Files. Social Security Bulletin Vol. 65 No. 3
2003-4
New Jersey Welfare Rights Org v. Cahill 411 US 619 (1973)
Ng, Kwai Hang; Kidder, Jeffrey L. Toward a Theory of Emotive Performance: With
Lessons from How Politicians Do Anger. Sociological Theory 28:2 June 2010
Nicholas, Joyce; Wiseman, Michael. Elderly Poverty and Supplemental Security Income.
Office of Retirement and Disability Policy. Social Security Bulletin. Vol. 69 No. 1 2009
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 103-182)
Obama, Barack. President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications
Technologies. Liberty and Security in a Changing World: Report and Recommendation
12 December 2013
Obligations and Securities of the United States 18USC§471
Obligations of health care practitioners and providers of health care services; sanctions
and penalties; hearings and review 42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-5
O’Carroll, Patrick. Inspector General, Social Security Administration. Hearing on
Protecting the Privacy of the Social Security Number from Identity Theft.
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Committee on
Ways and Means. June 21, 2007
Office of Economic Policy. US Department of Treasury. Social Security and Medicare
Trust Funds and the Federal Budget. May 2006
Office of Justice Programs. Slower Growth in the Nation’s Prison and Jail Populations.
June 6, 2008
Office of Management and Budget Historic Budget Tables
241
Office of Management and Budget & Congressional Budget Office. Revenues, Outlays,
Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt Held by the Public. 1962 to 2006
Old Age Survivor Insurance OASI Trust Fund §201 of the Social Security Act
(42USC(7)II§401 et seq)
Old Age and Survivors Benefits Payments 42USC(7)II§402
Olmstead v. LC 527 US 581 (1999)
Olson, Anna. SSA. Military Veterans and Social Security Vol. 66 No. 2
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 Public Law 97-35
Oportunidades. Inter-American Development Bank HA-7-1-05
Organization certificate; acknowledgment; forwarding to, filing, and approval by Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; permit to do business; body corporate;
name; seal; corporate succession; contracts; suits; directors, officers, and employees;
bylaws 12USC(6)§614
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) DACNews April
2007
Orszag, Peter R. Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments: Options for
Expanded Federal Role before the Subcommittee on Health on Ways and Means US
House of Representatives. 12 June 2007
Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. v. Book No. 02-215 (2003)
Paine, Thomas. Agrarian Justice. 1795
Painter, William L. Offsets, Supplemental Appropriations, and the Disaster Relief Fund:
FY 1990-FY 2013. Analysis Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
December 4, 2012
Parks, Joseph. Mentally ill treated in the public health system die 25 years younger.
Missouri Department of Mental Health. 2007
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 P.L. 111-148
Pay-as-you-go 2USC(20)I§902
Payment for covered outpatient drugs 42USC(7)XIX§1396r-8
242
Payments to health maintenance organizations and competitive medical plans
42USC(7)XVIII-D§1395mm
Payment to States for Aid to Blind 42USC(7)X§1203
Payments to States for Social Services Block Grants 42USC(7)XX§1397a
Peer Review of utilization and quality of Health Care Services. Obligations of health care
practitioners and providers of health care services; sanctions and penalties; hearings and
review. 42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-5
Pension Protection Act of 2006
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104193)
Peterson, Paul E. Nadler, Daniel J. The Global Debt Crisis: Haunting U.S. and European
Federalism. Brookings Institution Press. Washington D.C. 2014
Petty, William (1623-1687) Political Arithmetick. 1690
Phillips, Kevin. The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the
Reagan Years. Harper Collins. 1990
Political Organizations 26USCI(F)(VI)§527
Porter, Jeremy. Using Structural Equation Modeling to Examine the Relationship
Between Political Cynicism and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Sociological Spectrum.
Vol. 28 No. 1 January-February 2008 38-54
Poverty Reduction Obligation Under Deliberation (PROUD), Human Rights Day HA-412-06
Priestland, David. The Red Flag: A History of Communism. Grove Press. New York.
