80th Anniversary Coming Up For Social Security

     A press release from Social Security:

Anticipation fills the air as Social Security gets closer to the agency’s historic 80th anniversary and prepares to commemorate the August 14, 1935, signing of the Social Security Act.  Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin today announced the launch of the agency’s event-filled celebration, with many activities leading up to August 14.

“Social Security offers hope and protection for millions of people and some of the most vulnerable members of the American public,” Acting Commissioner Colvin said. “This was President Franklin Roosevelt’s vision in 1935, and the vision has never been clearer, nor has the work of our agency ever been more important than it is today.”

Observing this important milestone would not be complete without the participation of the agency’s employees and the public.  To engage the public, Social Security launched a commemorative 80th anniversary website, where they will learn more about the agency’s legacy and the importance of the Social Security program.  The website, www.socialsecurity.gov/80thanniversary can be used by the public to submit stories that show how Social Security has benefited them or their families. Social Security employees around the country are expressing their enthusiasm and support through the agency’s “Why I Serve” campaign, which highlights employees telling their own stories illustrating why they enjoy giving back through public service. 

The agency also has planned several additional events, such as celebrating “America’s Favorites: Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie & SSA” Night that will include a ball game between the Baltimore Orioles and the Oakland A’s and at other games around the country.  Stay tuned to the 80th Anniversary website for information on exciting upcoming events as they are planned!

“As I reflect on our agency’s rich history, I am deeply honored to be a part of such a great organization with employees who truly embody the spirit of passionate public service,” Acting Commissioner Colvin said.  “There is nothing more rewarding than making a difference in the lives of others, and with our collective commitment, there is no limit to what we can achieve.  Happy 80th Anniversary, Social Security!”

The "Right Mental Attitude"

     Someone retweeted this to me: "Nothing can stop the man w/ the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man w/the wrong mental attitude,"

     This was tweeted by a man who was a college football player and who is now the sales manager of a large corporation. It sorta fits his background, wouldn't you say?

     There is every reason to encourage people to have "the right mental attitude." That can help take one far. However, taken literally, and many people take this sort of platitude literally, it means that if you've succeeded in life, it must be because you have "the right mental attitude" and if you've been unable to overcome adversity, it must mean that you have "the wrong mental attitude."

     I'm cruel to say this but if the person who wrote this comes down with cancer, his "right mental attitude" may not enable him to achieve any goal he may have. If medical treatment doesn't work, he's going to suffer and die. Whether medical treatment works has almost nothing to do with his "mental attitude." Whatever goals he may have had will not be achieved. If his son or daughter develops schizophrenia, having "right mental attitude" won't get them very far. They'll probably be unable to work on a regular basis, regardless of their mental attitude. Life circumstances can completely overwhelm any "mental attitude" no matter how "right" it may be.

     I deal with clients every day who feel that their disability isn't so much caused by their illnesses as by their personal shortcomings. They feel that being out of work means that they have failed even though objectively they haven't failed; they're simply dealing with serious illness. It's bad enough to be sick. It's worse to mistakenly think that your inability to work means is your fault when it isn't.

     As a society, we're eager to tout the successes of those who have overcome disability with the "right mental attitude" while ignoring the fact that the disability overcome seldom involves factors such as chronic severe pain or chronic progressive illness or chronic severe mental illness. We like nice stories about people in wheelchairs who are still working. We think that's how we'll be if illness strikes us. We'll have the "right mental attitude" and be able to overcome our disability. When we hear stories about people with bipolar disorder who end up homeless, we want to think that can't happen to us because, unlike the homeless people, we have the "right mental attitude." We don't want to consider the possibility that the difference between the person in the wheelchair who is still working and the homeless person with bipolar disorder is the nature and severity of the disability rather than "mental attitude." We think we can control our "mental attitude." We don't like to think about the fact that we can't control illness and injury.

     Writ large, this is the problem with this country's attitudes towards disability. We think that people can control disability with the "right mental attitude" but that's a delusion that leads us to be cruel to disabled people and even to ourselves when we become disabled.

Memorial Day 2015

Recruiting Workers For Social Security During World War II

Number Drawing Disability Goes Up In April

     The number of people drawing Disability Insurance Benefits from Social Security went up by about 4,000 in April. This was the first increase after six straight months of decline.

