Dead Man Walking

I hate to post another story about a man mistakenly labeled as dead by the Social Security Administration, but wow! From the Times-Tribune of Pennsylvania:

The 64-year-old Green Ridge resident said a Social Security Administration worker admitted the agency mixed up a digit in his Social Security number and confused him with a dead man somewhere in California.

“I just want this resolved,” Mr. Bethel said from his Olyphant Avenue home. “I’m not speaking from the grave. At least, I don’t think I am.”

Mr. Bethel said his ordeal began in September 2005, when he received a letter from the Social Security Administration’s Scranton office notifying him he would soon begin receiving monthly payments on or about the 21st of each month.

The letter, which was followed by a timely benefits payment, was the beginning of “the end” for Mr. Bethel and his wife, Alma.

The following month, when his benefits check failed to appear in his checking account, Mr. Bethel questioned a teller who suggested he call Social Security.

“When I got home, I called them, and they asked me my name, birth date and mother’s maiden name, and I said I simply wanted to know what happened to my money,” he said.

The answer was downright chilling.

“Our records show that you’re dead,” Mr. Bethel said he was told. ...

“I was told to bring proof to the Social Security Administration, which is located at the Oppenheim building downtown. It was a weird thing, because all of their files were being moved and the office was being relocated to another floor. I was sitting at this table, and a worker comes back and tells me again that I’m dead.”

After the worker shared laughs with colleagues, joking that Mr. Bethel was a “dead man walking,” he was escorted to his bank, where things appeared to have been cleared up.

Mr. Bethel’s resurrection turned out to be short-lived.

Later, he was told to go to the Social Security Administration’s Wilkes-Barre office so he could resume receiving his benefits payments, which had ceased because of his “death.”

“The workers then informed the bank to disregard any notice of my being dead,” he said. However, after the bank received a subsequent deposit to Mr. Bethel’s account, the notice to disregard was, well, disregarded. Social Security Administration officials declined comment.

Mrs. Bethel received a letter from PennStar Bank expressing condolences over her husband’s “death” and informing her she was required to reimburse $841 in Social Security payments. ...

Mr. Bethel received a letter from the Internal Revenue Service dated April 27, 2007.

“According to the information provided to the IRS by the Social Security Administration, the primary Social Security number entered on your tax return is that of a deceased individual,” the letter stated. ...

Mr. Bethel followed that letter with one of his own, again including proof he is alive. On May 29, 2007, in an attempt to ensure the matter would be resolved, Mrs. Bethel called the IRS and was told by an agent to wait for a written response that would be mailed soon.

No response from the IRS ever came. Three weeks ago, however, the Bethels received a letter from the Social Security Administration’s Wilkes-Barre office.

“We are writing to you about earnings reported in your name ... because we’re not sure whether the earnings belong to you or someone else,” the letter read. ...

The Bethels recently filled out what they called a “mountain” of paperwork to refinance their home only to be told by the bank that Mr. Bethel is deceased and that it is the bank’s policy not to lend money to a dead person.

“I gave up on the refinancing,” he said. “I wasn’t going through that again.”

Last week, the Bethels spoke with Social Security officials and are optimistic they are finally close to resolving what has been a three-year mission to prove he’s alive.

Social Security Audits A Claimant

From the St. Charles, MO Journal:

Between Thanksgiving and Christmas my wife and I received a letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA). It was not a "happy holidays" wish.

The first paragraph of the letter stated, "Each month, the Social Security Administration asks a few people who file an application for Social Security benefits to help us make sure that we handled their claims properly. Your claim was chosen this month for one of these reviews. It was chosen entirely by chance, NOT because we have any special question about you or your benefits." ...

The social insurance specialist who sent the letter - I'll call her Alice, since she survives within a governmental wonderland - directed us to review all enclosed information and mail her the originals of our birth certificates and marriage license. ...

Alice suggested we call a toll-free number she provided if we had any question. Disbelief and concern for legality spurred me to call. I connected with the Social Security Administration, Office of Quality Assurance and Performance Assessment in Kansas City. Alice worked there. The letter was legit.

I said to my wife, "It's fact! We're being audited by Social Security. Can you believe this?"

She replied, "No! It's bizarre." ...

On the appointed date and at the exact time, Alice called. She was acutely courteous. She explained that both our claims were being reviewed under what's called a stewardship review within the Retirement, Survivor, Disability Insurance Quality Review program. ...

When Alice finished her questioning, I boldly asked, "How many Social Security recipients receive these audits each year?"

She answered, "In fiscal year 2006, 1,440 cases were selected nationally."

Fear Mongering

From the Californian.com (emphasis added):

The Social Security office in Salinas has made a move to improve service to the community, even as potential candidates for the presidency debate the existence of the system.

While the financial fate of the Social Security Administration hangs in the balance, the Salinas office was transplanted from its former location on Alvin Drive to 928 E. Blanco Road, in part to be able to treat customers with more dignity, Social Security officials said.

I do not know this reporter's motivations, but this looks like a ridiculous effort to turn a simple story into a propaganda piece.