2009
Principals 18USC(1)§2
Processing of Tax Payments 42USC(7)II§432
Program for distribution of pediatric vaccines 42USC(7)XIX1396s
Prohibition of Any Federal Interference. Sec. 1801 of the Social Security Act
42USC(7)(XVIII)§1395
Prohibition with respect to Biological Weapons 18USC(10)I§175
243
Protection of Human Test Subjects 45CFR§46.302
Public Access to State disbursement records 42USC(7)XI-A§1306a
Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158, 171 (1989)
Qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans 26USCA(1)D(I)B§401(k)
Queen Elizabeth. 1601 Poor Law Act
Quesado, Charo. The Other Desaparecidos Inter-American Development Bank 15 May
2006
Quesnay, François. Tableau économique (1766)
Rangel, Charles B. Announces a Hearing on Clearing the Disability Backlog – Giving the
Social Security Administration the Resources It Needs to Provide the Benefits
Workers Have Earned. Full Committee on Ways and Means. April 16, 2008
Rate of Tax 26USC(A)(2)§1401
Rate of Tax 26USC(C)(21)(A)§3101
Rate of Tax 26USC(C)(21)(A)§3111
Receiving the Proceeds of Extortion 18USC(41)§880
Recommendations by Board of Trustees to remedy inadequate balances in Social
Security trust funds 42USC(7)VII§910
Reconsideration of Claims Section 205 of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)§405
Reduction of Insurance Benefits 42USC(7)II§403
Reed, Steve. Consumer Price Index. May 2011. Bureau of Labor Statistics. June 15,
2011
Regasamy, S. Evolution of Social Welfarr/Work in UK, US and India. Madurai Institute
of Social Sciences. 2009
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 29USC(16)1A§720
Rehabilitation Services 42USC(7)II§422
244
Reimer, Bill; Lyons, Tara; Ferguson, Nelson & Planco, Geraldina. Social Capital as
Social Relations: The Contribution of Normative Structures. The Sociological Review.
Vol. 56 No. 2. May 2008. 256-274
Release 24U.S.C.(9)§326
Remarks by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. The Community Reinvestment Act: Its
Evolution and New Challenges. At the Community Affairs Research Conference,
Washington, D.C. March 30, 2007
Representation §206 of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)§406
Requirements for, and assuring quality of care in, skilled nursing facilities
42USC(7)XVIII-A§1395i-3
Requirement for nursing facilities 42USC(7)XIX§1396r
Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child
support enforcement 42USC(7)IV-D§666
Reynolds, Ross. Guide to Weather: A Practical Guide to Observing, Measuring and
Understanding the Weather. Firefly Books Ltd. Buffalo, New York. 2005
Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 12USC(35)§3401
Right to hearing and judicial review 42USC(7)XI-B§1320c-4
Rosenbaum, Dottie. Ryan Budget Would Slash SNAP Funding by $134 Billion Over Ten
Year: Low Income Houses in All States Would Feel Effects. April 18, 2012
Rugola, Joseph. International Vice President, American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Columbus, Ohio. Hearing on Social Security Benefits
for Economically Vulnerable Beneficiaries. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on
Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means. January 16, 2008
Rust, David A. Acting Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security
Programs, Social Security Administration. Hearing on Social Security Benefits for
Economically Vulnerable Beneficiaries. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Social
Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means. January 16, 2008
Rules of Procedure of the Economic and Social Council are set forth in E/5715/Rev. 2
(1992)
Rules of Procedure of the UN General Assembly of 31 December 1984
245
Rupp, Kalman; Davies, Paul. An Overview of the National Survey of SSI Children and
Families and Related Products. SSA Bulletin Vol. 66 No. 2
Sachs, Jeffrey D. The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press. New
