Hospitals & Asylums    





Anthony J. Sanders v.  Joanne Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security HA-15-12-06


Tony Sanders, Hospitals & Asylums

451 Ludlow Ave. Apt. #212

Clifton, Ohio 45220





Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Molenda

Hearing Office of Disability Adjudication and Review

Enquirer Bldg. #2100, 312 Elm St.

Cincinnati, OH 45202-2767

Tel:513-361-0250, Fax: 513-361-0282


Application:  Filed October 3, 2006, denied on October 10, 2006 by Linda McMahon, Deputy Commissioner for Operations


Forms: (1) Form SSA-7004 “Request for Earnings and Benefits Statement” Filed September 28, 2006 (2) Form SSA-561 “Request for Reconsideration” Filed October 23, 2006 (3) Form HA-501-U5 “Request for a Hearing with an Administrative Law Judge” Filed November 6, 2006 (4) Form SSA-1606-U4 “Appointment of Representative”


Correspondence: (1) Mr. Jung. Cincinnati Social Security Office. “Obligations Regarding SSI”. August 15, 2001

(2) Jame A. Kissko. Acting Deputy Commissioner for Operations. “Denial of SSI Claim”. March 1, 2002

(3) Office of Central Operations. “Notification of Benefit Amount. December 1&2, 2002

(4) Form SSA-1099. “Social Security Benefit Statement”. 2002 

(5) SSA. “Notice that Checks Go to the Financial Institution of Choice”. April 1, 2004

(6) Jo Anne Barnhart, Social Security Commissioner and Mark McClellan, Administrator of CMS. “Offer to Help with Medical Costs”. August 30, 2004

(7) W. Burnell Hurt, Associate Commission for Central Operations. “State of Ohio to pay Medicare medical insurance premium”. November 2, 2004

(8) Ms L. Dunn State Disability Determination. Notice of Disability Examination.  February 8, 2005

(9) W. Burnell Hurt, Associate Commissioner of Central Operations. “SMI Insurance Premium”. February 9, 2005    

(10) Norman L. Berg, PH.D. at Xavier University. “Notice Confirming Case#1982245”. February 11, 2005. 

(11) James Martin, Chicago Regional Commissioner. “Notice Finding Continuing Disability”. March 14, 2005 

(12) Carolyn L. Simmons, Associate Commissioner for Central Operations. “Notification of Benefit Amount. May 18, 2006

(13) Jo Anne Barnhart, Social Security Commissioner, and Mark B. McClellan, CMS Administrator. “Medicare Savings Program”. May 22, 2006

(14) Department of Health and Human Services. “Notice of Termination of Extra Help from Medicare to pay some Medicare prescription drug coverage costs”. September 2006

(15) CMS. “Limitation on Benefits”. September 15, 2006

(16) Linda McMahon, Deputy Commissioner for Operations. “Notification of Benefit Amount”. September 27&28, 2006

(17) Linda McMahon, Deputy Commissioner for Operations. “Denial of Application of October 3, 2006”. October 10, 2006

(18) Form SSA-561 “Request for Reconsideration”. October 23, 2006

(19) Robert M. Mendenhall, Field Office Manager. “Denial of Reconsideration”. October 24, 2006

(20) Form HA-501-U5, “Request for a Hearing with an Administrative Law Judge”. November 6, 2006

(21) Francis Molenda, Hearing Office, Chief Administrative Law Judge.  “Receipt of Request”. November 15, 2006

(22) Pub 05-10075. List of Groups

(23) Annie White, Associate Commissioner of the Office of Public Inquiry. “Letter”. December 5, 2006

(24) Stephen C. Goss, Associate of the Society of Actuaries, Member of the American Academy of Actuaries, Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration. “Communication of the 2006 Annual Report of the Board of Trustee of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds”. May 1, 2006

(25) Jo Anne Barnhart. “New Benefit Amount”. December 11, 2006


Publications: (1) 2006 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds. May 1, 2006

(2) Towards a Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities HA-3-12-06

(3) Poverty Reduction Obligation Under Deliberation (PROUD) Human Rights Day HA-10-12-06

(4) Anthony J. Sanders v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security HA-1-10-6


I. Claim Summary: $422.50 a month SSI, $30,000 back pay plus $13,800 under Clayton Act anti-discrimination provisions as of January 2007


