Bush Retains Belief In Social Security Reform

It sounds as if the President is interested in a deal that would go something like this. Democrats would get to raise the FICA tax and cut Social Security benefits (and we all know they are eager to raise taxes and cut benefits) and the President would get some sort of private accounts as an add-on to Social Security. Basically, the President wants to reluctantly agree to let the Democrats do the unpopular stuff, while he takes credit for anything that might be popular. From the Washington Post:

Bush's new flexibility on Social Security is part of a larger White House plan to renew the effort to tame the rising costs of government entitlement programs as the nation's population ages. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who enjoys strong credibility among Democrats and Republicans, has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill to talk about restructuring Social Security, emphasizing that there are no preconceptions.

Administration officials have said the White House is willing to listen to other ideas, including personal savings accounts that do not involve diverting Social Security payroll taxes, as well as higher payroll taxes to help cover the expected growth in the program's costs. Still, Bush emphasized that young workers should be allowed to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into private retirement accounts, a proposal that went nowhere in Congress last year.

"I will tell you this: In an issue like this, unless the president tries, nothing is going to happen," Bush said. "Without presidential involvement, nothing will happen. So we have a chance, and I'm going to work it."

CCD Annual Meeting

The Coalition for Citizens with Disability (CCD) is an umbrella organization with a membership composed of many non-profits involved in helping "citizens with disabilities" as their name says. The CCD is a major player in Social Security disability matters, especially when Democrats control Congress. The CCD held its annual meeting on December 19. The CCD received a report from its Social Security Task Force and gave its annual Chairperson's Award to Jo Anne Barnhart, the outgoing Commissioner of Social Security.

Settlement On Food Stamps Loss In Welfare To SSI Transition

After "welfare as we know it", which was actually Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), was dramatically altered during the Clinton administration to something now known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), it became clear that many who had been receiving AFDC were really disabled. They had gone on AFDC because dealing with the welfare bureaucracy was less difficult than dealing with the Social Security bureaucracy to get SSI, which says something about the Social Security bureaucracy. After the switch from AFDC to TANF made staying indefinitely on "welfare as we know it" impossible, most of these folks ended up getting on Supplemental Security Income (SSI). In the process, many ended up losing Food Stamps because of bureaucratic mistakes, at least in New York state. There has been litigation over this. The New York Times reports that the case has now been settled and 100,000 New York residents will be getting a total of $4.3 million to make up for the errors. Whether this problem extended to other states is a good question.

Good News On 1695s

Beginning January 1, 2007 attorneys and others entitled to withholding of fees for representing Social Security claimants must file a new form 1695, which provides Social Security with the attorney's or representative's Social Security Number. This will allow Social Security eventually to prepare 1099s giving the attorney or representative and the IRS information about fees received. The 1695 form appears to require the attorney or representative to list the name and Social Security Number of each of a claimant's dependents who may receive benefits on the account. Providing the dependents' names and Social Security Numbers may sound like a minor matter, but it would be a major burden on attorneys and representatives and, for that matter, the data entry would be a major burden on Social Security itself.

I have received word today from the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) that Social Security has decided that providing the dependent names and Social Security Numbers is optional. There will be no punishment for failing to provide the information.

Social Security Nominations And Appointments

The Social Security Administration has a useful web page showing the current status of Social Security nominations and appointments. It shows that there are plenty of possible confirmation battles ahead if the President continues to nominate people who will vigorously advocate Social Security privatization.

FOIA Suit For Employer Data

From the Judicial Watch website:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Social Security Administration (Judicial Watch v. Social Security Administration, Case No. 1:06CV02034). Judicial Watch is seeking documents identifying the top 100 corporations in the United States receiving the highest number of "no match" letters from the Social Security Administration.

The problem of getting information from Social Security under the Freedom of Information Act goes well beyond this case. As a general matter, Social Security tries hard to avoid giving information out of its databases, even when the information is a compilation that does not identify any individual.

Staff Instructions On Attorney Registration

Social Security has issued staff instructions in its Program Operations Manual Series (POMS) on the new system by which attorneys and others representing claimants must register with Social Security and must submit a new form 1695 for each claimant they represent. This is being done so that Social Security can start providing 1099 forms to the attorneys and other representatives.

The crucial question of whether the attorney or other representative must include the name and Social Security number of all of their clients' dependents who may obtain benefits on the account of their clients, as suggested by the form itself, is not answered in the instructions. Trying to obtain this information would be a big burden for attorneys representing Social Security claimants. Doing the data entry for all these names and Social Security numbers would be a big administrative burden for Social Security. There seems to be no crying need for obtaining and entering this information and a huge potential for error, yet Social Security has been unable so far to say that they really need the data or why they need it.

Rescission Of Acquiescence Ruling

From today's Federal Register:

On June 23, 1988 we issued SSR 88–10(c) to reflect the Supreme Court’s decision in Galbreath v. Bowen, 485 U.S. 74 (1988), in which the Court held that the relevant statutes did not permit withholding past-due Supplemental Security Income benefits for attorney’s fees in title XVI cases. As the Court noted at the end of its decision, the earlier Congressional decision not to extend attorney fee withholding to title XVI would stand ‘‘[u]ntil Congress [saw] fit to override its original decision, by amending Title XVI in a way that manifests an intent to allow withholding.’’

In the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA), Public Law 108–203, Congress enacted such legislation. Section 302 of the SSPA amended section 1631(d)(2) of the Social Security Act to extend the attorney fee withholding and direct payment procedures to claims under title XVI. We began paying fees directly to attorneys in title XVI cases effectuated on or after February 28, 2005, the date the amendments made by section 302 took effect. While this provision will only be effective for 5 years, we believe that SSR 88–10(c) should be rescinded for this period and we will later determine if there is a need to reinstate it.