York. 2015
Sanders, Tony J. African International Development (AID). Hospitals & Asylums. HA-93-06
-- Correcting OMB HA-27-2-15
-- Defense of Social Security Caucus: US v. M.J. Astrue Esq. HA-1-7-11
-- Disability Insurance Replenishment Tax (DIRT) of 2012. Hospitals & Asylums HA16-6-12
-- Federal Budget in Balance FY 2011: Comparison of Bush and Obama. Hospitals &
Asylums HA-28-2-10
-- FY 2015 Federal Budget 2000-2020 HA-19-12-14
-- Gas Export Tax (GET) HA-26-9-14
-- Government Publishing Office v. Microsoft Corporation HA-27-1-15
-- Hurricane Insurance HA-9-29-04
-- Natality in the United States. Hospitals & Asylums. HA-15-6-08
-- National Health Insurance: Immediately Achieving Universal Single Payer Insurance
and Progressively Realize National Health Insurance that is free for all. Hospitals &
Asylums. HA-28-4-08
-- Social Work Act of 2008. Hospitals & Asylums. HA-17-6-08
-- Speak of World Wide Welfare not Sustainable Development: A Book Report HA-16-715
-- Supplemental To Extend Unemployment Benefits. HA-3-5-08
Defense of Social Security Caucus. For Senator Bernie Sanders. Hospitals & Asylums
HA-1-7-11
-- Weather Control Regulation HA-14-2-14
-- World Atlas 2010: Millennium Development Goals 1990-2015 and the Factbook 2009.
HA-1-6-10
Sanders, Bernie; Senator. The Speech: A Historic Filibuster on Corporate Greed and the
Decline of our Middle Class. With Senators Brown and Landrieu. National Books. New
York. 2011
Save the Children. State of the World’s Mothers Report. 2008
Scarborough v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs No. 02-1657 (2004)
Schieber, Sylvester J. Chairman, Social Security Advisory Board. Hearing on Clearing
the Disability Backlog - Giving the Social Security Administration the Resources it
Needs to Provide the Benefits Workers Have Earned. Testimony Before the Full
Committee of the House Committee on Ways and Means. April 23, 2008
246
Schram, Sanford F.; Soss, Joe; Fording, Richard C.; Houser, Linda. Deciding to
Discipline: Race, Choice, and Punishment at the Frontlines of Welfare Reform. 74 Am.
Soc. Rev. 3 (2009) 398-422
Scope of Plan A Hospital Insurance Benefits 42USC(7)XVIII-A§1395d
Scott, Robert E. The Limits of Behavioral Theories of Law and Social Norms, 86 VA. L.
REV. 1603, 1603 (2000)
Services provided by charitable, religious, or private organizations 42USC(7)IV§604a
Shalala Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Illinois Long Term Care Inc. No. 981109 (2000)
Sherman, Arloc. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Social Security Lifts One
Million Children Above the Poverty Line (2005)
Sherman, Howard. Radical Political Economy: Capitalism and Socialism from a MarxistHumanist Perspective. Basic Books Inc. New York. 1972
Shor, Nancy G. Executive Director of the National Organization of Social Security
Claimants’ Representatives. Hearing on Funding the Social Security Administrative
Costs: Will the Budget Meet the Mission? Testimony Before the Senate Finance
Committee. May 23, 2007
Singer, Jonarthan B.; Dewane, Claudia. Treating New Social Worker Anxiety Syndrome.
17 New Social Worker 3 Summer 2010
Skwierczynski, Witold. President of the American Federation of Government Employees
National Council of Social Security Field Operations Locals, Baltimore, Maryland.
Hearing on Clearing the Disability Backlog - Giving the Social Security Administration
the Resources it Needs to Provide the Benefits Workers Have Earned. Testimony Before
the Full Committee of the House Committee on Ways and Means. April 23, 2008
Smith, Gilbert. Social Work, Policy, Government and Research: a Mildly Optimistic
View. Improving Social Intervention: Changing Social Policy and Social Work Practice
Through Research. Edited by John Gandy, Alex Robertson & Susan Sinclair. St. Martin’s
Press, Inc. New York. 1983. pp. 218-240
Social Security Act of 1935 [H. R. 7260] originally Economic Security Act (ESA).
Signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt on 14 August 1935
Social Security Act of 1965 [H.R. 6675]. Signed by President Johnson on 30 July 1965
Social Security Administration, Income of the Population 55 and Older, 2004 at Table
6.B2 and 6.B4 (2006)
247
Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (PL-103-296)
Social Security Administration Office of Disability Adjudication and Review Hearings,
Appeals and Litigation Law Manual (HALLEX)
Social Security Administration. National Average Wage Index. October 14, 2005
SSA. Intl’ Update. October 2003, August 2004
SSA. Revised FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan
Social Security in the African Context. Lusaka, Zambia August 9-12 2005
Social Security Protection Act of 2 March 2004 (Public Law No. 108-203)
Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations (1776)
Spellings, Margaret. Commission Appointed by the Secretary of Education. A Test of
Leadership: Charting the Future of Higher Education. September 2006
Spending limits to reduce the deficit 2USC(20)§901
State and Local Housing Strategies 42USC(130)§12705
State Plans for Medical Assistance 42USC(7)XIX§1396a
State Old Age Plans. 42USC(7)I§302
State plans for aid to permanently and totally disabled 42USC(7)XIV§1352b
Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs 2008
Stobbe, Mike. Rise in US Births Defies Low Birth Trend in Europe. Associated Press.
January 16, 2008
Sullivan v. Everhart 494 US 83 (1990)
Sullivan v. Finkelstein 496 US 617 (1990)
Sullivan v. Hudson 490 US 977 (1989)
Sullivan v. Stroop 496 US 478 (1990)
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990)
248
Supplemental Budget estimates and changes 31USC(11)§1106
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Administrative cost-sharing and
quality control 7USC(51)§2025
SNAP. Congressional Declaration of Policy 7USC(51)§2011
SNAP. Eligible Households 7USC(51)§2014
Supplemental Security Income 42USC(7)XVI§1381a
Supplemental Security Income. Eligibility for Benefits 42USC(7)XVI-A§1382
SSI Federally Administered Payments. Table 1. Recipients (by type of payment), total
payments, and average monthly payment, April 2006–April 2007
Suits by Persons Injured 15USC(1)§15
System of National Accounts of 1993 (SNA)
Tax Deductions 26USC(A)(1)(F)I §501(c)
Tax fraud 26 USC § 6663
Tax on employers 26USC(21)B§3121
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34)
Testimony of Chairman Ben S. Bernanke Long-term fiscal challenges facing the United
States. Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate January 18, 2007
The High-level Plenary Meeting of the Sixtieth Session of the United Nations General
Assembly (New York, 2005)
The International Conference on Financing for Development (Monterrey, 2002)
Theme of the Substantive session of 2005 E/2005/52
The Millennium Summit of the United Nations (New York, 2000)
The World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen, 1995)
The World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002)
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-70)
Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program 42USC(7)XIA§1320b-19
249
Township Assistance. Indiana Code IC-12-20
Transitional provision on eligibility of uninsured individuals for hospital insurance
benefits 42USC(7)II§426a
Tripartite Boards 42USC(106)§9910
Trust Funds 42USC(7)II§401
Truth in Lending Act of 1968 15USC(41)IB§1639
Truth in Savings Act of 1991
Trygged, Sven; Eriksson, Bodil. Stockholm, University, Sweden. Implementing Swedish
Models of Social Work in a Russian Context. 7 Social Work and Society 2 (2009)
Turner, Grace-Marie; Capretta, James C.; Miller, Thomas P.; Moffit, Robert E. Why
Obamacare is Wrong for America: How the Health Care Law Drives up Costs, Puts
government in Charge of Your Decisions, and Threatens Your Constitutional Rights.