This five year case history of the SSI petition under Title XVI of the Social Security Act is by no means complete although it provides an accurate description of current benefit payments, particular care is taken to make note of the correct mailing address of the Hearing Office of Disability Adjudication and Review that is different than the regular address of the local office and name of the Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Molenda that is different than that of Kathy Allen who received the Form HA-501-U5 “Request for a Hearing with an Administrative Law Judge”.  This first appeal for SSI by this beneficiary, in first person, was begun with the filing of Form SSA-7004 “Request for Earnings and Benefits Statement” that was responded to by Linda S. McMahon, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, on September 27, 2006.  The formal petition was filed on October 3, 2006 and denied by Ms. McMahon on October 10, 2006.  Form SSA-561 “Request for Reconsideration” was filed October 23, 2006.  The petition was denied by Robert M. Mendenhall, Field Office Manager, on October 24, 2006.  Form HA-501-U5, “Request for a Rehearing with an Administrative Law Judge” was filed on November 6, 2006 by Kathy Allen pending a 20 day notice to attend a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge.  Subsequently I have cancelled Medicare Part B as reflected in my December benefit payment and the letter written by Annie White, Associate Commission of the Office of Public Inquiry, on December 5, 2006. 


I have high hopes that the ALJ and I will settle my claim in the beginning of 2007.  My request is for $1,000 a month to afford the cost of living plus back pay that I now estimate, after reviewing my case history, at $30,000, to pay student loans from my bachelor’s degree and be eligible for marriage from a financial standpoint.  Whereas my adjusted DI income beginning January 2007 is reported to be $577.50 a month, this SSI petition seeks $422.50 a month beginning January 2007.  This settlement is important for two reasons.  First, as the result of discrimination evident in the $666 Medicaid reimbursement of November 2004 that immediately led to the loss of my Food Stamps in January 2005 it is impossible to seek any relief from the State of Ohio that has become extremely liberal in the use of poison, hiring and swearing my associates with some housing authority to silence to administer these toxins and commit other acts of terrorism.  To protect myself I must now censure large swaths of the state and local government that are prone to the now lethal disease of prosecution.  Second, my work represents the most comprehensive plan for the legislature to guarantee future generations of American people the freedom, peace and happiness they are entitled to under the Constitution and internationally recognized human rights.  It is in the best interest for the federal government to pay for this work as contracted so that we could enjoy the benefits of this scientific progress and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration that normally purchases such manuscripts has not yet done so, although I have high hopes that they will soon empower me to pay SSA back for these years of independent study subsidy.  As the result of lessening income my productivity has slumped accordingly and I have decided to take SSA up on the offer to appeal my SSI petition for the first time.

In this SSI petition I have been confronted with two arguments, regarding the maximum limit for SSI checks and the need to supplement my income with state assistance programs.  Both of these arguments fail on grounds of discrimination that I hope to analyze with the three times damage compensation strategy of the Clayton Act at 15USC(1)§15.  First, recent work in human rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Poverty Reduction Obligations have refined the definition of discrimination to be the anti-thesis of equality whereby the false use of the $603 maximum SSI benefit payment in place of the $860 limit on substantially gainful activity (SGA) is discrimination because, although purported as the truth, that number does not equate with its purported meaning.  While not satisfying, my mixed emotions regarding my treatment at the local social security office lean towards gratitude for the security of companionship during this trying divorce with genocidal health care, although it could be construed that I am entitled to three times monthly back pay since October 2006 as the result of these discriminatory denials that would cause my pay to be equal with the SSA bureaucrats for this time, or $1,000 a month since encountering this obstruction to free trade, $3,000 on top of regular back pay should this claim be settled in January 2007.  Second, the state assistance programs represent a much more severe form of discrimination stemming from the $666 Medicaid reimbursement confirmed by W. Burnell Hurt on November 2, 2004 as prophesied in the Book of Revelation 13:5-10, that says, “the beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast - all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.  He who has an ear, let him hear. If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints”.  Finite economic damages from this persecution can be calculated from the loss of Food Card benefits valued at $150 a month since January 2005, $3,600 times three - $10,800.  If this claim were to be settled in January 2007 compensation under the Clayton Act, on top of regular back benefits, would amount to $13,800, if the claim is not settled this subsequent settlement continues to accrue at a rate of $1,150 a month, on top of back benefits estimated at $500 a month, from January 2002.  This brings the total requested back pay and Clayton Act discrimination settlement to a total of $43,800 as of January 2007. 

