Feb 20, 2008
Head Of GAO Resigning
David Walker, the Comptroller General who is head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), is resigning effective March 12 to run a foundation "which is to focus on such national sustainability issues as entitlement program and health care costs, trade and budget deficits, energy consumption and the education system" according to Fox News.
Walker, a Republican, was appointed to his 15 year term by President Clinton, but spoke out to support "reform" of Social Security during President Bush's effort to privatize Social Security. Walker's new job suggests that he will continue to promote similar goals after leaving the government.
Under Walker's leadership GAO was a cheerleader for former Commissioner Barnhart's hapless Disability Service Improvement (DSI) plan that was ended by the current Commissioner. Indeed, even after DSI had failed miserably, GAO was wondering why it had to be canceled without giving it more of a chance.
GAO in recent years has constantly harped upon the theme of management weakness at Social Security and has consistently downplayed budget as a factor in Social Security's backlog situation.
In leaving, Walker said "As Comptroller General of the United States and head of the GAO, there are real limitations on what I can do and say in connection with key public policy issues, especially issues that directly relate to GAO's client -- the Congress," suggesting that he was leaving because he is unhappy at dealing with a Congress controlled by Democrats.
It seems unlikely that the Senate will confirm anyone nominated by President Bush to replace Walker.
Walker, a Republican, was appointed to his 15 year term by President Clinton, but spoke out to support "reform" of Social Security during President Bush's effort to privatize Social Security. Walker's new job suggests that he will continue to promote similar goals after leaving the government.
Under Walker's leadership GAO was a cheerleader for former Commissioner Barnhart's hapless Disability Service Improvement (DSI) plan that was ended by the current Commissioner. Indeed, even after DSI had failed miserably, GAO was wondering why it had to be canceled without giving it more of a chance.
GAO in recent years has constantly harped upon the theme of management weakness at Social Security and has consistently downplayed budget as a factor in Social Security's backlog situation.
In leaving, Walker said "As Comptroller General of the United States and head of the GAO, there are real limitations on what I can do and say in connection with key public policy issues, especially issues that directly relate to GAO's client -- the Congress," suggesting that he was leaving because he is unhappy at dealing with a Congress controlled by Democrats.
It seems unlikely that the Senate will confirm anyone nominated by President Bush to replace Walker.
Feb 19, 2008
I Don't Think Many People Will Take This Advice!
From the Boston Globe (emphasis added):
If you're retired and are interested in having a higher income for as long as you live, you have two main options.
You can buy a life annuity. This will provide you with an income, with or without inflation adjustments, for as long as you live. ...Fortunately, there is a simple alternative. It will work nicely for retirees in their late 60s or early 70s who opted, years ago, to take Social Security benefits at a relatively young age. That's millions of people.
If you did this, you know your benefits were reduced because taking benefits early meant Social Security would have to pay benefits for more years.
But you easily can reapply from scratch. Visit the local Social Security office. Make use of a little-known and seldom-exercised provision - request a "Withdrawal of Application." By filing an SSA Form 521, Social Security will treat you as if you had never applied for benefits. It will let you immediately reapply for benefits - at your current age.
Yes, there is a catch. And it's a big one. You must repay every dime you've received in past benefits.
Results Of Last Week's Unscientific Poll
When were you born?
| 1929 or earlier (1) | 1% |
| |
| 1930-1939 (3) | 2% |
| |
| 1940-1949 (35) | 26% |
| |
| 1950-1959 (47) | 35% |
| |
| 1960-1969 (20) | 15% |
| |
| 1970-1979 (22) | 17% |
| |
| 1980-1989 (5) | 4% |
| |
| 1990 or later (0) | 0% |  |
Total Votes: 133
Feb 18, 2008
CCD Lays Out Its Agenda
Groups are already laying out their agendas for what they expect to be a Democratic party ascendancy to come next year. The Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is the major umbrella group representing just about all groups of any consequence who advocate on behalf of the disabled. The CCD has issued a Statement of Principles on work incentives and other issues affecting Social Security's disability programs. I am sure that the CCD would be happy to get any of this enacted this year -- and it is possible that a little could be enacted this year -- but mostly this is the CCD agenda for the next Congress and the next President. This deserves close attention. In my opinion, much of this is likely to become law if Democrats capture the White House as well as larger majorities in both Houses of Congress, something which looks likely at the moment.