Most Popular Baby Names By State

     You can now search for the most popular baby names for 2014 (and other years) by state.

Why Appellate Decisions Matter

     Judge Voorhees of the Western District of North Carolina issued the following order today in 37 Social Security cases pending before him: 

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte in light of Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015). The parties are hereby directed to consult one another and discuss, in good faith, whether the ruling in Mascio requires sentence four remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for rehearing or other administrative proceedings. The parties shall then advise the Court via Status Report to be filed with the Court on or before June 8, 2015 on this issue, namely, whether remand to the Commissioner of Social Security is appropriate. The Status Report must certify that counsel have, in fact, discussed Mascio and its implications in the specific case. If a consent to remand is not proposed and supplemental briefing is requested by either party, all supplemental filings should be submitted on or before June 15, 2015.

Charlotte's Story: A Video Posted By Social Security

The Faces and Facts of Disability: Charlotte's Story
When Charlotte suffered two strokes in 2007, she was no longer able to work and quickly found herself facing #homelessness. Thankfully, she had earned #SocialSecurity insurance coverage by contributing into the program throughout her working life. Without Social Security payments to replace a portion of her lost income, Charlotte is sure she would be homeless today.Visit http://ow.ly/MqCSK to learn more about the faces and facts of Social Security #disability.
Posted by Social Security Administration on Thursday, May 7, 2015

New Cancer Listings

     The Social Security Administration has revised its Listings used in adjudicating disability caused by cancer. The new Listings are effective on July 20.

US-India Social Security Agreement Negotiations Resume

     After a gap of five years, the United States and India have resumed negotiations on a Social Security agreement. The United States has Social Security agreements with 25 nations. These typically seek to avoid double taxation of income for transnational employees and to provide for cooperation between Social Security agencies. You can actually file a claim for German social security benefits through a Social Security field office in the United States, for instance. 

     India's Social Security system covers only a small percentage of the country's population and isn't remotely comparable to those of the nations with whom the United States has a Social Security agreement. However, India's economy is booming and there are large numbers of Indian nationals working in the United States and a fair number of American nationals working in India.

     These negotiations may seem unimportant to Americans but they seem quite important to some Indians. Whenever I've posted anything about negotiations on a Social Security agreement with India, this blog has received a ton of hits from India.

Report On Field Office Closures

     Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) had released a study on field office closures. This was in response to a Senate Special Committee on Aging investigation. The OIG study showes that Social Security's documentation of the office closures included the "primary factors" required by agency policy but not all the information required by agency policy. Social Security plans to update its office closure process.

     This isn't going to satisfy members of Congress who have office closures in their district. Their problem isn't Social Security's process or its documentation. It's the fact that an office is being closed in their district.

     Anyway, below is a table showing a list of Social Security field offices "consolidated", meaning closed, in fiscal year 2014. Why were no offices closed in the Midwest or Mountain states?

And The Payment May Be The Same Today As When This Poster Was Created

The Social Security Administration Posted This On Twitter

Here's the link

Why Do They Even Bother?

     Social Security's Office of Chief Actuary is fighting back against an accusation that it has been too optimistic in its projections for the future of the Retirement and Survivors Trust Fund issuing two papers on the matter.

     The future is inherently unpredictable. Social Security's actuaries don't claim anything close to 100% accuracy. They give ranges. It's hardly their fault that everyone treats their midrange estimate as if it was gospel. How can anyone really expect that advances in human longevity will follow a predictable course? Who can reliably predict the future course of economic growth?

     The dispute is of no consequence anyway. No one would know about it except for right wing operatives spreading the word about an article in an obscure scholarly publication. Almost no one really cares. A difference of a year or two in the exhaustion date of the Trust Fund hardly matters since what really keeps Social Security going isn't a trust fund but the political will of the American people and that is unshaken.

     Republicans argue on the one hand that Social Security will fail because the Trust Fund isn't really real since it only contains U.S. government IOUs and on the other hand argue that Social Security will fail because the Trust Fund will eventually run out of money. These are contradictory arguments. If the Trust Fund isn't really real, what difference does its theoretical exhaustion date make? These arguments have been made for 80 years and have gotten Republicans nowhere. Why do they even bother?