Poll -- Education

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

Head Of GAO Resigning

David Walker, the Comptroller General who is head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), is resigning effective March 12 to run a foundation "which is to focus on such national sustainability issues as entitlement program and health care costs, trade and budget deficits, energy consumption and the education system" according to Fox News.

Walker, a Republican, was appointed to his 15 year term by President Clinton, but spoke out to support "reform" of Social Security during President Bush's effort to privatize Social Security. Walker's new job suggests that he will continue to promote similar goals after leaving the government.

Under Walker's leadership GAO was a cheerleader for former Commissioner Barnhart's hapless Disability Service Improvement (DSI) plan that was ended by the current Commissioner. Indeed, even after DSI had failed miserably, GAO was wondering why it had to be canceled without giving it more of a chance.

GAO in recent years has constantly harped upon the theme of management weakness at Social Security and has consistently downplayed budget as a factor in Social Security's backlog situation.

In leaving, Walker said "As Comptroller General of the United States and head of the GAO, there are real limitations on what I can do and say in connection with key public policy issues, especially issues that directly relate to GAO's client -- the Congress," suggesting that he was leaving because he is unhappy at dealing with a Congress controlled by Democrats.

It seems unlikely that the Senate will confirm anyone nominated by President Bush to replace Walker.

I Don't Think Many People Will Take This Advice!

From the Boston Globe (emphasis added):

If you're retired and are interested in having a higher income for as long as you live, you have two main options.

You can buy a life annuity. This will provide you with an income, with or without inflation adjustments, for as long as you live. ...

Fortunately, there is a simple alternative. It will work nicely for retirees in their late 60s or early 70s who opted, years ago, to take Social Security benefits at a relatively young age. That's millions of people.

If you did this, you know your benefits were reduced because taking benefits early meant Social Security would have to pay benefits for more years.

But you easily can reapply from scratch. Visit the local Social Security office. Make use of a little-known and seldom-exercised provision - request a "Withdrawal of Application." By filing an SSA Form 521, Social Security will treat you as if you had never applied for benefits. It will let you immediately reapply for benefits - at your current age.

Yes, there is a catch. And it's a big one. You must repay every dime you've received in past benefits.

Results Of Last Week's Unscientific Poll

When were you born?

1929 or earlier (1)	1%
1930-1939 (3)	2%
1940-1949 (35)	26%
1950-1959 (47)	35%
1960-1969 (20)	15%
1970-1979 (22)	17%
1980-1989 (5)	4%
1990 or later (0)	0%

Total Votes: 133

CCD Lays Out Its Agenda

Groups are already laying out their agendas for what they expect to be a Democratic party ascendancy to come next year. The Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is the major umbrella group representing just about all groups of any consequence who advocate on behalf of the disabled. The CCD has issued a Statement of Principles on work incentives and other issues affecting Social Security's disability programs. I am sure that the CCD would be happy to get any of this enacted this year -- and it is possible that a little could be enacted this year -- but mostly this is the CCD agenda for the next Congress and the next President. This deserves close attention. In my opinion, much of this is likely to become law if Democrats capture the White House as well as larger majorities in both Houses of Congress, something which looks likely at the moment.

Here are what I think of as the major points from CCD's statement of principles:

1. No change in Social Security's definition of disability, nor anything designed to force disabled people back to work, such as time limited benefits;
2. An increase in the earnings limits for Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
3. Changing work incentives in Title II of the Social Security Act so that the disabled lose one dollar for each two dollars they earn;
4. An indefinite presumptive disability status for those whose disability benefits end due to return to work;
5. Allowing health insurance expenses to count as Impairment Related Work Expenses;
6. Improving the ability of child SSI recipients to make the transition to work;
7. Eliminating the five month waiting period for Disability Insurance Benefits;
8. Improving Ticket to Work;
9. Improving tracking of earnings for disabled people who return to work to help avoid large overpayments;
10. Eliminating the 24 month waiting period for Medicare;
11. Allow premium fee access to Medicare for beneficiaries who return to work;
12. Allow individuals to get on Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits despite some work activity after becoming 22 years of age;
13. Exempt DAC recipients from the family maximum if they live outside the family home;
14. Eliminate the DAC marriage penalty;
15. Improve the minimum benefit;
16. Repeal the seven year prescribed period for disabled widows and widowers; and
    
17. Increase disabled widows benefits

I cannot understand why the CCD does not want to pull the plug on Ticket to Work. It is nothing but a bottomless money pit. Merely sounding like it would be a good idea does not make it a good idea.

I cannot understand why CCD would talk about improving disabled widows and widowers benefits, but not mention ending the actuarial reduction in disabled widows and widowers benefits. Is it possible that CCD does not understand the actuarial reduction? I know that the phrase "actuarial reduction" sounds like it must be something impossibly complicated. Let me make it simple. The younger the disabled widow or widower is when he or she goes on benefits, the less he or she receives in disabled widow or widower benefits. Does it make sense to penalize people for becoming disabled at an earlier age?