Deadline Day For OIDAP Comments

Today is the deadline for submitting comments on the proposal by Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP) for a new occupational information system. Comments may be submitted online or by fax to (410) 597-0825 or by mail to the Office of Program Development and Research, Occupational Information Development Project, Social Security Administration, 3-E-26 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401.

As tedious as this may seem, the OIDAP proposal is vitally important. This is the most important policy matter addressed by Social Security in more than 30 years.

The OIDAP proposal is drawing several lines of criticisms. Maybe the most important line of criticism concerns Social Security's strong desire to develop its very own occupational information system rather than working with the Department of Labor which has vastly more experience with this sort of thing than Social Security. Why is it so important to Social Security to do this on its own unless it does want to control the outcome of disability determinations? I cannot think of a reason. OIDAP has not given us no reason other than to suggest that the Department of Labor will not work with Social Security which is clearly false. Department of Labor seems mystified by Social Security's go it alone attitude.

I do not think that OIDAP staff or Social Security management gets it. We do not trust you. There is no reason why we should trust you. The way you are acting makes us very nervous.

Will Republicans Run On This Issue Or Run Away From It?

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Ensuring there’s enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country’s entitlement system, [House Minority Leader John] Boehner said. He said he’d favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them.

"We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we’re broke," Boehner said. "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you’re retired, why are we paying you at a time when we’re broke? We just need to be honest with people."

Social Security Disability Changes Coming In Britain

From Touch Stone, a blog written by members of the staff of Britain's Trades Union Congress:

One of the quietest announcements in the Budget Reports relates to Disability Living Allowance : “the government will introduce the use of objective medical assessments for all DLA claimants from 2013-14 to ensure payments are only made for as long as claimants need them.”

The Chancellor was rather more open in his speech, where he put this proposal in the context of concerns that “the costs have quadrupled in real terms to over £11 billion, making it one of the largest items of government spending.”The Chancellor made it clear that existing claimants will have to be re-tested to keep their benefit, and the context makes it plain that claimants can expect the new test to make sure that many of them will cease to qualify. In an attempt to justify this, Mr. Osborne spoke of the need to “continue to afford paying this important benefit to those with the greatest needs, while significantly improving incentives to work for others.” ...

The government has a short memory. In 1997, the new Labour government inherited a similar initiative, the Benefits Integrity Project, which aimed to re-assess thousands of disabled people’s benefit entitlement. As news spread that disabled people were being forced into abject poverty and some were considering suicide, the government discovered that cutting benefits can quickly become very unpopular. The Daily Mail and its Sunday sister were particularly critical, and disabled demonstrators chained their wheelchairs to the gates of Parliament.

Does any of this sound a bit familiar to Americans?

By the way, no one seems to know exactly what the British government is planning.

Is The Social Security Administration Unconstitutional?

Take a look at Tom Shoop's post on Fedblog concerning today's Supreme Court decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Shoop writes that the Court held:

... that the way the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was set up under the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act violates the Constitution. Members of the board get two layers of protection: They can only be removed by the Securities and Exchange Commission for cause, and the SEC's members can only be removed by the president for cause. The court's majority ruled that at least in the case of the board, that's one layer of protection too many.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer raises an interesting issue: What about the dozens of independent federal agencies who are headed by officials who have some degree of statutory protection from arbitrary removal? If they are, in turn, administered on a day-to-day basis by executives who also get protection from removal under civil service laws, doesn't that violate the two-layers principle?

Justice Breyer's dissent includes a list of 48 agencies that may be affected by the majority opinion in Free Enterprise Fund. Social Security is not on Justice Breyer's list but this appears to be an oversight since Social Security qualifies for the list under the criteria given by Justice Breyer based upon the facts that Social Security has independence in submitting budgetary requests to Congress and Social Security is designated as "indepedent" by statute. Following Justice Breyer's logic, the existence of Senior Executive Service and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) positions at Social Security makes the agency's setup unconstitutional. Indeed, the existence of any civil service position at Social Security could make the agency's setup unconstitutional.

Remember, this was a dissenting opinion. Justice Breyer was not explaining the majority opinion but giving reasons why he believes the majority opinion is unwise.

Update: Breyer does include Social Security in a list in one of the appendices to his dissent as a possibly affected agency. He specifically mentions Social Security as a possibly affected agency in the body of his dissent at pages 68 and 70 of the PDF.

Social Security would be, by far, the biggest agency possibly affected by this.

Note that there are plenty of people out there who want to litigate the constitutionality of Social Security even though precedent is solidly against them. This decision has nothing to do with the constitutionality of Social Security itself, just the way in which the Social Security Administration is set up to administer Social Security, but that will not stop the litigation. Standing may stop most of the litigation, however.

The majority opinion is a huge win for the "unitary executive" theory espoused by John Yoo and others. I thought that the excesses of the Bush Administration had seriously eroded whatever support there was for this theory but not in the eyes of five members of the Supreme Court.

Further update: I think the only reasonable reading of this opinion is that any statute that would prevent Commissioner Astrue from removing any ALJ or SES employee from his or her position is unconstitutional. This may apply to ANY Social Security employee. Commissioner Astrue may be constrained by union contracts but not by a statute. As the most important Republican holdover in a Democratic Administration and as someone who has publicly expressed frustration over his inability to discipline ALJs, Commissioner Astrue is in a delicate position. Aggressive action on his part could cause him to lose his job as his agency is absorbed back into the Department of Health and Human Services or becomes a cabinet level department.

Elena Kagan's nomination hearing and the gun decision today are getting most of the attention but the Free Enterprise decision may be today's most important judicial development.

Left Out Of Health Care Reform

From The Oregonian:

Sue Sherman of Southwest Portland lived a peaceful, healthy life until she was dealt an ugly card last year: a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. ...

She joined nearly 2 million disabled Americans -- at least 15,000 in Oregon -- who fall into a twilight with the first monthly Social Security disability payment, for they then must wait two years to become eligible for Medicare. ...

This year, nearly 8 million Americans are receiving Social Security disability income. About a quarter, 1.8 million, are in the 24-month waiting period. ...

[T]he Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the cost of legislation to the taxpayer, calculated that eliminating the wait would cost an average of $10 billion a year over 10 years. ...

A private 2003 study found that nearly 25 percent of the disabled in the waiting period go the two years without any insurance.

It Happens

From KARE-TV in Minneapolis:

For more than 2 decades, Alyssa Green of Minneapolis has lived her own, independent life. But when she applied for a student loan for college a few years ago, she learned a troubling fact. Another Alyssa Green, with the same birth date, had the exact same social security number. This Alyssa Green lives in Albany, New York....

"Unfortunately mistakes do happen but it is also the social security administration that can correct that for her," Elizabeth Wertime of the Social Security Administration told Albany reporter Beth Wurtmann.

Stats By State

Social Security has released a set of statistics about its programs broken down by state.

New Hearing Office In Florida

The Bradenton Herald reports that Social Security is opening a new hearing office today in St. Petersburg, FL. There is already a hearing office in Tampa.