Did Michael Astrue Expect Obama To Lose?

     I can't be sure but I'm guessing that Michael Astrue expected a Republican to win this year's Presidential election. I ask myself whether Astrue would have gone ahead with his plan for Social Security to create its own occupational information system to replace the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) if he thought that the Commissioner replacing him would be appointed by President Obama. My answer to that question is "no."
     Figuring out how to replace the DOT has been the most consequential issue that Michael Astrue has had on his plate as Commissioner. Sure, his efforts to deal with backlogs and inadequate budgets have gotten more public attention but the DOT replacement issue will affect Social Security disability determination for decades into the future. Millions of disability claims will be approved or denied because of what is done on this issue.
     I can't be sure but I think the occupational information system project is going back to the drawing board once we have a new Commissioner. The "We'll go it alone and make the DOT replacement say exactly what we want it to say" approach isn't likely to be acceptable to a Democratic Commissioner.  In the end, I expect that the Department of Labor will be asked to take the leading role. I think this result could have been foreseen.
     My best guess is that the only way Astrue's plan could have gone forward was if Astrue's successor was a Republican appointee. Even then, its future would have been uncertain because of the costs and because of concerns about whether the courts would accept it. The "go it alone" approach was a bad decision that has wasted time and money.

What's At Stake

     From Talking Points Memo (TPM) (emphasis added):

A potential Mitt Romney presidency carries huge implications for the Supreme Court that have conservatives excited and progressives fearful about the future. ...

 Replacing even one of the liberal justices with a conservative, legal scholars and advocates across the ideological spectrum agree, would position conservatives to scale back the social safety net and abortion rights in the near term. ...

Roger Pilon, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies and a member of the Federalist Society, told TPM that one more solid conservative vote would pave the way for “fundamental shifts on the Court” toward “a revival of greater protection for economic liberty and a direct assault on the modern regulatory state.”

“If Romney were to appoint [conservative] justices and lower court judges, then we would see greater protection for economic liberty and greater scrutiny for regulation — whether they be environmental regulations, regulations for property rights, regulations for affirmative action, regulations of all sorts,” Pilon said. “That to my mind would be a return to the Constitution as it was originally understood prior to the New Deal constitutional revolution. And that is basically what the Tea Party movement has called for.”

The implication is that the Court would likely “chip away” at Congress’ power to compel states to participate in programs like Medicaid, and at the federal government’s power to erect national programs like Medicare and Social Security, Pilon says. “I expect that a Romney-appointed court would be more sympathetic to efforts to change the Medicare and Medicaid [and Social Security] programs because they’d come from that school of thought that says government has limited power.” ...

Randy Barnett, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University and a leading architect of the legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act, told TPM that attacking the legal premise of Medicare and Social Security (which rest on the Constitution’s rarely questioned powers to tax and spend) would be “a much longer-term project.” ...

Cato’s Pilon believes that replacing one liberal justice with a conservative could pave the way for a slow return to the Lochner Era — a pre-New Deal period when the Supreme Court invalidated minimum wage and child labor laws as unconstitutional. ...

How Many People Other Than Obama Think A "Grand Bargain" Is Feasible?

     In an interview with the Des Moines Register President Obama said that he was hoping for a "grand bargain" after the election that would include $2.50 of budget cuts for every dollar of tax increases which would reduce budget deficits by $4 trillion. He did not mention Social Security as a possible target for budget reductions but it is essentially impossible to get budget reductions that large without cutting Social Security.

     Richard Trumka, the head of the AFL-CIO, however, set down his marker in a Politico piece with the unambiguous title "Americans Don't Want Grand Bargain." Trumka says that he could not disagree more with cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

Why Hasn't Social Security Been A Campaign Issue?

     This is from Dean Baker, writing in The Guardian:

It is remarkable that social security hasn't been a more prominent issue in the presidential race. After all, Governor Romney has proposed a plan that would imply cuts of more than 40% for middle-class workers just entering the labor force. Since social security is hugely popular across the political spectrum, it would seem that President Obama could gain an enormous advantage by clearly proclaiming his support for the program. 

 But President Obama has consistently refused to rise to the defense of social security. In fact, in the first debate, he explicitly took the issue off the table, telling the American people that there is not much difference between his position on social security and Romney's. ... 

 Politicians, especially Democrats, who speak up for cuts to social security can count on lavish praise from the media. Political figures of no obvious stature, like former Louisiana Senator John Breaux or former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, were lionized in the media for their willingness to cut social security benefits. After leaving the Senate, both took lobbying positions where they were almost certainly earning well over $1m a year. 

This is the fundamental economics of social security that explains why it has not figured more prominently in the presidential race. If President Obama were to rise in defense of the program, he could count on losing the financial backing of many supporters. He would also get beaten up by the Washington Post and other major news outlets for challenging their agenda.