The ALJ is hoped to settle this SSI claim for $422.50 a month for the payment of $1,000 beginning, January 2007 on the basis of financial need.  This would terminate further accumulation of back pay and Clayton Act compensation at the tidy sum of $43,800.  It would be in the best interest of the United States of America to afford me a living wage whereby I would do more and better work for our nation as the result of improved nutrition and happiness and could actually earn some money in the spirit of Benjamin Franklin’s proverb that “a penny saved in a penny earned” and be more likely to pay taxes.  The current benefit amount of $577.50, with the annual 3.3% cost of living adjustment, is insufficient to afford much more than the price of rent and utilities.  Without the $200 monthly supplement from my father I would not be able to afford to eat. Even with this private supplement it is impossible to regularly save so much as a single penny.  Incidental but necessary costs such as that of new shoes or a new printer are out of reach.  This poverty of course makes me undesirable to employers, friends and lovers.  Since the first blush of receiving DI payments, when a girlfriend quickly snatched me off the couch of a friend for a few months before she relapsed on alcohol and could no longer tolerate my company, I have been celibate.  The saintly, solitary and impoverished devotion to the scholarly endeavor of HA has however proven to be prone to discrimination and physical abuse because anyone can see that no one loves me.  $1,000 a month, although enough to be construed as to afford a life, meaning an occasional date, is not enough by itself, to afford a wife.  Therefore I am asking for the hand of the ALJ to fill out Form SSA 1606-U4 “Appointment of Representative” in order to appoint a professional to settle the $43,800.  To settle this money honestly I would need to pay off my student loans and student era credit card debt in one lump sum whereas I would be receiving a lump sum settlement and it is unlikely that I could earn more interest than they charge.  To minimize the number of overworked legal professionals it seems best to contract with Javitch, Block, Eisen & Rathbone (JBER), the holder of one of my credit card debts.  I called them however they are not familiar with social security and were not willing to subject themselves to the risk of failure and we did not achieve a contract.  It would seem that if the ALJ were to appoint them with a favorable determination regarding the lump sum settlement, their collections specialists could safely and securely absolve me of all of my debt, for a reasonable fee the plus interest I already owe them from my debt to Platinum Financial Services.  I would presume that the ALJ would ensure that whatever taxes are due are paid and that I am explained of any tax obligations that this settlement would incur. 


Form HA-501-U5 “Request for a Hearing with an Administrative Law Judge” is different from all the other SSA forms in that it has the same initials as the Hospitals & Asylums acronym (HA). I am therefore inclined to believe that there is a good chance that we will be like-minded people who can co-operate under the terms of this Claim Summary, as it supercedes the initial filing for $1,000 plus $12,000 back pay, for the vindication of both of our organizations.  Although not actually involved in the administration of benefits to the poor, like you, as a 501c organization if you were in private practice, HA is involved in a great deal of political lobbying for the rights of the poor and disabled as a 527 political organization, as is now permissible for people who cannot afford to pay taxes, as the result of recent amendments to the law.  Although some tax leniency is often afforded professionals who volunteer their services to the poor for free it is probably more honest for the federal government to tax this settlement as they would any citizen receiving it, if that is what is done in such one-time settlements.  I can also be obligated to file annual tax return statements if that is required of people earning $14,400 a year plus interest earnings beginning in 2008 should this claim settle successfully in 2007.  Therefore I would like to submit the following amended list of issues for resolution by the ALJ. 


First, I would like to be awarded $422.50 a month from SSI for a total of $1,000 a month beginning in January 2007.  Second, I would like to appoint my collections firm to settle the $30,000 back pay.  Third, I would like to settle $13,800 compensation for discrimination under the Clayton Act for a total of $44,800, if SSI is settled in January 2007.  Fourth, I would like to offer my services as a plaintiff in regards to amending my plan for mental health reform with the Health Alliance and other issues of mutual interest in the opinion of either myself or the ALJ.  The first issue regarding a $1,000 a month benefit payment could be easily settled by a case review that I could verify by checking my balance and calling to say thank you.  The second issue regarding $30,000 involves more money than I have ever held although it is a reasonable settlement for someone of my age, 32, and I am therefore hoping that the ALJ will appoint a representative from my collections firm JBER to satisfy my creditors who are asking for around $15,000.  The third issue involves settling two counts of discrimination in programs managed by SSA in such a fashion that would confer upon me an equal pay with that of the bureaucrats so that we could all profit from discrimination, in hopes that such abuse will stop and the beneficiaries and bureaucrats could be happy.  The fourth issue involves offering my services as a legal researcher to the ALJ in the promising, but somewhat dangerous, case regarding mental health reform in the Health Alliance and in such capacity may be requested to discuss and/or amend this work for the ALJ or SSA and furthermore, in the same vein, can be hired to conduct social research on nearly any topic of mutual interest to HA and SSA for a fee of only $1,000 per week’s work, whereas I would retain the copyright to work in regards to its potential publication. 


