Dec 23, 2015
An Idea For Improving Retirement Savings
From an Op Ed by Dean Baker in the Los Angeles Times:
The vast majority of Americans who expect to retire in the next decade can count on little income other than their Social Security. This is true not only for low-income workers, who have struggled most of their lives, but also for millions of middle-income workers. ... Many if not most can expect to see sharp reductions in living standards.
The reason for such bleak retirement prospects is the disappearance of traditional defined benefit pensions and the failure of 401(k)-type plans to fill the gap. A recent analysis by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that, in 2011, only 14% of private-sector employees participated in a defined benefit pension plan. The participation rate has been falling quite rapidly ...
Although many people were hopeful that 401(k)s would be sufficient to support a comfortable day-to-day retirement, this has proved not to be the case. In 2013, the middle fifth of households of people ages 45 to 54 had less than $60,000 in total financial assets. And most homeowners in this age group still had less than 40% equity in their homes, meaning they could look forward to paying off a mortgage well into their retirement.
In response to this situation, Illinois is developing a state-run retirement program that will make it easier and cheaper for workers to save. Many other states, including California, are studying this option. ...
Workers would have a modest amount (around 2% to 3%) deducted from each paycheck, although they could opt out if they chose. The money would then accumulate like a 401(k) during a person's working years, with the option to receive a lump sum or draw a monthly payment at retirement. ...
[P]articipation would be the default option. There is now a considerable body of research showing that workers will contribute to their retirement if they're automatically enrolled, but won't contribute otherwise. ...
[A] publicly run plan would have far lower costs than many privately run alternatives. The administrative fees for a plan in a large state such as California would almost certainly be under 0.5% of the annual holdings. By contrast, private plans can easily charge 1.5% or more. ...
Dec 22, 2015
Dec 21, 2015
Dec 20, 2015
Dec 19, 2015
Dec 18, 2015
Social Security Seeking Information On Moving Its Data Operations To The Cloud
Huge sums of money were spent in recent years building two computer centers for the Social Security Administration, a National Computer Center in the Baltimore area and a backup computing center near me in North Carolina. It now looks like this money was wasted. The agency just issued a request for information on moving its data operations to the cloud. At the rate things are going, the National Computer Center may never even be used. Great planning.
Dec 17, 2015
Does It Cost This Much To Renovate An Office Building?
Congress is about to appropriate $150 million to renovate Social Security's Altmeyer Building. The agency had not requested any money for this purpose. I had earlier asked how many square feet there are in the Altmeyer Building. A reader was kind enough to find the answer to my question -- 213,716 square feet. If you divide $250 million by 213,716 you find out that the appropriation would work out to be $701.87 per square foot.
Let's try to get some scale on this. Imagine if you bought an old 2,000 square foot home that needed renovations -- just renovations, not an addition. If you spent $701.87 per square foot doing renovations on that old home you'd end up spending $1.4 million. Does that sound plausible? Office renovations are, of course, different than home renovations but do you really think that renovating Altmeyer will cost $150 million? Even if it does cost $150 million, does Congress have to appropriate all the money now? Such a big project is going to take more than a year. I'd guess that the agency doesn't even have a comprehensive plan to renovate the building. Could construction even begin during the current fiscal year? Wouldn't it be better to appropriate some money to come up with a plan and then appropriate money for construction once you have a better idea what it will cost? Aren't you inviting waste by appropriating a ton of money when you don't know exactly what the agency is going to do with the money? That $150 million would really help the agency deal with its backlogs.
Let Me Put This In Terms People Can Understand
The whole appropriations process is confusing. You may wonder whether it matters. Let me put it in terms that people can understand. Social Security's plan to start working down its hearing backlog by hiring more ALJs probably went up in smoke. There's no money to increase the number of ALJs without cutting something else. The agency's plan to reduce the hearing backlog with senior attorney and re-recon decisions probably went up in smoke also. They needed to hire more people and use more overtime for this. The money's not there. Improving service at the field offices in any significant way? No money for that. Improving computer systems? No money for that.
By contrast, the National Institutes of Health got a near 7% increase in its budget. I'm sure that's money well spent but the money would have been well spent at Social Security also.
Starting At Page 999
There is an appropriations agreement in Congress. It appears that it is likely to pass. Below are quotes from the parts of the 2,009 page Consolidiated Appropriations Act of 2016 that concern the Social Security Administration. If you want to study the bill yourself, the Social Security parts start on page 999.
- For necessary expenses ... not more than $10,598,945,000 [$10.6 billion] may be expended
- [N]ot less than $2,300,000 shall be for the Social Security Advisory Board
- $116,000,000 may be used for the costs associated with conducting continuing disability reviews under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act and conducting redeterminations of eligibility under title XVI of the Social Security Act.
