"Like A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits"

From Ryan Grim at the Huffington Post:

Alan Simpson believes that Social Security is "like a milk cow with 310 million tits," according to an email he sent to the executive director of National Older Women's League Tuesday morning. Simpson co-chairs the deficit commission, which is considering various proposals to cut Social Security benefits.

Simpson's email, which OWL chief Ashley Carson released publicly, (PDF) was sent in response to an April blog post Carson wrote for the Huffington Post. Carson criticized Simpson for repeatedly describing his Social Security opponents as "Pink Panthers," arguing that the description had sexist connotations.

His email is peppered with exclamation points and condescension.

There could not be a better person to lead this effort to cut Social Security than Alan Simpson.

Update: The American Association of Retired Persons is not amused by Simpson's rant.

Further Update: Simpson has now apologized.

Even Further Update: Paul Krugman on Simpson's comments:

At this point, though, Obama is on the spot: he has to fire Simpson, or turn the whole thing into a combination of farce and tragedy — the farce being the nature of the co-chair, the tragedy being that Democrats are so afraid of Republicans that nothing, absolutely nothing, will get them sanctioned.

Obama did not fire him.

I have to say that I see far more farce here than tragedy. I do not want to see Simpson replaced. He should stay the public face of this effort to cut Social Security benefits.

The Updates Just Keep Coming: This is not the first time that Simpson has gone out of his way to e-mail someone who criticized his efforts to cut Social Security benefits. I am getting miffed that I have not yet received a crude, condescending e-mail from Simpson!

OIG Says Withheld Benefits Never Paid

From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

We identified 13,739 previously entitled child beneficiaries over age 18 who had past due benefits that were withheld pending the selection of a representative payee. When these child beneficiaries attained age 18 and therefore were presumed capable of managing their own benefits, SSA [Social Security Administration] should have paid the withheld benefits directly unless it had information that the beneficiaries had impairments that prevented them from managing their benefits. ...

SSA needed to improve controls to ensure child beneficiaries who attained age 18 were paid benefits that had been previously withheld pending the selection of a representative payee. Based on a random sample of 50 beneficiaries, we found SSA did not pay an estimated 13,464 beneficiaries approximately $31.2 million in withheld benefits (see Appendix C). We also found that, when SSA suspended their benefits, 40 of the 50 beneficiaries were age 15 to 17 and therefore might have been eligible for direct payment.

Huge Contract Coming

From Nextgov:

The Social Security Administration expects to award by October a contract potentially worth more than $2 billion for information technology support during the next eight years, agency officials confirmed late Friday.

The huge purchase is an extension of an IT services contract currently held by Lockheed Martin Corp. that has reached its cap of $525 million. The scope of work for this follow-on will extend beyond the previous contract that was primarily for software development and maintenance to include health information technology as well as new management responsibilities. The award may be split between multiple companies. ...

The contractor must create business models for exchanging electronic medical records, expand Internet services for Medicare and supplemental security income applicants, and enable the agency to request and receive medical data automatically through health information exchanges. ...

Several federal market specialists presume the government will award the contract to more than one vendor to boost competition, which should drive down prices, for individual task orders.

Sign The Pledge

Campaign For America's Future is asking members of Congress to sign a pledge to oppose any cuts to Social Security, including raising full retirement age. So far their scorecard shows 29 members of Congress, all of them Democrats, making the pledge.

Why The Differences Between DDS And ALJs?

I strongly recommend that anyone interested in disability determination at Social Security read the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report "Disability Impairments on Cases Most Frequently Denied by Disability Determination Services and Subsequently Allowed by Administrative Law Judges." The tables in the report are striking. It is likely to be cited as support for all sorts of arguments for many years to come.

The only disappointment I have with this report are the following conclusions which, to my mind, are rather timid:

1. Collect information related to claimant representation at the DDS l[Disability Determination Service] level to determine whether representation results in more allowances at the DDS level. Based on the results of that assessment, determine whether additional efforts are needed to ensure claimants are made aware of the availability of claimant representation at the DDS level.
2. Consider conducting a targeted review of disability determinations made in the six States we identified as having higher than average DDS denial rates and hearing level allowance rates for the four impairments we analyzed.
3. Consider analyzing variances between the hearing offices and ALJs [Administrative Law Judge] with high and low allowance rates for the four impairments we analyzed to determine whether factors are present that support the variances.