Should Seniors Be Scared?

     From The Hill:

Vice President Biden on Friday told Florida seniors that Mitt Romney wants to make them pay $460 more in taxes on Social Security.

“Gov. Romney proposes significant changes, that would result in beneficiaries getting considerably less in their Social Security check in the future," he said, beginning a two-day campaign tour in Florida with a grassroots event at Century Village, a retirement community in Boca Raton. "If Gov. Romney’s tax plan goes into effect, it could mean everyone, everyone, would have to pay more taxes on the Social Security benefits they now receive. The average senior would have to pay $460 more in taxes on their benefits.” ...

The Obama campaign cited estimates from the Tax Policy Center study suggesting that taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year could lose almost 60 percent of their tax preferences under the Romney plan. From that, the campaign estimated that Social Security recipients could take a $458 hit.

For their part, Romney’s campaign has pushed back strongly against the Tax Policy Center study, with the candidate himself saying it reached “a garbage conclusion.”

     You can criticize Biden but until Romney says who will bear the brunt of his tax plans -- and any plan to change taxes that is revenue neutral inevitably cuts some people's taxes while raising those of others -- is Biden making an unfair accusation?

Means Testing With Romney

     From the 60 Minutes interview with Mitt Romney aired last night:

PELLEY:  How would you change Social Security? 

ROMNEY:  Well, again, no change in Social Security for -- for those that are in retirement or near retirement. What I'd do with Social Security is say this:  that again, people with higher incomes won't get the same high growth rate in their benefits as people of lower incomes. People who rely on Social Security should see the same kind of growth rate they've had in the past. But higher income folks would receive a little less.

PELLEY:  So that in the Romney administration, in the Romney plan, there would be means testing for Social Security and for Medicare? 

ROMNEY:  That's correct. Higher-income people won't get as much as lower-income people. And by virtue of doing that -- and again, that's for future retirees. For -- by virtue of doing that, you are able to save these programs on a permanent basis.

     I don't know what he means. If he is talking merely about reducing the cost of living adjustment for higher income recipients, this makes no sense. You can't possibly "save" Social Security that way. General means testing of Title II of the Social Security Act could do the trick but would be unpopular. The ambiguity suggests that he is talking about general means testing.

Paul Ryan On Social Security

     Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice-Presidental nominee, said in 2005 that Social Security in 2005 is "a collectivist system, it's a welfare transfer system." He talked jokingly about wanting to "personalize" the "socialist-based system" of Social Security.

     Ryan is now backing away from his 2005 comments on Social Security.

Use Of Death Master File To Purge Voter Rolls In Texas Blocked

     A state court judge has blocked an effort to use Social Security's Death Master File to purge voter rolls in Texas in advance of the election.

Using The Death Master File For Vote Suppression

    From the Cox Newspapers:

Two months before the presidential election, thousands of registered Texas voters are receiving letters asking them to verify they are not dead.

The nearly 77,000 letters, called notices of examination, were sent out by election officials to comply with a 2011 law passed by the Legislature requiring the secretary of state’s office to cross-reference the voter rolls with the Social Security Administration’s enormous death master file to determine if a voter could be deceased. ...

Texans receiving a letter have had either a strong or weak match between their voter registration information and the data in the death file. Because of the size of the death file, the Social Security Administration does not guarantee its accuracy.

A match is strong if the last name, date of birth and all nine Social Security numbers are identical. A weak match occurs when two records have either the same nine digit Social Security number and same date of birth, or the last four Social Security numbers, the same birth date and one matching name component. A voter’s registration will be canceled automatically if the match is strong, but not if the match is weak, according to the Travis County voter registrar. ...

In Harris County, the voter registrar sent out more than 9,000 letters, but, after receiving complaints from voters, decided to take no further action, according to the Houston Chronicle. The Secretary of State’s Office has threatened to cut voter registration funding to the county if it does not comply, the newspaper reported.

Democratic Platform On Social Security

     During the Republican National Convention, I had quoted what the GOP platform said about Social Security. Here's what the Democratic platform says about Social Security:

We believe every American deserves a secure, healthy, and dignified retirement. America’s seniors have earned their Medicare and Social Security through a lifetime of hard work and personal responsibility. President Obama is committed to preserving that promise for this and future generations.

During their working years, Americans contribute to Social Security in exchange for a promise that they will receive an income in retirement. Unlike those in the other party, we will find a solution to protect Social Security for future generations. We will block Republican efforts to subject Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market through privatization. We reject approaches that insist that cutting benefits is the only answer. President Obama will also make it easier for Americans to save on their own for retirement and prepare for unforeseen expenses by participating in retirement accounts at work. ...

In short, Democrats believe that Social Security and Medicare must be kept strong for seniors, people with disabilities, and future generations. Our opponents have shown a shocking willingness to gut these programs to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest, and we fundamentally reject that approach.

