Is It Sensible To Make It More Complicated For Someone To Pay You Money They Owe?

       From Social Security:

Social Security Transitions to Electronic Remittances - What You Need to Know

Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2026

Dear Colleague,

We are writing to share important information about how individuals can repay money they owe to the Social Security Administration (SSA). In support of Executive Order 14247, Modernizing Payments To and From America’s Bank Account, we are expanding secure digital payment options to make repayment faster, safer, and more convenient.

We are updating our notices to include electronic repayment options for individuals and will no longer ask individuals to mail checks or credit card forms to repay their debts. Mailed payments can be lost, delayed, or intercepted, which may put personal and financial information at risk. By highlighting secure electronic payment methods, we aim to reduce delays and provide a safer, more reliable repayment experience.

Individuals can make secure online payments through Pay.gov using their Remittance ID. They may also use their bank or credit union’s online bill payment service by selecting “Social Security Administration” as the payee and entering their Remittance ID in the account number field.

Individuals who cannot use the online options can call the Debt Management Unit at 1-855-807-8807, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. local time.

For more information, visit the Repay Overpaid Benefits page.

Please share this information with your members, colleagues, affiliates, and other interested parties.

Sincerely,

Nick Perrine

Chief Communications Officer

New Caseload Analysis Report

      The Social Security Administration has released its Caseload Analysis Report for its hearing functions. It shows a declining number of ALJs and an increasing backlog despite throwing a ton of overtime at the problem.

NYT On Service At SSA

      The New York Times has a new piece out about service at Social Security. There’s nothing much new in it. The sad thing is that they’ve been bamboozled into believing service is improving at the agency.

Typical Politicians

      From CBS News:

 A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill on Tuesday designed to shore up Social Security's finances in the coming decades and prevent future benefit cuts for the 70 million Americans who rely on the program. …

The legislation, called the Promise Act, would not itself raise taxes, reduce benefits or change eligibility. Instead, it would direct the bipartisan, seven-member Social Security Advisory Board to draft a bill, informed by public input, to keep the program's trust funds solvent for at least the next 50 years. …

Any proposal developed by the advisory board would be introduced in the House and Senate by congressional leaders before being considered by committees, which could hold hearings and revise the legislation. To become law, it would need a three-fifths vote in the Senate and a majority vote in the House.

The Promise Act's additional sponsors include Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana; Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia; Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina; and Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine. …

     This is ridiculous. No panel of experts will come up with a bill that will draw widespread support. There’s no clever way of solving the problem that will hurt no one. You either raise taxes, which no Republican will support, cut benefits which no Democrat or Republican will support or you pay benefits out of general revenues, which no one will support as a long term solution but may have to accept. This bill is nothing more than pretending you’re doing something when you’re doing nothing. 

     A bill that combines tax increases and benefits cuts is a trap for Democrats. Republicans would probably provide a few votes to get such a bill passed and then campaign against Democrats for cutting benefits and raising taxes while laughing up their sleeves at the naïveté of the Democrats. Better for Democrats to wait until they control the White House and both houses of Congress so they can solve the problem with tax increases alone. Of course the filibuster stands in the way of doing this but that’s got to go at some point.

Who Is Paying For These?

      From NOTUS:

Morale at the Social Security Administration — which is at a 59-year staffing low due to the Trump administration’s sweeping workforce cuts — is poor.

To fix it, SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano has twice sent staff packages of chocolate-covered pretzels. They’re from his daughter’s company, Pretzables, emblazoned with Pretzable’s branding, website and phone number, as well as a line thanking employees for their work.

The pretzels, staff tell NOTUS, have not addressed the underlying morale issue. (“It’s tone-deaf,” one SSA field office employee said.) They have, however, raised even more questions around Bisignano’s leadership — specifically around the ethics of sending staff pretzels from his daughter’s company.

     It’s hard to imagine anyone thinking it would be OK for the government to pay for these pretzels but this is the Trump Administration and anything goes so I’d like to hear the question answered.

