Out Of Control Bureaucracy

     The Social Security Administration had 3,500 employees at its Baltimore offices near the Lexington Market in 2001. That's down to 1,600 employees now. They'll soon be moving to a newer, smaller office complex in uptown Baltimore. A local merchant remembered that at noon there used to be "massive amount of people" coming out of the current buildings. It's down to a "little trickle" now.

     The reduction in staffing didn't happen because Social Security moved those employees elsewhere. It happened because Social Security's workforce declined.

A Quad's View Of Social Security's Work Incentives

     A working quadriplegic talks with the Washington Post about Social Security's work incentives. By the way, it's naive to think that if a quadriplegic can work, anybody can work regardless of their impairments. Pain and mental illness are different ball games. Age reduces the ability to make vocational adjustments. People with lowered intellectual capacity have diminished ability to make vocational adjustments. The biggest factors, though, are pain and mental illness. I'd rather be a quad than a schizophrenic or to suffer from chronic, severe pain. Most Social Security disability claims involve mental illness or chronic pain.

Facts And Figures From Social Security

Plans To Expand Social Security Becoming More Popular With Congressional Democrats

     Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is proposing a new program to be administered by Social Security that would give workers up to 12 weeks of benefits at two-thirds of their usual salary at times of family crisis. It would be funded by employer and employee contributions of 0.2% of workers' wages.

     Does this have a realistic chance of passage at this point? Of course it doesn't. Tea party Republicans control the House of Representatives. However, this proposal and Senator Warren's proposal to increase Social Security benefits significantly are both signs that Democrats increasingly view expansion of Social Security as a political winner today and something that will become feasible in the not too distant future. Democrats may well decide that proposing to increase Social Security benefits is their best path to win back the House of Representatives.

Social Security Benefits Eaten Up By Medical Costs

Differing Proposals On Unemployment Benefits And Disability

     From a piece in U.S. News & World Report (they're still in business?) by Chad Stone:

The other major policy issue that derailed the emergency [unemployment] benefits program was a proposal to curtail the joint receipt of unemployment insurance and disability benefits. Reid included a proposal from President Obama's budget to do that. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, had his own proposal, which he said would merely "[end] double-dipping between unemployment and disability benefits," and that it's "in the president's budget." As my CBPP [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities] colleague Paul Van de Water points out, however, the Portman proposal would go well beyond merely ending "double-dipping" and is far different from the president's proposal.

To receive disability benefits, an applicant must have a severe impairment that has prevented him or her from engaging in "substantial gainful activity," defined as earning more than $1,070 a month, for at least five months. In other words, it allows a recipient to work a modest amount, and thus be exposed to a job loss that would legitimately qualify the recipient for unemployment insurance.

The Portman proposal would define receiving unemployment insurance as a substantial gainful activity that, as Van de Water explains, would not only prevent people from receiving both benefits simultaneously – what Portman calls "double-dipping" – but would also delay eligibility for both disability and Medicare for some people with serious disabilities and hasten benefit losses for others. 

The Reid/Obama proposal is quite different from Portman's – and far preferable. It would eliminate "double-dipping" by reducing disability benefits dollar-for-dollar by the amount a person receives in unemployment benefits. In effect, a person who was legitimately eligible for both sets of benefits could receive the higher of the two – but not both.

Incidence Of Disability Going Down

     From a report by Social Security's Office of the Chief Actuary:

The projected probability of becoming disabled before normal retirement age has decreased for insured men between the 1966 and 1993 cohorts [that is, people born in 1966 and 1993], but has increased for insured women. For the 1993 insured cohort, we project that the probability of surviving from age 20 to normal retirement age without ever being disabled is 64 percent for males and 69 percent for females. Comparable probabilities projected for the 1966 insured cohort are 58 percent for males and 70 percent for females. Between the 1992 and 1993 cohorts, the projected probability of death before normal retirement age decreased slightly for both sexes.

Central Offices Closed Due To Weather

     Social Security Administration offices in the Washington-Baltimore area are closed today because of severe weather conditions. They're expecting 5-8 inches of snow and wind gusts to 25 miles per hour.

Some Hypothetical Questions

     Let me pose a hypothetical situation. A woman is drawing Social Security disability benefits. She posts on Facebook: "Having a great time visiting Disneyworld with my grandchildren." Along with this she posts a photo taken of her and her grandchildren at Disneyworld. In the photo, she's smiling.

     Does this hypothetical situation bother you? If so, why? Do you think the information given should trigger some sort of investigation? If so, what sort of investigation and why? Do you feel that you need more information in order to answer these questions? If so, why?

AALJ Gets A NY Times Op Ed

     Randall Frye, the President of the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ), the union that represents Social Security's ALJs, has an op ed piece in today's New York Times that tries to use the recent fraud allegations in New York City to promote a longstanding AALJ proposal to make Social Security's hearings adversarial.

      There are a couple of simple reasons why adversarial hearings aren't coming to Social Security. First, they would cost a lot of money. Second, and more important, it's been tried before and it didn't have any effect that anyone could claim was beneficial. The same people were bring approved and denied.

     If you think I oppose adversarial hearings out of fear for what they would do to my practice, you're wrong. My clients would still win at the same rate and my fees would go up significantly because adversarial hearings would subject Social Security to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which would shift the attorney fee burden to the Social Security Administration itself in most cases. I oppose adversarial hearings because they are a bad idea. What the agency needs is increased funding so it can deal with its serious backlogs. Almost everything else is a distraction.