- $150,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for necessary expenses for the renovation and modernization of the Arthur J. Altmeyer Building
- In addition, for the costs associated with continuing disability reviews under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act and for the cost associated with conducting redeterminations of eligibility under title XVI of the Social Security Act, $1,426,000,000 [$1.4 billion] may be expended ... Provided, That, of such amount, $273,000,000 is provided to meet the terms of section 251(b)(2)(B)(ii)(III) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and $1,153,000,000 is additional new budget authority specified for purposes of section 251(b)(2)(B) of such Act.
- For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978, $29,787,000, together with not to exceed $75,713,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund. In addition, an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total provided in this appropriation may be transferred from the ‘‘Limitation on Administrative Expenses’’, Social Security Administration, to be merged with this account, to be available for the time and purposes for which this account is available
If I'm understanding this correctly (and the numbers are reported in a confusing fashion), the total amount for Social Security is $10.6 billion plus $116 million for continuing disability reviews (CDRs) and SSI income and resources redeterminations plus $1.4 billion also for CDRs and SSI redeterminations plus $30 million for the Office of Inspector General for a total of $12.1 billion. I'm not considering the $150 million for the Altmeyer Building renovations since that may not even be expended in this fiscal year). By way of contract the total appropriation for Fiscal Year 2015 (which ended on September 30, 2015) was $12 billion. If I'm understanding correctly, Social Security is being treated quite badly by the appropriations bill. There's almost no increase in the appropriation. $150 million was drained off for office building renovations even though the agency wasn't seeking the renovations.
By the way, does anyone know how many square feet there are in the Altmeyer building. $150 million is a lot of money for building renovations.
By the way, does anyone know how many square feet there are in the Altmeyer building. $150 million is a lot of money for building renovations.
Dec 16, 2015
$150 Million In Budget For Altmeyer Building Renovations
From the Baltimore Sun:
The $1.1 trillion spending bill unveiled by congressional leaders early Wednesday morning includes ... $150 million for renovations at the Social Security Administration's headquarters at Woodlawn. ...
The Social Security Administration would receive $150 million for renovations to its 1950's-era Altmeyer Building in Baltimore County. The 10-story building requires "major upgrades" to address health and safety concerns, according to [Senator Barbara] Mikulski's office. The renovation would also allow an additional 350 staff to work from the building. ...I've never been in the Altmeyer Building. It may be in urgent need of renovations. I do know that $150 million for building renovations is probably $150 million less for agency operations. That means fewer new employees, less overtime and less money spent on upgraded software. I know that politicians love to spend money on construction projects. The jobs gained, while temporary, are highly visible and concentrated in one location instead of spread out over the country. Money spent on operations isn't glamorous but it's often more important. I hope this $150 million is well spent.
Dec 15, 2015
Merry Christmas From A Social Security Field Office
Here's an message to me from a legal assistant at my firm: "TC [Telephone Call] _____ DO [District Office]. She said they have 60 days to get the clt in pay after it gets to their office and it has not hit the 60 day mark yet. So they have not began to process SSI." The legal assistant had called about a client whose Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claim had been approved on November 5. Generally, these benefits are paid within a month after a favorable decision. They certainly should be.
I'm not blaming the field office too much. We've seen other signs that field offices are now having more trouble than usual keeping up. My guess is that things are worse now due of a lack of overtime because the agency is operating on a continuing funding resolution rather than a real appropriation.
No one in Social Security management or in Congress should think that the service that the agency is giving the public is excellent, good or even fair. Everyone who works at a field office or who deals with the agency on a regular basis knows the service is poor. This isn't because employees are lazy or uncaring. It's because there aren't enough employees and because they're forced to use cumbersome, inefficient systems.
No one in Social Security management or in Congress should think that the service that the agency is giving the public is excellent, good or even fair. Everyone who works at a field office or who deals with the agency on a regular basis knows the service is poor. This isn't because employees are lazy or uncaring. It's because there aren't enough employees and because they're forced to use cumbersome, inefficient systems.
Dec 14, 2015
More Social Security Benefits To Be Subjected To Income Tax
From a study by Social Security's Office of Retirement and Disability Policy:
Since 1984, Social Security beneficiaries with total income exceeding certain thresholds have been required to pay federal income tax on some of their benefit income. Because those income thresholds have remained unchanged while wages have increased, the proportion of beneficiaries who must pay income tax on their benefits has risen over time. A Social Security Administration microsimulation model projects that an annual average of about 56 percent of beneficiary families will owe federal income tax on part of their benefit income from 2015 through 2050. The median percentage of benefit income owed as income tax by beneficiary families will rise from 1 percent to 5 percent over that period. If Congress does not adjust income tax brackets upward to approximate the historical ratio of taxes to national income, the proportion of benefit income owed as income tax will exceed these projections.
Dec 13, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)