Whereas I am a writer, applying myself to the SSA appeals process for the first time, it is difficult for me to determine when to call for a hearing and leave this judgment entirely to the ALJ.  It seems SSI can be settled with the review of this claims summary.  If the ALJ would send me Form SSA-1606-U4 “Appointment of Representative” I will fill it out and return it to the ALJ for he or she to appoint such representative, assured in the knowledge that the settlement of back pay was at hand.  I would need to be convinced that I had received such money and given the responsibility of paying the collections representative to satisfy my debt when they had verified this information.  When this settlement, including the absolution of debt, had been completed I would amend the original petition to reflect the settlement of the claim.  At important junctures I would call the ALJ office to verify receipt and disbursement of funds.  To ensure that I am properly shod it seems best to settle the SSI now for payment in January 2007.  I should also be sent Form SSA-1606-U4 “Appointment of Representative” now.  After the ALJ has hired such representative and informed me of their contact information we could attend a hearing to make our obligations clear, this could occur as soon as January 2007.  I would then amend the petition within a few months after confirmation of the absolution of debts had been received and inform the office of its publication.  This concludes my idea of how to satisfactorily resolve the issues of law presented by the SSA SSI appeals process as I understand it this holiday season when Christmas was stolen but Hanukah is holy for the first time in a decade.       


II. Case History of the SSI and DI Petition


On August 15, 2001 I received an appointment from the Social Security office with a Mr. Jung to discuss the obligations regarding Supplemental Security Income (SSI).  Although the precise records of when SSA began paying or the day that the account became labeled as Disability Insurance (DI) are not available SSA informs me that my benefits began on January 3, 2002.  On March 1, 2002 I received a letter from the James A. Kissko, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Operations, informing me that I had 60 days to appeal the denial of the SSI petition or would have to begin the process anew.  I never did this.  On December 1, 2002 the Office of Central Operations wrote to inform me that I would receive $457.00 for December 2003 around January 2, 2004 and after that would receive $457.00 on or about the third of the month whereas the monthly premium for supplemental medical insurance (SMI) is $66.60 beginning January 2004. The Office of Central Operations wrote on December 2, 2002 that I would receive $506.66 with $6.34 withheld and after that would receive $513.00 on or about the third of each month.  Form SSA-1099 Social Security Benefit Statement reported that a total of $6,155.96 were paid in 2003.  On April 1, 2004 I received a notice that checks would go to the financial institution of my choice.  On August 30, 2004 I received an Offer of Help with Medical Costs from both Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Commissioner and Mark B. McLellan, the new Administrator for the Centers for Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP explaining that I, like all Americans, are insured under Medicare Part A whereas I have resources less than $4,000 and monthly income less than $1,068.  The flyer also advertised the fact that premium paying members of SMI, Part B, could sign up for a Drug Discount Card if their annual income is less than $12,569. 


On November 2, 2004 the W. Burnell Hurt, Associate Commission for Central Operations, wrote to inform me that the State of Ohio would pay my Medicare medical insurance premium beginning February 2004 and I would receive $666.00 around November 10, 2004 and that I would receive $523.00 a month beginning December 3, 2004 whereas, at that time I was a Food Card and Medicaid beneficiary of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (DJFS). This letter informed me that SSA would no longer deduct the premium from my monthly payment.  Of their own accord, on December 20, 2004 the long day of work that I send my quarterly journal to tens of thousands of people the DJFS scheduled me a review hearing.  I did my work early and went to the meeting only to be told that my social worker had quit.  Not being sure if she was even alive I left and demanded to know that she was okay to do any further business with them.  On February 8, 2005 I received a Notice of Disability Examination from Ms L. Dunn 1G Adj. Code LRD785 to process my Social Security disability claim.  On February 11, 2005 I received a notice confirming Case#1982245 whereby I would have to attend a medical appointment on February 12, 2005 with Norman L. Berg, PH.D. at Xavier University.  On February 9, 2005 W. Burnell Hurt, Associate Commissioner of Central Operations reneged on his previous statement to inform me that they would deduct the basic SMI insurance premium of $78.20 and that I would therefore receive $459.00 for February 2005 around March 3, 2005 that I had 60 days to appeal.  On March 14, 2005 James Martin, the Chicago Regional Commissioner, sent a Notice that after review of the evidence in my DI claim he found that my disability is continuing and that any decisions about the SSI claim would be sent to me in a separate notice.  This Notice explained the Trial Work Period whereby I can work and earn any amount of money for up to 9 months before losing the right to monthly payments if earnings were not over $830 beginning January 2005. 


On May 18, 2006 I received a notice from Carolyn L. Simmons, Associate Commissioner for Central Operations, that I would receive $471.00 beginning June 2, 2006.  On May 22, 2006 Jo Anne Barnhart, Social Security Commissioner, and Mark B. McClellan, CMS Administrator, sent another circular advertising the Medicare Savings Program to help people with limited income and resources to save more than $1,000 a year. In response to my unjust hospitalization in September 2006 I received a record from the Department of Health and Human Services that I had been getting extra help from Medicare to pay some Medicare prescription drug coverage costs and that I would no longer automatically qualify for Medicaid starting January 1, 2007 but if I should choose to automatically qualify if my yearly income should be less than $14,700 and resources less than $11,500.  CMS wrote on September 15, 2006, informing me that 14 benefit days had been reported [criminally] used for University Hospital control # 20625701159902 and that $952.00 had been applied to my inpatient deductible, although it was not a bill.  Coverage by Medicare will be limited for outpatient physical therapy, speech-language pathology, a $1,740 combined limit and occupational therapy, $1,740 limit, for services rendered for services received on January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006.  If I disagree with any CMS claims decision I must appeal by March 6, 2007.