Broadside. Harper Collins Publisher. New York. 2011
Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992 (Public Law 102-318)
Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993 (Public Law 103-152)
Unemployment Insurance. Eligibility requirements for transfer of funds; reimbursement
by State; application; certification; limitation 42USC(7)XII§1321
Unemployment Tax Act 26USC§3305(b)
Unemployment Trust Fund 42USCIX§1101c
United Nations Development Program. Human Development Data 2003
UN Millennium Development Goals
United Nations (1953) A System of National Accounts and Supporting Tables. Studies in
Methods, Series F, No. 2, United Nations, New York. United Nations (1968) A System of
National Accounts. Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 2, Rev. 3, United Nations, New
York.
US Bureau of the Census. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of
Households All Races: 1967 to 2006
USDA. A Short History of the Food Stamp Program
250
U.S. Department of Agriculture.FY 2013 Budget Summary and Annual Performance
Plan. Office of Budget and Program Analysis. 2012
US Department of Labor. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Social Workers. May 30,
2008
U.S. Social Security Administration Office of Retirement and Disability Policy. Annual
Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program December 2009
US v. Thomas Fillebrown, Secretary of Commissioners of Navy Hospitals 32 US 28 7
Pet. 28 (1833)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 217 A (III) (1948)
University of St. Thomas School of Social Work. Finding Common Ground. 2008
University of St. Thomas School of Social Work. Principles of Social Justice. July 2006
Veterans of a Period of War 38USC§1521
Von Laue, Theodore H. Why Lenin? Why Stalin?: A REappraisal of the Russian
Revolution 1900-1930. 2nd Edition. J.B. Lippincott Company. New York. 1971
Waite, Linda J. Aging, Health and Public Policy: Demographic and Economic
Perspectives. Supplement to Vol. 30 Population and Development Review. Population
Council. New York. 2005
Waitsman, Frederick. Administrative Law Judge, Social Security Administration, and
Vice Chair, Social Security Section of the Federal Bar Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
Hearing on Clearing the Disability Backlog - Giving the Social Security Administration
the Resources it Needs to Provide the Benefits Workers Have Earned. Testimony Before
the Full Committee of the House Committee on Ways and Means. April 23, 2008
Waldron, Hillary. Trends in Mortality Differentials and Life Expectancy for Male Social
Security–Covered Workers, by Average Relative Earnings. Soicial Security Bulletin.
ORES Working Paper No. 108. October 2007
Warsinsky, Richard E. President of the National Council on Social Security Management
Associations (NCSSMA). Funding Social Security’s Administrative Costs: Will the
Budget Meet the Mission? Testimony Before the Senate Finance Committee. May 23,
2008
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income and Family Security. Income Security and
Family Support Advisory No. 8
251
Waxman, Henry. Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Executive Pay: Conflicts of Interest Among Compensation Consultants. December 2007
Weinberger v. Salfi 422 US 749 (1975)
Weinberger v. Weisenfeld 420 U.S. 636 (1975)
Who may be your representative 20 CFR §§ 404.1705
Who may be your representative 20 CFR§416.1505
WHO. Social Health Insurance A/58/20. 7 April 2005
WHO. Sustainable health financing, universal coverage and social health
Insurance. WHA58.33. 58th World Health Assembly
Wolff, Richard; Barsamian, David. Occupy the Economy: Challenging Capitalism. Open
Media Series. City Lights Books. San Francisco, California. 2012
Wulczyn, Fred; Barth, Richard P.; Yuan, Ying-Ying T.; Harden, Brenda J.; Landsverk,
John. Beyond Common Sense: Child Welfare, Child Well-Being, and the Evidence for
Policy Reform. Chapin Hall Center for Children. Transaction Publishers. Rutgers State
University. Piscataway, New Jersey. 2005
You must file an application to receive benefits 20 CFR 404.603
Young, Mitchell. Government Spending. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Greenhaven
Press. Gale Cengage Learning. Farmington Hills, MI. 2009
252