Here are what I think of as the major points from CCD's statement of principles:
I cannot understand why CCD would talk about improving disabled widows and widowers benefits, but not mention ending the actuarial reduction in disabled widows and widowers benefits. Is it possible that CCD does not understand the actuarial reduction? I know that the phrase "actuarial reduction" sounds like it must be something impossibly complicated. Let me make it simple. The younger the disabled widow or widower is when he or she goes on benefits, the less he or she receives in disabled widow or widower benefits. Does it make sense to penalize people for becoming disabled at an earlier age?
Here are what I think of as the major points from CCD's statement of principles:
- No change in Social Security's definition of disability, nor anything designed to force disabled people back to work, such as time limited benefits;
- An increase in the earnings limits for Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
- Changing work incentives in Title II of the Social Security Act so that the disabled lose one dollar for each two dollars they earn;
- An indefinite presumptive disability status for those whose disability benefits end due to return to work;
- Allowing health insurance expenses to count as Impairment Related Work Expenses;
- Improving the ability of child SSI recipients to make the transition to work;
- Eliminating the five month waiting period for Disability Insurance Benefits;
- Improving Ticket to Work;
- Improving tracking of earnings for disabled people who return to work to help avoid large overpayments;
- Eliminating the 24 month waiting period for Medicare;
- Allow premium fee access to Medicare for beneficiaries who return to work;
- Allow individuals to get on Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits despite some work activity after becoming 22 years of age;
- Exempt DAC recipients from the family maximum if they live outside the family home;
- Eliminate the DAC marriage penalty;
- Improve the minimum benefit;
- Repeal the seven year prescribed period for disabled widows and widowers; and
- Increase disabled widows benefits
I cannot understand why CCD would talk about improving disabled widows and widowers benefits, but not mention ending the actuarial reduction in disabled widows and widowers benefits. Is it possible that CCD does not understand the actuarial reduction? I know that the phrase "actuarial reduction" sounds like it must be something impossibly complicated. Let me make it simple. The younger the disabled widow or widower is when he or she goes on benefits, the less he or she receives in disabled widow or widower benefits. Does it make sense to penalize people for becoming disabled at an earlier age?
NADE Newsletter
The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), an organization of people who work at the state Disability Determination Services, has issued its Winter 2008 newsletter.
One small note from the newsletter: Pat Owens who had been Associate Commissioner for Disability at Social Security in the 1980s and who was later employed by UNUM, the country's largest writer of Long Term Disability Insurance, is now working for the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Feb 17, 2008
Astrue To Visit Missoula
From Montana's News Station.com:
U.S. Sen. Max Baucus says Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue has accepted his invitation to attend a community forum in Missoula on Feb. 21.
Baucus says the invitation was part of his ongoing efforts to cut down the time it takes for Montanans to get Social Security retirement and disability benefits. He says the forum will allow Astrue to see how the Social Security filing process is faring in Montana, and to discuss ways to improve it.
Baucus is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security.
Feb 16, 2008
Republican Congressmen Promote Biometric Social Security Cards
The Chicago Tribune reports that two Republican Congressmen from Illinois are introducing a bill requiring that Social Security cards include a photograph, fingerprint, computer chip, bar code and magnetic strip. The idea is to help prevent identity theft. The Congressmen described this as only a "modest upgrade."
If this were to happen, the Social Security Administration would be dramatically transformed, perhaps doubling its staff.
Feb 15, 2008
CLE Webcast
The Disability Advocacy Section (which is basically the Social Security section) of the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers is putting on a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) on March 28, 2008 entitled "An Overview of Medicare and Medicaid" for attorneys and others who represent Social Security claimants. The CLE is available as a webcast. You do not have to be a member of the section or of the NC Academy of Trial Lawyers. The issues being discussed are national. Registrants from outside North Carolina are welcome. CLE credit is available. Information is available online.
What Is Going On With Emergency Messages?
Yesterday, I posted the text of an "Emergency Message" from the Social Security Administration about Social Security's role in the economic stimulus package. Shortly after I posted the Emergency Message or EM, it disappeared from Social Security's website.