I can tell Social Security that focusing on attorney representation at DDS is not going to get them anywhere. I have been representing claimants at DDS for years. The main benefit of my representation is that my clients are not allowed to become discouraged and fail to file appeals. I have no illusion that I can do anything to influence the outcome at the initial or reconsideration level except in unusual cases. My prediction is that Social Security will collect statistics on the effects of representation at the initial and reconsideration levels and they will show that represented claimants have only marginally better success at DDS. That difference can mostly be explained by the fact that attorneys refuse cases they regard as unwinnable at any level. Social Security's response to the OIG report suggests they think much the same thing.

My recommendation after reading the report is that Social Security needs to concentrate upon the issue of Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) determination at DDS and, especially, to concentrate upon the RFC guidelines applied at the initial and reconsideration levels. Social Security's official position is that there are no RFC guidelines. This is bull. Sure, they may no longer put the RFC guidelines in writing but everyone knows they exist and are enforced by the quality assurance process. If you have to keep the rules you are following this secret, there has to be something wrong with the rules you are following.

All We Are Saying Is Let Social Security Be Voluntary

From CQ Politics (emphasis added):

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) on Sunday said lawmakers who have not signed onto Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to balance the budget lacked "courage" and could be targeted by the conservative tea party movement as a result.

"All Paul Ryan is saying is let Social Security be voluntary, let Medicare be voluntary," Armey said. "The fact that he only has 13 co-sponsors is a big reason why our folks are agitated against the Republicans as well as the Democrats -- the difference between being a co-sponsor of Ryan or not is a thing called courage."

Social Security Is Only Agency Lacking Labor-Management Forum

From a "Contract Update"posted by the labor union that represents most Social Security employees:

It’s been more than eight months since President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13522 [ordering federal agencies to create labor-management forums], and high-ranking officials within Social Security continue to ignore that directive.

The EO’s purpose was a simple one: to involve employees through their Unions in the decision-making process, improve labor-management relations, improve the Federal Government’s productivity, and measure the progress of providing better service.

“It’s obvious to me that Commissioner Michael Astrue and members of his staff have no interest at all in implementing this order,” said Witold Skwierczynski, AFGE’s Chief Negotiator for the ongoing contract talks. “They are deliberately and defiantly ignoring a Presidential directive.

“Fifty of 51 agency forum plans have been approved. Social Security is still the only Federal agency without a certified plan.”

Social Security And Hatred For The Federal Government

The New York Times op ed page has a set of six short pieces by "experts" on ways to "fix" Social Security. Here is an excerpt from Roger Lowenstein's piece:

Finally, there is the “problem” that Social Security was invented by the federal government, which some people hate. The cure for this would be to legislate Social Security out of existence. According to its foes on the ideological right, it would be worth eliminating social insurance to people who are disabled or elderly, or whose private pensions have folded, or whose 401(k)s have melted away, because Social Security, the post office and other federal institutions are the root of all evil. It’s unlikely that people on Social Security agree.

We need to understand that hatred for the federal government is behind almost everything said and written on the subject of Social Security by the "experts" at right wing think tanks. They are not making proposals to enhance Social Security's long term financial health. They are making proposals that they believe will reduce the role of Social Security in our society and undermine its public support. It is pointless to try to compromise with people who are this ideological. They are never going to support tax increases. Even if they seem to agree to tax increases, they will never truly support them. Republicans in Congress will never vote for tax increases to support Social Security. It is far better to do nothing now than to embark on Social Security "reform" in this political environment.

Social Security Works

"If The Other Is Willing To Do It"

From the Wall Street Journal:

A White House-created commission is considering proposals to raise the retirement age and take other steps to shore up the finances of Social Security, prompting key players to prepare for a major battle over the program's future. ...

In addition to raising the retirement age, which is now set to reach age 67 in 2027, specific cuts under consideration include lowering benefits for wealthier retires and trimming annual cost-of-living increases, perhaps only for wealthier retirees, people familiar with the talks said. ...

On the tax side, the leading idea is to increase the share of earned income that is subject to Social Security taxes, officials said. Under current law, income beyond $106,000 is exempt. Another idea is to increase the tax rate itself, said a Democrat on the commission. ...

"Are Republicans willing to sign onto a tax increase, and are Democrats ready to sign onto a benefit cut? I think the answer is probably yes in both cases if the other is willing to do it," said Alice Rivlin, a Democrat and former White House budget director.

Update: The Wall Street Journal article suggested that the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) might be willing to consider accepting Social Security benefits cuts. AARP has issued a press release rejecting any benefit cuts as part of a deficit reduction package. However, the press release leaves open the possibility that AARP might not oppose benefit cuts to "address Social Security's long-term financing."