Republican Platform On Social Security -- George W. Bush Redux

     Party platforms do not bind nominees but are still a sign of a party's core value. Here's what the Republican platform for 2012 says about Social Security:

While no changes should adversely affect any current or near-retiree, comprehensive reform should address our society’s remarkable medical advances in longevity and allow younger workers the option of creating their own personal investment accounts as supplements to the system. Younger Americans have lost all faith in the Social Security system, which is understandable when they read the non- partisan actuary’s reports about its future funding status. Born in an old industrial era beyond the memory of most Americans, it is long overdue for major change, not just another legislative stopgap that postpones a day of reckoning. To restore public trust in the system, Republicans are committed to setting it on a sound fiscal basis that will give workers control over, and a sound return on, their investments. The sooner we act, the sooner those close to retirement can be reassured of their benefits and younger workers can take responsibility for planning their own retirement decades from now.

     These are the same ideas that George W. Bush relied upon when he undertook to "reform" Social Security. That effort didn't work out too well for him.

H.I.G. Gives Big Money To Romney Campaign

     H.I.G. Capital, a private equity firm, has given $219,495 to the Mitt Romney campaign this year, making it one of Romney's largest contributors, larger than Bain Capital, Romney's old firm.  H.I.G. is at least the partial owner of Binder and Binder, the largest entity representing Social Security disability claimants. H.I.G. may also have given money to independent groups supporting Romney but that information is not available to the public.

Ryan Plan Would End Automatic Medicaid For SSI Recipients

     Another element of Paul Ryan's budget plan: Persons who are approved for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) would no longer be automatically eligible for Medicaid. That would be at the discretion of the states which would be receiving much less federal funding for Medicaid.

Social Security Starting To Come Up In Presidential Campaign

     To no one's surprise, Democrats are starting to attack the Romney-Ryan ticket over Social Security. Plans for partial privatization of Social Security play well with Republican voters but not with the electorate as a whole.

The Ryan Plan On Social Security

     Paul Ryan's budget plan would:

• Means test Social Security
• Raise full retirement age to 70
• Allow workers the right to divert one-third of their F.I.C.A. taxes to optional private Social Security accounts
• Alter the way in which average wages are computed for determining the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA), the amount one receives upon retirement, in such a way as to reduce benefits for all but the lowest wage workers

Romney And Marx Agree That The State Will Wither Away

     From the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

Governor Mitt Romney’s proposals to cap total federal spending, boost defense spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget would require extraordinarily large cuts in other programs, both entitlements and discretionary programs, according to our revised analysis based on new information and updated projections.

For the most part, Governor Romney has not outlined cuts in specific programs. But if policymakers exempted Social Security from the cuts, as Romney has suggested, and cut Medicare, Medicaid, and all other entitlement and discretionary programs by the same percentage — to meet Romney’s spending cap, defense spending target, and balanced budget requirement — then non-defense programs other than Social Security would have to be cut 29 percent in 2016 and 59 percent in 2022...

The cuts that would be required under the Romney budget proposals in programs such as veterans’ disability compensation, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for poor elderly and disabled individuals, SNAP (formerly food stamps), and child nutrition programs would move millions of households below the poverty line or drive them deeper into poverty. ...

      In practical terms for the Social Security Administration, there would not be enough money to pay SSI benefits by 2016 but, then, the agency wouldn't have enough money to administer SSI anyway. By 2022 there would not be enough operating funds to administer just Title II of the Social Security Act.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

     A new Harris poll shows that only 12% of Americans want to cut Social Security. All Republican candidates for President endorse cuts in Social Security.

Republicans Continue Their Quest For Electoral Disaster

     In a major policy address today at a nearly empty Ford Field, Mitt Romney promised that if he is elected President that he would "slowly raise the retirement age" and "slow the growth in benefits for higher-income retirees" meaning that he wants to means test benefits. He believes that saying this will help him get elected President. Most people believe he's the most electable Republican.

Is This How You Attract Republican Voters?

From the Huffington Post:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum called Friday for immediate cuts to Social Security benefits ...

"We can't wait 10 years," even though "everybody wants to," Santorum told a crowd while campaigning in New Hampshire and looking to set himself apart from his Republican rivals four days before the New Hampshire primary. ...

He argued that he is being courageous and honest by telling Americans they can't afford to wait to rein in Social Security's growing costs.

Like Moths To A Flame

From the Associated Press:

Most of the top Republicans running for president are embracing plans to partially privatize Social Security, reviving a contentious issue that fizzled under President George W. Bush after Democrats relentlessly attacked it. ...

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a version. Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas have said younger workers should be allowed to invest in alternative plans. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has raised the idea of letting whole groups, such as state and local government workers, opt out of Social Security.