III. Resolve to Appeal to an Administrative Law Judge


On September 27, 2006 Linda S. McMahon, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, informs us that beginning December 2005 my full monthly Social Security benefit before any deductions was $559.80 and $88.50 would be deducted for medical insurance premiums each month leaving a regular monthly Social Security payment of $471.00.  I became entitled to benefits January 2002.  On September 28, 2006 a notice of the service of SSA-7004 Request for Earnings and Benefits Statement, was sent. Having discovered the facts of the case, I resolved to appeal for SSI payments, for the first time, under the provisions of Title XVI of the Social Security Act, and published a formal petition on the Internet on October 1, that was filed on October 3, 2006 that Linda McMahon denied on October 10, 2006.  In this claim the reasoning for this denial is that because of my income, I am not eligible to receive SSI.  SSA admits that I am disabled and live in the State of Ohio.  In this letter, my benefits total $559.00 a month in 2006. Federal Living Arrangement Categories indicates that I am a Category A (1) individual living in own household.  SSI benefits are administered on the basis of last month.  When you first receive SSI it is from the basis of the first payment that all subsequent months are paid.  SSA counts all Federally-funded payments based on need.  The most money that the law allows SSA to pay is $603 a month.  SSA recognizes that I get $559.50 plus $200 miscellaneous money that should only be counted as 1/3, $66, rather than a full $200, making the adjusted subtotal $652.50 rather than $739.50.  Although this number is above the misunderstood maximum benefit payment, whereas the limit for substantial gainful activity is $860 and I have not earned this much for a single month since I began receiving SSDI. 


I therefore filed Form SSA-561 “Request for Reconsideration” in exercise of my right to appeal for either a Case Review or Informal Conference.  A new application may be filed at any time.  In this application filed October 23, 2006, that is accepted as timely, I argue, “the average disability beneficiary receives $939 a month and I only receive $559.50, I want equal rights – the poverty line”.  The response by Robert M. Mendenhall, Field Office Manager, on October 24, 2006, stated that the local office had received the request for reconsideration of  the decision and that I am not eligible for SSI based on my income.  If an individual has other income of $623.00 or more, no SSI is payable. Whereas I disagree with this decision, I was given the right to request a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge within 60 days. The pamphlet “Your Right to an Administrative Law Judge Hearing and Appeals Council review of Your Social Security Case” was served.  It stated, the ALJ will mail you a letter at least 20 days before the hearing to tell you its date, time and place.  The letter will explain the law in your case and tell you what has to be decided.  The hearing is your chance to tell the ALJ why you disagree with the decision in your case.  You can give the ALJ new evidence and bring people to testify for you.  It is very important that you attend the hearing and the ALJ may reschedule meetings that have been cancelled by phone.  There are lawyer groups to appoint a lawyer, the ALJ however has the authority to appoint counsel.  


Kathy Allen filed Form HA-501-U5, “Request for a Rehearing with an Administrative Law Judge” on November 6, 2006.  The reason for the request for a hearing before an administrative law judge is that “the denial is falsely reliant upon the maximum SSI check that is irrelevant in determining eligibility that is tied to the poverty line.  DI and SSI are supposed to give disabled beneficiaries a living wage together.  Further more I have balanced the federal budget and brought SSA into harmony. Instead of being rewarded for doing all the work I was censored, poisoned, my family corrupted and kidnapped.  SSA must give me the $1,000 a month [censure: or there will be economic strife in the USA]”.  On November 15, 2006 I received a response from Francis Molenda, Hearing Office, Chief Administrative Law Judge.  The letter acknowledged receipt of the request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).  It informed that the hearing process begins with a Notice of Hearing, at least 20 days before the date of the hearing when I will be informed of the date and time.  I have a right to representation to help with evidence, prepare for the hearing and present my case at the hearing.  Many private lawyers charge a fee only if you receive benefits.  Some organizations may be able to represent you free of charge.  Your representative may not charge or receive any fee unless we approve of it.  To appoint a representative you must complete Form SSA 1606-U4 “Appointment of Representative”. To charge a fee for services, your representative first must file either a fee agreement or a fee petition with us and may not charge more than the fee approved if both parties signed the agreement and the claim was approved and resulted in past-due benefits wherefrom the agreed fee is no more than 25% of past due benefits of $5,300 whichever is less.  If you disagree you should contact the ALJ within 20 days.  Enclosure Pub 05-10075 provided a List of Groups the Lawyer Referral Service of the Cincinnati Bar Association at 513-381-8350 and Legal Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati at 1-800-582-2682, offered counsel with lawyer however no one was willing, or saw the need, to represent me. 