Colvin Endorses Increase In Full Retirement Age -- Apparently Not

     Carolyn Colvin, Social Security's Acting Commissioner, has given an interview to Government Executive magazine. Unlike just a couple of months ago Colvin seems to not be expecting re-nomination for a term as Commissioner. She had been nominated in the last Congress but the Senate never voted on the nomination. She can continue as Acting Commissioner until a Commissioner is nominated and confirmed. Whatever chances she might have had of being nominated and confirmed take a big hit in the last paragraph of the Government Executive piece where Colvin appears to endorse an increase in Social Security's full retirement age.

     Update: To explain what happened after I posted this, you need to understand how all Commissioners of Social Security have dealt for decades with questions about the future financing of Social Security. They always say something like "There are a variety of ways of dealing with the long term financing of Social Security." When asked about a specific way of dealing with the long term financing issues, such as increasing the retirement age or lifting the F.I.C.A. cap, they say "That's one of many ways of dealing with the long term financing issues." Commissioners never express a preference for one technique over another. As much as possible, they want to keep themselves and their agency out of the political crossfire. I expect that they must make firm promises on this score to the White House and to various Senators before nomination and confirmation.
     In the original Government Executive article, Colvin was reported to have mentioned increasing the retirement age as a possible solution (and it would only be a partial solution) for Social Security's long term financing issues without mentioning other possible solutions. If Colvin actually said that, it would have been a massive departure from normal practice which would worry a lot of people.
     The last paragraph in the Government Executive article has been changed and now reads:

In the long term, said the acting commissioner with 20 months to go, “We hope Congress will [take a bipartisan approach], as was done in 1983 under the Greenspan Commission. Our agency’s role is to provide data and analysis to the White House and Congress on the impact of the various proposals.”

     The fact that this appeared in the last paragraph of the piece to begin with suggests that the reporter didn't understand the significance of what he was reporting and that he may not have been as careful in reporting exactly what he had been told as he should have been.

OIG Studies DDS Processing Times

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

We analyzed DI [Disability Insurance] and SSI [Supplemental Security Income] average claims processing times at 51 DDSs [Disability Determination Services] for FY [Fiscal Year] 2013 (we excluded the Puerto Rico DDS from our analysis since it only processed DI claims). In FY 2013, DDS average processing times ranged from 45 to 140 days for DI claims and 49 to 157 days for SSI claims. We mapped the processing times for all 51 DDSs to identify processing times outside the typical range. In doing so, for the DI and SSI programs, we found 44 (86 percent) of 51 DDSs had processing times between 60 and 120 days.

We identified seven DDSs that fell outside of 60- to 120-day ranges for DI and SSI processing times. Specifically, the Florida and Idaho DDSs had DI and SSI processing times shorter than 60 days while the California, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, and Hawaii DDSs had DI and SSI processing times longer than 120 days. Despite differences in processing times, the seven DDSs had allowance rates comparable to the national average and accuracy rates at or above SSA ’s goal.

No Surprise Here

     From a letter from Social Security's Chief Actuary to the Chairmen of the House Social Security and Human Resource Subcommittees:

I am writing in response to your request for an estimate of the financial effects on Social Security of H.R. 2135, “ Promoting Opportunity for Disability Benefit Applicants Act , ” introduced on April 30. This Bill would allow the Commissioner of Social Security to provide information on appropriate public or private entities that provide employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, or other support services to applicants for disability benefits under Title II or Title XVI who are denied benefits based on an adverse determination of disability.  ...

We conclude that enactment of this Bill would most likely have a very small net effect on Title II, Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI), benefit cost and Title XVI, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cost ...

News From NOSSCR

     I received a question from a reader who wanted to know why I hadn't posted news from last week's conference of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR), held in Arlington, VA, just outside D.C. The answer is simple. There really wasn't much news. Here's the little I gleaned.

     Glenn Sklar, the head of Social Security's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR), said that things were going to get better because the agency was hiring more Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). However, Sklar couldn't give a clear answer when asked if there would be any net improvement after the expected attrition of ALJs retiring, quitting and dying.

     Senator Sherrod Brown gave a nice speech, promising to fully support Social Security, including disability benefits but Brown's support was never in question. The problem is on the other side of the aisle.