A Threat In Leavenworth

       From KOMO in the state of Washington:

A Leavenworth man suspected of making threats against the Social Security Administration (SSA) Office in Wenatchee was arrested Thursday.

The Chelan County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) said the investigation began when a California-based SSA office told a CCSO deputy it received a threatening call from a man angry about a missing Social Security check.

The caller threatened to ram his vehicle into the Wenatchee office. …

A Wealth Tax To Save Social Security?

      The Netherlands is having trouble financing its social security systems. Cuts in benefits are being discussed. According to the NL Times, one solution being discussed is a wealth tax. Wealthy people might be taxed not just on their income but on their wealth as well.

     A possible wealth tax is on the periphery of public discussion in the U.S. Only people like Senator Bernie Sanders talk much about the idea and then not in the context of Social Security. However, if the choice is between massive Social Security benefits cuts, removing the FICA cap or a wealth tax, what do the American people want? Remember, there’s no clever way of doing this. Your choices are limited to cutting benefits and/or raising taxes. Is getting more tax money out of the ultra wealthy, such as Elon Musk, such a bad idea?

Fertility Fears

      From an op ed by Lyman Stone in the New York Times:

… If America’s population does decline, it will strain our entitlements system, damage the economy, reduce innovation and entrepreneurship, and cause serious labor shortages. But the majority point of view — held by major institutions like the Census Bureau, the United Nations and the Social Security trustees — is that the United States probably won’t face population decline until the 2080s, or even beyond 2100.

That forecast is far too optimistic. The more accurate projection, which I outlined in a recent report for my organization, the Institute for Family Studies, sees the American population beginning to shrink in the 2050s. It is a forecast so grim it could upend American budgeting and, thus, American politics.

Start with the number that drives everything else. The American fertility rate has fallen below 1.6 children per woman, a record low. Replacement rate, the level that merely holds a population steady before immigration, is about 2.1. If the current trend in shrinking births continues, it’s likely that the U.S. population will largely stop growing in the 2030s, and begin to decline in the 2050s. Peak America may come before millennials meet their grandkids (if they have any. …

If birthrates continue to decline as they have been doing, then fertility will fall to 1.35 children per woman in 2050, and 1.15 by 2100. In that scenario, population growth will be anemic in the 2020s and 2030s, fall to essentially zero in the 2040s, and then, starting in the mid-2050s, experience a long, grinding decline. Each generation will be more than 30 percent smaller than the one before, the work force will shrink beneath the retirees it has to support, and the American century will give way to American contraction. …

Up until quite recently, the Social Security trustees’ main scenario assumed that fertility rates will rise from now until 2050, and stabilize at 1.9 children per woman. In 2023, the Census Bureau predicted that fertility rates will only gradually decline from 1.64 to 1.58 by 2075. Spoiler: Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has already shown a 1.57 fertility rate for 2025. The U.N. expects that the U.S. fertility rate will be flat at about 1.65 through the entire 21st century. To its credit, Social Security trustees released new numbers just last month that revised their expectations down to 1.75 in 2050, but that is overly optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office is more realistic, but even it predicts that fertility will decline to 1.53, then stabilize. …

     The writer is working for a pro-natalist project but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.  In fact, even if his projections are a bit pessimistic, he’s still talking about a serious problem. Pro-natalism is nearly hopeless, I think. We have little way as a society of influencing these highly personal decisions. Of course, pro-natalism usually has racist undertones, if not overtones, as well, but that’s a separate issue.

     We need to accept that trying to hold down immigration to almost nothing is insane. We need more legal immigrants and we need to quit worrying so much about undocumented immigrants. Social Security needs these immigrants and so does the country. Those who oppose immigration invite long term catastrophe. At least we can attract all the immigrants we need, despite the hostility that most Republicans express towards black, brown, Asian and Muslim immigrants. Make use of our country’s attractiveness to immigrants. They and their children make great citizens