On December 5, 2006 I was sent a response to my email from Annie White, Associate Commissioner of the Office of Public Inquiry that she supplemented with a News Release regarding the 2006 Trustees Report – Long Term Financing Challenges Remain – of May 1, 2006 and full Communication of the 2006 Annual Report of the Board of Trustee of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds.  Although inaccurate in regards to my sex, benefit type and the use of the maximum Federal SSI payment of $603 the letter from Ms. White recognizes the personal request regarding the Medicare Part B premium and ramifications that cancellation has upon my monthly benefit amount that has already been adjusted to the monthly amount of $559.50 this December 2006.  It informed, if your income is lessened while you are awaiting the hearing you should notify the local representative who would determine whether you are eligible for SSI for current or future months.  Public assistance departments in each State are primarily responsible for improving the living conditions of people who are having difficulties.  To find out if you are eligible for assistance, we suggest that you contact your local public assistance office in Hamilton County Food Stamp at 513-946-1000 and other assistance agencies such as the Freestore Foodbank at 513-241-1064, Drop-In Center 513-721-0643, Metropolitan Housing 513-721-4580, Legal Aid 513-241-9400 and the Salvation Army at 513-762-5600.  In closing we appreciate your time and thought concerning the financial stability of the Social Security trust funds.  For over 70 years, Social Security has provided a foundation for retirement for America’ workers.  As you pointed out, we must make sure that Social Security is there for the millions of Americans who currently receive benefits and for those who become eligible in the future.  There are several ways to guarantee that Social Security continues to be there for future generations.  Each option means difficult trade-offs that Americans need to know about.  The sooner the changes are made, the smaller their impact will be.  On 11 December I received my New Benefit Amount whereas benefits will increase by 3.3% in 2007 because of the rise in the cost of living.  The new monthly amount is $577.50, beginning in January of 2007. 


IV. Suggestions for the 2007 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees


This review of the 2006 Annual Report of the trustees has been done in order to counsel the Actuarial Service in regards to the theme for 2007 that is hoped to address the federal budget deficit with a topic like, “Social Security Responsibility for Balancing the Federal Budget Deficit: A Transitional Plan to Balance the Budget”.  At the end of 2005, 48 million people were receiving benefits: 33 million retired workers and their dependents, 7 million survivors of deceased workers, and 8 million disabled workers and their dependents.  During the year an estimated 159 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes.  Total benefits paid in 2005 were $521 billion.  Income was $702 billion, and assets held in special issue US Treasury securities grew to $1.9 trillion.  In the intermediate projections the OASDI trust funds are projected to increase from $1,859 billion at the beginning of 2006, or 329% of annual expenditures, to $3,932 billion at the beginning of 2015, or 409% of annual expenditures in that year, 100% is considered “adequate”.  OASDI cost will increase rapidly between about 2010 and 2030 when growth in cost is expected to slow, due to the retirement of the large baby-boomer generation.  Annual costs are projected to exceed tax income starting in 2017 when the gap will covered with assets until 2040 when these funds are projected to be exhausted, 2025 for the DI fund and 2042 for the OASI fund.  The OASDI annual cost rate is projected to increase from 11.22% of the taxable payroll in 2006 to 16.71% in 2030 and to 18.74% in 2080.  In relation to the projected GDP OASDI cost is estimated to rise from the current level of 4.3% of GDP, to 6.2% in 2030 and to 6.3% in 2080.  Annual cost is projected to exceed tax income in 2017, which are predicted to become exhausted in 2040.  For the trust funds to remain solvent the combined payroll tax rate could be increased 2.02% or benefits could be reduced by 13.3%, or general revenues transfers could be made. 


The projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in a timely way to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to provide advance notice to workers.  At the present time the social security trust funs are so flush with cash that doom and gloom predictions regarding the distant future exhaustion of these funds are frustrating to our nation’s current dire economic problem with the budget deficit.  It is impossible to present a winning case for the reduction in OASI appropriations while SSA is harping upon the baby boomers whose retirement cannot be ignored by any liberal economist in horror of any possible cut in benefit amounts for this hard working cohort.  Now it is true that SSA needs a defense because OASDI over-appropriations are the “good” half of the overspending and Department of Defense laundering, the “bad” half.  It would not be just for OASDI to cut appropriations if DoD did not also do so.  We cannot surrender our entire corrupt system of subsidy investment in the rich, to military dictatorship.  If both of these agencies were to limit spending to cost the federal budget deficit would be completely eliminated and the federal government would show a surplus for the first time since 2000.  This is what we must do to harmonize our federal government and it is a fairly simple transaction.  To balance the budget in a manner that is safe for democracy the military must cut their spending first and then SSA would follow.  It is hoped that the 2007 Annual Report of the Trustees will adopt the theme of “Social Security in the Context of the Federal Budget Deficit” to apply their analytical might to this pressing socio-economic problem of the here and now, secure in the knowledge of the long term threat that the looming retirement of the baby-boomers presents that allows us to be prepared to pay more taxes at such a time, in the future, when the OASDI fund(s) should show a deficit.  The 2007 Annual Report should try to make SSA more agile and responsive to current needs and harmonious in its proportion with other federal spending as well as taking on more responsibility in the day to day operations of the government such as the compilation of statistical reports and financing of programs redressing social problems - poverty.


Using the greater than $171 billion OASDI surplus to balance the budget is a big change in policy.  To be honest with the taxpayers there are two options for explaining this proposal.  The first option involves reducing the social security taxation rate so as to keep revenues closer to the cost of benefits leaving more for the general funds by means of reducing the percent of income taxed.  This method of accountability is however problematic because it involves complicated mathematics involving a limited tax base in the middle income bracket whereas only the first $90,000 of income are taxed by OASDI that is not easily accounted for and subject to unpredictable fluctuations in the labor market.  Furthermore, as the baby-boomers retire these taxation rates would need to rise.  This inclines one to believe that the current rates of taxation by OASDI are fair from a long term perspective.  The current agenda of saving for the retirement of the baby-boomers is essentially a good one that has already achieved an adequate level of savings that now gives the administration a window of opportunity to balance the federal budget deficit.  The federal budget requires redress, therefore a second strategy is proposed whereby SSA would present the majority of their surplus funds to Congress for a transitional program to balance the budget however never to such an extent that they would suffer a deficit.  The beauty of this transitional program is that it is a transitional measure to balance the budget until growth in revenues and cognizance of spending, military spending in particular, cause the federal budget to balance of its own accord.  When this transitional period is over, and the budget is balanced on its own, SSA would carry on as always, without having made any changes to their tax base.  It could be reasonably expected that with the enforcement of fiscal discipline, particularly upon the military, that the budget would balance itself by 2008 or 2009.  Whereas this transitional measure to balance the budget affects the savings of millions of Americans the Actuarial service must conduct a thorough analysis of the proposal and with the help of Congress hold public meetings and debate to disseminate information to the public so that this transitional redistribution of tax revenues is represented under a well reasoned and fair transitional law – social security is the backbone of our nation’s economic health so we must be careful before using these funds earmarked for retirement.


There are two other issues that SSA must come to address.  First, levying a new 1% social security tax for international development that would benefit the poor people in least developed countries, this program would make great progress towards paying our public debt, trillions of dollars of which are forgivable internationally for the payment of official development assistance and would indicate a developed nation that is fully living up to its responsibilities.  Second, the all important issue of adopting a poverty based safety net, here at home, rather than a disability system that is prone to discrimination whereas disability does not quite equate with a need for benefits although poverty does and our policy leaves millions of Americans living in abject poverty.  It is critical that SSA come to address the issue of poverty whereas the social security budget is more than sufficient to eliminate all poverty under $1,000 a month however 20 to 40 million adult Americans languish there because of complex and corrupt rules governing the administration of benefits.  Whereas Medicare is independent of SSA it seems unlikely that their trustees would be responsible for the management of an international development trust fund and it is therefore not a high priority topic for the Report although it would do SSA international justice and be a great first step towards the global social security system that is the solution for global inequalities in wealth and be a great comparative actuarial study of international social security programs around the world.  The issue of poverty on the other hand is a much needed issue for the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees to treat upon.  The needs of our nation however indicate that before doing anything else we must first come to grips with the budget deficit.  This recommendation regarding the topic of the 2007 Report of the Trustees is decidedly, “Social Security in the Context of the Federal Deficit and Its Ramifications on the Economy: A Transitional Plan to Balance the Budget”.  It is also highly recommended to permanently appoint the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to the review panel of the Annual Report to provide a broader understanding of economics in future reports.