Social Security has used EMs, or their predecessor, Emergency Teletypes, for many years to convey important information to Social Security employees. Usually, EMs are not concerned with true emergencies. They just convey staff instructions, usually concerning new issues. As such, they are a matter of legitimate interest to anyone dealing with the agency.
Take a look at Social Security's online list of EMs. Note that they seem to be numbered sequentially. The most recent EM shown is 08013. It appears that the "08" part is the year and the number thereafter is a sequential number. Note how many gaps there are in the sequence. We are up to EM-08013 online, but there are only two EMs showing up online for 2008.
What is going on? JOA on the SSAConnect Board tells us that Social Security is labeling many EMs as "sensitive" and distributing them only to Social Security employees. Apparently, Social Security decided to make EM-08-021 "sensitive" after first posting it online. It appears to me that Social Security has been labeling more and more EMs as sensitive and trying to withhold them from the public.
Why is Social Security doing this? I cannot say, but it is hard to imagine that anything being made available to tens of thousands of Social Security employees is truly sensitive. If the EM that I posted is an example of what Social Security is labeling "sensitive", you have to wonder what the criteria are for determining what is so "sensitive" that it must be withheld from the public. The only thing "sensitive" about that EM was the revelation that the Social Security Administration wants to stay out of the business of advising claimants on how they can obtain a check under the economic stimulus plan. I suppose that this might be embarrassing to the agency brass since Social Security is getting a $31 million appropriation for its part in the economic stimulus plan or because it illustrates the fact that Social Security is short-handed, but that hardly seems to me to make it "sensitive."
Trying to keep these secret seems contrary to Social Security's publicly stated position that "Administrative staff manuals of the Social Security Administration and Instructions to staff personnel that contain policies, procedures, or interpretations that affect the public are available for inspection and copying."
If nothing else, trying to suppress an emergency message that clearly contains no sensitive information after the emergency message has already entered the public domain just makes the Social Security Administration look ridiculous.
I have made a Freedom of Information Act requests for all of these sensitive EMs since the beginning of 2007. Once I get them, I will post all of them. We will eventually see what Social Security is trying to keep from the public. How soon that may be is unclear.
Social Security has used EMs, or their predecessor, Emergency Teletypes, for many years to convey important information to Social Security employees. Usually, EMs are not concerned with true emergencies. They just convey staff instructions, usually concerning new issues. As such, they are a matter of legitimate interest to anyone dealing with the agency.
Take a look at Social Security's online list of EMs. Note that they seem to be numbered sequentially. The most recent EM shown is 08013. It appears that the "08" part is the year and the number thereafter is a sequential number. Note how many gaps there are in the sequence. We are up to EM-08013 online, but there are only two EMs showing up online for 2008.
What is going on? JOA on the SSAConnect Board tells us that Social Security is labeling many EMs as "sensitive" and distributing them only to Social Security employees. Apparently, Social Security decided to make EM-08-021 "sensitive" after first posting it online. It appears to me that Social Security has been labeling more and more EMs as sensitive and trying to withhold them from the public.
Why is Social Security doing this? I cannot say, but it is hard to imagine that anything being made available to tens of thousands of Social Security employees is truly sensitive. If the EM that I posted is an example of what Social Security is labeling "sensitive", you have to wonder what the criteria are for determining what is so "sensitive" that it must be withheld from the public. The only thing "sensitive" about that EM was the revelation that the Social Security Administration wants to stay out of the business of advising claimants on how they can obtain a check under the economic stimulus plan. I suppose that this might be embarrassing to the agency brass since Social Security is getting a $31 million appropriation for its part in the economic stimulus plan or because it illustrates the fact that Social Security is short-handed, but that hardly seems to me to make it "sensitive."
Trying to keep these secret seems contrary to Social Security's publicly stated position that "Administrative staff manuals of the Social Security Administration and Instructions to staff personnel that contain policies, procedures, or interpretations that affect the public are available for inspection and copying."
If nothing else, trying to suppress an emergency message that clearly contains no sensitive information after the emergency message has already entered the public domain just makes the Social Security Administration look ridiculous.
I have made a Freedom of Information Act requests for all of these sensitive EMs since the beginning of 2007. Once I get them, I will post all of them. We will eventually see what Social Security is trying to keep from the public. How soon that may be is unclear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)