The Trump administration has been steadily chipping away at social safety net programs as it claims its actions save the government money. This rule is aimed at "maintain[ing] appropriate stewardship of the disability program" by keeping a much closer eye on whether benefits recipients have seen any medical improvement.

A December letter from a group of House and Senate Democrats led by Rep. Richard Neal, D-MA, is quoted in the report challenging the new rule, saying, "We are concerned that under the proposed rule, some individuals subject to review will be simply unable to navigate the process and, as a result, lose their benefits even though there is no medical improvement."

Disability advocates have challenged the rule not just for its effects on the disabled but also because it has not been tested and have said it should be delayed.

The government, for its part, has mustered only a weak "defense" that the proposal would actually help anyone, with the Social Security Administration saying in its notice of proposed rule-making, "We believe that there may be positive employment effects as a result of these proposed rules, although we cannot currently quantify them."

Huffington Post cites Kathleen Romig, a senior policy analyst at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, how says the proposed rule could affect hundreds of thousands of SSDI and Supplemental Security Income recipients and possibly end benefits for tens of thousands. The administration hasn't put a number on how many people could stand to lose benefits, but has put a price tag on potential savings: $2 billion over 10 years.

It's already tough to get disability benefits, with most applications being denied, and recipients are constantly reviewed to be sure that they're still disabled enough to warrant those checks. The new rule would add another layer to the scrutiny, with a new category: "medical improvement likely, as in likelier than possible, but not as likely as expected."

According to Huffington Post, Recipients would undergo a review "'approximately every two years,' as opposed to within 18 months for people with expected medical improvement and within 3 years for those with possible improvement." The administration claims that overall there would be 2.6 million more reviews, an 18 percent increase, at an anticipated cost of $1.8 billion. Alert readers will note that that $1.8 billion just about cancels out the claimed $2 billion in benefits savings.

Oh, and there's a specific target group in mind: "older disabled workers who didn't win benefits strictly because of their disabilities, but also because they were lower-skilled and unlikely to be able to succeed in some new occupation." Since most older and lower-skilled workers fail to go on to earn much of anything even if they are denied disability benefits, the new rule would simply shut them out from a source of income to live on.

In a formal comment letter, Barbara Silverstone, director of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives, is quoted saying, "The proposed rule relies on mere guesses or wishes to justify a change that evidence shows to be harmful. This is not just arbitrary and capricious, but callous and malicious."