V. The Rights of the Disabled and Poor


The holiday season began early this year with the International Day for the Disabled, that dealt with e-accessibility, on the third of December, a Sunday, and Human Rights Day, that addressed the issue of poverty this year, on the tenth of December, also a Sunday.  Although obviously relevant to the administration of social security both of these studies meticulously avoided all mention of social security.  This omission is somewhat disturbing considering the importance of social security to the disabled and poor and leading one to conclude that either social security is perceived as an influence that might corrupt proceedings or the more likely scenario that the United Nations is trying to make off with the official development assistance rather investing it in the individual accounts of the poor that should be the trade off for all such assistance or the scenario that we shall accept that they have conducted two separate controlled scientific studies of poverty and disability without being forced to conform to the enormous equity of social security.  The result provides an interesting look into the arguments and rights upon which social security should be administrated and makes the problem of discrimination much clearer in the context of social security. 


600 million people in the world are disabled as a consequence of mental, physical or sensory impairment, 80% in developing nations.  43 million Americans have one 
or more physical or mental disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as a whole is growing older.  Treating disability involves the prevention of 
disability, rehabilitation and the realization of the goals of ''full participation'' of disabled persons in social life and development, and of ''equality''.  As the result of 
their special needs and the perception that they are vulnerable the disabled tend to suffer from a pattern of discrimination and are frequent victims of abuse and 
exploitation.  The right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing 
and to the continuous improvement of living conditions is typically ensured by social security insurance.  Appropriate steps however need to be taken to safeguard 
and promote the realization of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability.  Social security insurance is irrational in regards to poverty and the entire 
program for people under retirement age discriminates upon the basis of disability.  Whereas social security does indeed provide for their beneficiaries’ livelihoods it 
is difficult to implicate the agency in impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of the right to an adequate standard of living however the fact that 
undiagnosed poor people go without federal government assistance indicates that financial assistance is not being administrated on an equal basis with others.  


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.  A work environment should be open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities.  The rights of persons with disabilities to just and favorable conditions of work, shall be on an equal basis with others, including equal opportunities, such as union membership and equal remuneration for work of equal value, safe and healthy working conditions, including protection from harassment, and the redressing of grievances.  State Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities are not held in slavery or in servitude, and are protected, on an equal basis with others, from forced or compulsory labor. The right of persons with disabilities to education shall be granted without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity to an inclusive, education system at all levels, and life-long learning.  States shall take appropriate measures to employ teachers, including those with disabilities, who are qualified in sign language and Braille.  Health is particularly important for disabled people whose entire status is reliant upon the diagnosis of a mental or physical disorder.  Persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.  The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition and is of particular concern to disabled persons.   


Poverty is the gravest human rights challenge facing the world today.  40 per cent of the world’s population living with the reality or the threat of extreme poverty, and one in five persons living in a state of poverty so abject that it threatens survival.  In the USA, a wealthy nation, one in six persons, live in poverty, an estimated 35 million people, and this number is increasing as the rich grow richer.  Any strategy for poverty reduction has to begin with an identification of the poor.  The right to equality and the principle of non-discrimination guarantees, first and foremost, that all persons are equal before the law, which means that the law shall be formulated in general terms applicable to every individual and shall be enforced in an equal manner.  People living in poverty are typically victims of discrimination.  Discrimination may cause poverty and poverty also causes discrimination.  An accountability procedure provides right-holders with an opportunity to understand how duty bearers have discharged, or failed to discharge, their obligations, and it also provides duty-bearers with an opportunity to explain their conduct.  Anti-poverty policies are more likely to be effective, sustainable, inclusive, equitable and meaningful to those living in poverty if they are based upon international human rights.


Unbeknownst to me, the same day I filed an email claim with SSA for protection from the terrorist and poisonous debt collection agencies of the Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati who had sent more possibly poisonous letters by restraining negotiations to the President, Kenneth Hanover, who had previously brought us peace, a strange letter had been received in the Federal Building causing it to be evacuated. The news report was inaccurate and by 10 pm the story had changed from a letter filled with a toxic powdery substance resembling cocaine to just a disturbing letter.  In my defense it seems likely that we were merely assaulted by the same terrorists who were angry about the failed levy for a new jail and the reduction in the indigent health levy that passed.  I have doubts as to whether the Federal Building ever received such a disturbing letter as strange plantings of evidence often occur in conjunction with false or unwritten television news reports.  I have come to the conclusion that these two psychiatric collections agencies harassing me must be dissolved in the spirit Chapter IV of Hospitals & Asylums pertaining to the establishment of the District of Columbia Mental Health System.  Although not sure of the facts of the case pertaining to the evacuation of the federal building I hope that we will all be resolved to eliminate bio-terrorism, surveillance, finance of slavery and murder for hire programs in our own lives and in Medicare, Medicaid and health billing programs.  I hope that the ALJ and SSA will continue to be there for me because although I hope to write a second draft of Chapter 4: State Mental Institution Library Education (SMILE) in February in time for the March 7, 2007 deadline to dispute the health care fraud Medicare, or more humorously the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has never done me any good.  Until January 2007.  


Happy Holidays