| January 2010 Reporting | Total | % of Total |
| male name | 947 | 71% |
| female name | 312 | 23% |
| initials only used | 39 | 3% |
| unisex (shortened or epicene) name | 38 | 3% |
| total alj unique names | 1,336 | 100% |
Angelina Maria Colabella doesn’t have to pay.Earlier this month, Colabella, who receives Social Security disability benefits, received a letter from Social Security. It said through the years, the agency had overpaid Colabella nearly $59,000 and she had 30 days to pay it back.
Colabella had her meeting with the agency and it reviewed her case.
"Social Security reversed its decision in my favor," Colabella said. "I’m just thrilled. I don’t have to worry anymore." ...
"There was a string of times she went over one month or more, but by averaging the year she was under," said Bill Hayden, an attorney with the Community Health Law Project, who represented Colabella at the SSA meeting. "It never should have gotten that far." ...
Hayden said mistakes like this are not uncommon in his experience. He said there is a delay before Social Security receives a beneficiary’s earnings records, but usually only a year or two.
‘‘For this, someone went back 10 years to retroactively do it," he said.
President Obama and the leadership in Congress have delegated enormous, unaccountable authority to 18 unrepresentative, inordinately wealthy individuals. The 18 individuals are meeting regularly, in secret, behind closed doors, until safely beyond this year’s mid-term election. If they reach agreement, their proposal will be voted on in December by a lame duck Congress, without the benefit of open hearings and deliberations in the pertinent committees and without the opportunity for open debate and amendment on the floors of the House and Senate. ...
They are the members of President Obama’s newly-formed National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. ...
“Everything is on the table,” they say, but the members appointed by the minority leaders in the House and Senate have made clear that they do not believe that the problems in this country stem from under-taxing, rather from overspending. ...
The co-chairs, in particular, seem to have a clear agenda. Even before the commission held its first meeting, Erskine Bowles went on record before the North Carolina Bankers' Association saying that if the Commission doesn't "mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security ... America is going to be a second-rate power" in his lifetime. (And he is already 64!) Alan Simpson, known for giving ugly voice to harsh, ageist stereotypes, described the future of the fiscal commission: "It'll be a bloodbath. Let me tell you, everything that Bush and Clinton or Obama have suggested with regard to Social Security doesn't affect anyone over 60, and who are the people howling and bitching the most? The people over 60. This makes no sense. You've got to scrub out [of] the equation the AARP, the Committee for the Preservation of Social Security and Medicare, the Gray Panthers, the Pink Panther, the whatever. Those people are lying... [They] don't care a whit about their grandchildren...not a whit." ...
We write to raise questions and encourage press inquiry now, before the commission reports, at which point its recommendations could be on track and moving fast. Here are a few angles to explore: ...Q. Why is the Commission apparently working so closely with billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who served in the Nixon administration and who has a clear ideological agenda?
Q. Mr. Peterson has been on a decades-long crusade against Social Security. The day after the first meeting of the commission, which focused heavily on the need to cut Social Security, the co-chairs and two other members of the commission participated in a Peterson event that reinforced the same message. A Peterson-funded foundation is supplying commission staff. ...
Q. Why the urgent focus on Social Security? In the past, Social Security has always been considered under the normal legislative process, with the opportunity for full amendments. According to the program’s actuaries, it is able to pay all benefits in full and on time for over a quarter of a century. Even its most diehard critics, who try mightily to convince the rest of us that the program is in crisis, can’t mount an argument that there is a problem for another five years or so. So what is the rush? What is the need for such an unaccountable, fast-tracked process when one has never been needed before? Why, in spite of the evidence that Social Security is working as intended and that there is growing need for the kind of broad and reliable protection provided under the program, is it being singled out by Bowles and Simpson and seemingly by the White House for a major trimming?
