Jul 9, 2010

Social Security Subcommittee Hearing Scheduled

From a press release issued by the House Social Security Subcommittee:

Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee on Social Security, announced today that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the continued importance of Social Security for seniors, survivors, and persons with disabilities and their families as the program approaches its 75th anniversary.

The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 15, 2010 in room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 9:30 a.m. ...

Subcommittee Chairman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) stated "In addition to commemorating the 75th anniversary of Social Security, this hearing will provide an opportunity to learn how vital this program continues to be for the well-being of all Americans and why we should consider very carefully any changes being proposed for how they will affect the lives of current and future generations of beneficiaries.

Social Security Report Delayed -- Why?

The Angry Bear blog reports that there has been a significant delay in issuing the annual report of the Social Security trustees. Normally, the report is issued on March 31 of each year but this year's issue is still hanging fire. There was a rumor that the report would be issued in April and then a later rumor that it would be coming out in June but still no report and no word on when it is coming.

So, what's going on?

A Possibility Not Mentioned

Andrew Biggs, former Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, has written a piece for the American Enterprise Institute blog on lifting the cap on earnings covered by the Social Security F.I.C.A. tax. He's against it. His argument is that:
The real question is whether to impose higher taxes on high earners in order to pay higher benefits to high earners. I say no. They care a lot more about their taxes than their benefits and they’re fully capable of saving on their own. I’d be more than happy to have a Social Security program that was more redistributive—and more generous to low earners—than today’s system if we could also make it smaller and more affordable. Given the other bills coming due, that makes more sense to me.
It is arguable whether high wage earners care more about taxes than benefits. In any case, there is another possibility: Raise the F.I.C.A. cap but cap Social Security benefits. That makes Social Security more redistributive. It also eliminates foreseeable Social Security funding problems. It does not make Social Security smaller but that is Andrew Biggs' goal. I see no evidence that the public shares this goal. Raising taxes on the wealthy to solve Social Security's long term funding problems is wildly popular. Take a look at the polls:

Senate Finance Committee Schedules Social Security Hearing

The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing on "Choosing to Work During Retirement and the Impact on Social Security" for July 15 at 10:00. The scheduled witnesses:
  • Stephen Goss, Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration, Washington, DC
  • Marc Freedman, CEO and Founder, Civic Ventures, San Francisco, CA
  • Marcia Brown, Chief Operating Officer, National Center for Appropriate Technology, Butte, MT
  • Nicole Maestas, Economist and Group Manager, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA
  • Bonnie Shelor, Senior Vice President for Human Resources, Bon Secours Richmond Health Systems, Richmond, VA

Court Finds DOMA Unconstitutional

A federal district court judge in Massachusetts has declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. DOMA prevents Social Security from considering state-sanctioned same sex marriages even though Social Security normally is bound by state law in determining family relationships. If this stands, and that is a big "if," there would be significant effects upon Social Security benefits for wives, husbands, widows and widowers.

Jul 8, 2010

Consensus Forming On Cutting Social Security?

Is there a Congressional consensus forming on cutting Social Security benefits? TPM fears there may be and that "it could happen swiftly, with very little notice."

More On New Regs On Scheduling ALJ Hearings

From today's Federal Register:
We are amending our rules to state that our agency is responsible for setting the time and place for a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). This change creates a 3-year pilot program that will allow us to test this new authority. ...

The ALJs [Administrative Law Judges] who conduct the [Social Security] hearings are dedicated, hard working professionals; they will play a central role in helping us reduce the backlog. However, some ALJs do not schedule or hold a minimally acceptable number of hearings, and our current rules are arguably unclear as to certain scheduling issues. ...

We anticipate using this pilot authority primarily in a very small number of situations where an ALJ is scheduling so few hearings that he or she is compromising our efforts to make timely and accurate decisions for people applying for benefits. One impetus for proposing these rules was a New England judge who scheduled no hearings for many years. Because we expect that virtually all ALJs will work with us to schedule hearings in a timely manner, administrative action under this regulation should be an exceptionally rare occurrence. ...

We will consult with the appropriate Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge (HOCALJ) and the ALJ before we exercise the pilot authority provided in these rules to determine if there are any reasons why we should not set the time and place of the ALJ's hearings, such as the ALJ being on leave for an extended period or insufficient staff support to prepare cases for hearings. If the HOCALJ does not state a reason that we believe justifies the limited number of hearings scheduled by an ALJ, we will then consult with the ALJ before deciding whether to exercise our authority to set the time and place for the ALJ's hearings.

Social Security Employment Down Slightly

Below are the March 2010 figures for the number of employees at Social Security recently released by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), along with earlier figures for comparison purposes.
  • March 2010 66,863
  • December 2009 67,486
  • September 2009 67,632
  • June 2009 66,614
  • March 2009 63,229
  • December 2008 63,733
  • September 2008 63,990
  • September 2007 62,407
  • September 2006 63,647
  • September 2005 66,147
  • September 2004 65,258
  • September 2003 64,903
  • September 2002 64,648
  • September 2001 65,377
  • September 2000 64,521
  • September 1999 63,957
  • September 1998 65,629