Ratio of the number of jobs created to jobs lost in US communities where military bases have closed since 1961: 5:3
Chances that an unemployed European has not worked in more than a year: 1 in 2
Chances that an unemployed American has not worked in more than a year: 1 in 9
Number of hunters who have had their cremated remains loaded into a shotgun shell and shot at an animal: 40
Average number of members of Congress charged with a crime each decade between 1789 and 1970: 2
Average number charged with a crime each decade since then: 24
Value of equipment NASA has blown up or lost this year: $567,000,000
Rank of cola, breakfast cereal, and ground beef, among the groceries Americans spend the most on each year: 1, 2, 3
Chances that an American who moves to a new address will also change his or her brand of toothpaste: 2 in 5
Ratio of the number of Americans who prefer toilet paper to unroll off the top to those who prefer the bottom: 3:1
[Advertisement] The following advertisement appeared in the January/February issue of Global Production, an international business magazine published in Boulder, Colorado, as part of a campaign by the government of the Mexican state of Yucatan to attract foreign manufacturers:
[Photo of a business man looking at some papers]: "There's no way I can get my labor costs down to $1 an hour."
YES YOU CAN, YUCATAN
Where labour costs average under $1 an hour, including benefits. And the employee turnover rate is less than 5% a year. We're only 460 miles and 90 minutes by air from the U.S. And you could save over $15,000 a year, per worker, if you had an offshore production plant here.
So if you want to see how well you or your plant managers can live here while making your company more profitable call for a free video tour of the State of Yucatan at 708-295-1793.
WHEN THE U.S IS TOO EXPENSIVE AND THE FAR EAST TOO FAR, "YES YOU CAN IN YUCATAN."
[Appeals-Court Decision] From a decision issued in August by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in the case of Harold W. Dotson v. Donna E. Shalala, the secretary of health and human services. Dotson was appealing the decision of a lower court that he was not eligible for Supplemental Security Income, which is given to disabled indigents. The lower court has found that Dotson was engaged in "substantial gainful activity" and thus was not disabled.
I. BACKGROUND
Harold Wayne Dotson applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits on September 25, 1989, alleging disability since 1968 due to asthma, multiple allergies, and past drug abuse. The Social Security Administration denied his application on January 10, 1990. Dotson requested and received a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). AT the administrative hearing, Dotson testified that he uses $200 to $300 worth of heroin and cocaine each day. Additionally, he testified that he supports his drug habit by hustling. When asked to define hustling, Dotson replied, "Steal, beg, whatever, you know."
With regard to his thievery, the following colloquy occurred during the administrative hearing:
Q. [ALJ] Where do you steal at?
A. [Dotson] The mall, downtown, wherever. You just ride and look and,
you know.
Q. How long do you spend riding and looking until you find a place to
steal?
A. Sometimes it takes all day.
Q. What kinds of things have you stolen this month?
A. I, well, I like to, I try to concentrate on saws.
Q. Saws?
A. You know, the chain saws, the little bitty chain saws?
Q. Where do you find those at?
A. Everywhere, everywhere.
Q. And once you get them, what do you do with them?
A. You sell them.
Q. Where do you got o sell the chain saws?
A. Like small stores or cleaners, different places like that.
Q. Do you have to travel around to these places? How long does it take
you to find somebody to buy a saw?
A. Usually they already, you have been -- you kind of already know they
probably want one.
Q. So you have canvassed these places earlier? You have gone out and --
A. No, you have probably sold them stuff and they can give you kind of an
idea about what else they might like, you know.
Based on Dotson's testimony, the ALJ found that Dotson's stealing and panhandling constituted substantial gainful activity (SGA) worth an average of approximately $5600 per month and, accordingly, denied Dotson's claim for SSI benefits. The ALJ concluded:
"In order to steal [Dotson] must 'case' the area in which he has determined to steal property. He must then plan on how he is going to steal the property and then actually steal it. The planning and execution of the larceny entails significant MENTAL activity. Lifting and carrying the chain saws would also be significant PHYSICAL activity."
On July 9, 1991, the Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
The Social Security Act provides for the payment of benefits to disabled persons. The secretary [of health and human services] has promulgated regulations to determine whether an SSI claimant is disabled. The regulations require the secretary to determine whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity. Work activity is substantial if it "involves doing significant physical or mental activities," and gainful if it is "the kind of work usually done for pay or profit."
Nothing in the act or its regulations specifically requires the SGA to be lawful. This silence, we believe, suggests that illegal activities can constitute SGA. It must be remembered that the SGA analysis is intended to determine whether a person is unable to function within our economy. A claimant who can manage through illegal means is just as undeserving of benefits as one who can survive without violating the law.
Dotson also raises the interesting yet ultimately unavailing argument that if illegal activities undertaken to maintain a drug habit can constitute SGA, then the cost of the narcotics must be deducted from income as an impairment-related work expense. Dotson argues that, due to the severity of his drug addiction, he needs the cocaine and heroin in order for him to steal and panhandle.
A number of obstacles lie in the path of Dotson's argument. We content ourselves, however, to focus upon the requirement that in order to be an impairment-related work expense a drug must "reduce or eliminate" the symptoms of a claimant's impairment, or "slow down its progression." In the face of Dotson's claim that his disability stems from drug abuse, he cannot hope to maintain the argument that his continued use of heroin and cocaine reduces or eliminates the symptoms of his impairment. Rather, Dotson's use of drugs serves as the basis of his alleged disability. With these considerations in mind, we must reject Dotson's claim for an impairment-related work expense.
The judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Back to @Man's Homepage