     Ellen Nissenbaum of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) gave a depressing talk about the challenges affecting the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund. Nothing she said would be news to any regular reader of this blog. I thought she was overly pessimistic, talking almost exclusively about the negative while failing to mention the positive -- that Democrats, to this point, are solidly against significant changes in Social Security disability benefits and Republicans haven't produced a bill. Nissenbaum seemed to think that Republicans might get away with saying they would cut "disability" but not Social Security. I wouldn't bet on that working if I were a Republican running in anything other than an extremely safe district. I can see the TV ad now accusing a Republican of cutting, let's say, $100 billion from Social Security. Would it really work for the Republican to go around complaining that the ad is misleading because the $100 billion would be "disability" instead of Social Security?

     Barbara Silverstone, NOSSCR's Executive Director, noted that the attendance at the conference was under 700. In recent years, conference attendance, particularly in D.C., has been around 1,000. The reason the attendance was off wasn't the date or the location or the hotel or anything else like that. It's the fact that it has become extremely challenging to practice Social Security law these days. A fair number of Social Security attorneys are dropping out of the practice. Fewer who are still practicing Social Security law can afford to attend a conference. The next conference is scheduled for the end of October in Denver. That may be the sort of intimate gathering that NOSSCR hasn't seen in decades.

Stop The Gaming

     From Alicia Munnell, writing for Market Watch:

In 2009, we published three briefs under the title “Strange but True” that described Social Security claiming strategies that allowed individuals to get more benefits. The idea was to show how they worked, who was most likely to benefit, and how much they could cost. Our hope was that publicity would compel Congress to close down these options.

We had mixed success. The immediate result is that these strategies continued to gain in popularity with financial planners, and individuals increasingly approached their Social Security offices asking for arrangements that some staff had never heard of. Today people are writing best-selling books about how to get the maximum out of Social Security. ...

Under Social Security, married individuals are entitled to a retired worker benefit based on their own earnings and/or to a spousal benefit equal to one half of their spouse’s benefit claimed at the Full Retirement Age (currently 66). If a married individual claims before the Full Retirement Age, the SSA assumes that the individual is claiming both types of benefits, compares the worker and spousal benefits, and awards the highest. This procedure is called “deeming.”

After the Full Retirement Age deeming does not apply, and individuals can choose which benefit to receive. As a result, married individuals can claim a spousal benefit at 66 and switch to their own retired worker benefit at a later date. This approach allows a worker to begin claiming one type of benefit while still building up delayed retirement credits, which will result in a higher worker benefit later. ...

The final strategy – “claim and suspend” – allows people who have already claimed Social Security to re-enter the labor force and continue to build their retirement benefits. However, it also offers couples a claiming advantage. For example, a husband who reaches the Full Retirement Age can claim and immediately suspend his benefits, allowing his wife to receive a spousal benefit based on his earnings record. The husband is then free to continue working and receive delayed retirement credits, which increases not only his monthly benefit but also his wife’s.

     Munnell argues that Congress should pass legislation requiring deeming even after full retirement age.

Wasted Effort

       Some Harvard researchers are arguing that Social Security's Office of Chief Actuary is being too optimistic in predicting the future of Social Security's Retirement and Survivor's Trust Fund. Right wing operatives are spreading the news. I'm not going to bother trying to understand the arguments on both sides because they're completely irrelevant. Let me clue you in to a secret. The future of Social Security has almost nothing to do with the actuarial future of the Retirement and Survivor's Trust Fund. What supports Social Security retirement benefits isn't really the Trust Fund but the political will of the American people who overwhelmingly support the continued existence of Social Security retirement benefits. If that political will were lacking, there would be no legal impediment to abolishing Social Security next week regardless of the balance in the Trust Fund. With that political will present, it wouldn't matter if the Retirement and Survivor's Trust Fund were running out of money next week. There would be hell to pay for any politician who refused to keep Social Security going. Republicans argue on the one hand that the Trust Fund is a meaningless abstraction but then try to invest the Trust Fund with an almost talismanic quality, thinking that any remote threat to the Trust Fund will bring down Social Security. Republicans can keep whining about the Trust Fund for the next 80 years the same way they have for the last 80 years and it won't threaten Social Security in the slightest.