Social Security has always been one of the National Review’s favorite targets as it exemplified in a late October 2014 article titled Dysfunctional Disability Judges.
The author states that Social Security judges have run the disability program into the ground and insists that Congressional reports “highlight” allegations of judges “rubber-stamping cases, snoozing on the job, sexually harassing colleagues and colluding with corrupt lawyers.”
These are pretty strong allegations, but then again, you have to consider the source. The National Review is not considered a bastion of mainstream journalistic excellence by any means and even labels itself as “America’s most widely read and influential magazine and website for CONSERVATIVE news, commentary and opinion.”
I would suggest that the article about Social Security’s disability judges is much more opinion with some commentary thrown in and virtually no news.
When allegations are made, a reputable news source will backup those allegations. The best the National Review could do is reference “Congressional reports.” What Congressional reports are they talking about? It is never mentioned.
To be fair to the National Review we should closely examine these allegations the National Review says can be found in Congressional reports, even though the National Review gives no context to these “reports” and does not identify what type of reports or even from what year these reports were issued. No need to let detail get in the way.
Disability Judges Rubber-Stamping Cases
I have to say that this would be news to most Social Security disability applicants because the statistics don’t back it up. You remember the statistics don’t you National Review? Statistics is the study of collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation and organization of data. From 2001-2010 the final award rate (approval of disability cases) averaged 45-percent. It is difficult to say what percentage approval rating on disability claims would be considered “rubber stamping,” but my guess is that a 55-percent denial rate would not fit into the “rubber stamping” category.
Snoozing On The Job
Can anyone tell me what this means? Is the National Review actually claiming that disability judges are falling asleep at the office or while in hearings? I don’t think the National Review had a problem when longtime Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond would take naps during sessions of Congress in his advanced years. I doubt that is what the National Review was referring to, more likely it was referring to a lack of work ethic by disability judges. The truth of the matter is most disability judges are overworked. A memo was sent to disability judges in 2007 indicating they should be able to adjudicate 500-700 decisions a year. This indicates that disability judges are clearly “snoozing on the job,” as the National Review suggested.
Sexually Harassing Colleagues
This is certainly a disturbing allegation by the National Review. We all know if there was widespread sexual harassment claims filed against disability judges that the claims would not be kept secret for long, no matter what government agency was involved. There have been cases of disability judges being accused and reprimanded for sexual harassment, like in every other industry in the world, but to make it sound like it is an epidemic is laughable. Do a good old-fashioned internet search using the terms “disability judges sexual harassment” and you will find very few stories about Social Security judges. The first thing you will find is the National Review’s story about dysfunctional judges, which brought the topic up. That’s right at the top of the list, followed mainly by Social Security office information.
Colluding With Corrupt Lawyers
The National Review’s final accusation takes aim at two of its biggest enemies, attorneys and the government and claim they are working together to bilk the taxpayers. This is elementary journalism at its finest. The conservative mantra is to keep saying things time and time again, no matter whether they are true or not. If you say it enough, people believe it to be true. There are always going to be incidents of misconduct by attorneys who abuse power, but claiming that Social Security judges are working in concert with attorneys to produce government windfalls is absurd, especially because the National Review throws out the allegation and does not back it up. The truth of the matter is Social Security has heightened its enforcement of fraudulent activities and the level of fraud is less than 1-percent of all cases.
The National Review and other conservative media groups will continue to go after public programs that utilize tax dollars to act like they are the watchdogs of America’s wallet. These people will continue to have this mentality until something happens in their life where they seek assistance from such programs, which undoubtedly will happen. This is the epitome of hypocrisy. The National Review never lets the facts get in the way of the truth.
