Click twice on each image to see it full size. The Congressional reaction to Goss' letter helped to put the Commissioner in full retreat. He had to withdraw the proposed regulation.
Jul 11, 2010
Astrue vs. Goss Smackdown!
Robert Pear reports in the New York Times on a "rift" that has developed between Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue and Social Security's Chief Actuary, Stephen Goss, pictured above, who has worked at Social Security for 37 years. The article gives this explanation for the dispute:
People close to Goss and Astrue said the disagreements involved personal chemistry, Social Security policy and the technical quality of Goss' work on disability programs — not political ideology.
Relations have been strained since late 2008, when the two men clashed over the scope of the actuary's independence. Basically, aides said, the commissioner views Goss as a conscientious employee and agrees he is free to use data as he sees fit.
But, they said, in an effort to keep the agency out of politics, Astrue has sometimes tried to limit what Goss can say publicly about Social Security, and Goss has sometimes bridled at the restraints. ...
Astrue has expressed reservations about Goss' performance in annual evaluations that could be used to justify action against him, lawmakers said.
The commissioner has complained, on occasion, of insubordinate conduct by Goss, who insists he is simply trying to preserve the independence and integrity of the office.
Like partners in a bad marriage, Goss and Astrue may be stuck with each other for a while.
Congress seems very interested in this dispute. The article indicates that there have been letters from Congressional leaders to the Obama Administration stating that Goss should not be reassigned or demoted. The hearings scheduled for this week before the Senate Finance Committee and the House Social Security Subcommittee will apparently deal, at least in part, with the Astrue-Goss dispute.
One unimportant question: Is Stephen Goss related to Porter Goss, the Florida Republican who was at one time the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and who later had a major flameout as CIA director?
Fee Payment Stats
Social Security has posted these updated numbers on payments of fees to attorneys and certain others for representation of Social Security claimants:
Fee Payments | ||
|---|---|---|
| Month/Year | Volume | Amount |
Jan-10 | 32,227 | $111,440,046.23 |
Feb-10 | 29,914 | $105,708,101.59 |
Mar-10 | 34,983 | $122,874,426.87 |
Apr-10 | 44,740 | $153,478,589.32 |
May-10 | 34,686 | $119,527,194.40 |
June-10 | 32,432 | $111,887,579.72 |
July-10 | ||
Jul 10, 2010
Surprise -- Policymakers Who Work In Air-Conditioned Offices Don't Care About Blue Collar Workers
From the McCLatchy chain of newspapers:
Young Americans might not get full Social Security retirement benefits until they reach age 70 if some trial balloons that prominent lawmakers of both parties are floating become law.
No one who's slated to receive benefits in the next decade or two is likely to be affected, but there's a gentle, growing and unusually bipartisan push to raise the retirement age for full Social Security benefits for people born in the 1960s and after. ...
Raising the age eventually to 70 could prove to be politically acceptable because it wouldn't have an immediate social impact, but it would demonstrate that politicians are resolute enough to mend one of the government's most popular social programs and to tackle the national debt. ...
"For awhile, there's been a consensus among economists that raising the retirement age makes a lot of sense," said Richard Johnson , a senior fellow and the director of the Retirement Policy Program at the Urban Institute , a Washington research group. ...
"There are some incredible ramifications to raising the age," said Barbara Kennelly , the president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare . "Not everyone can work until they're 70."
NADE Newsletter
The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), an organization of the personnel who make initial and reconsideration determinations on disability claims for Social Security, has issued its Summer 2010 newsletter. A brief excerpt from one article:
NADE continues to advocate for a significant reduction in the 15 year vocationally relevant period and we were greeted with wide enthusiasm for this proposal by advocacy groups and Congress. With SSA finally voicing limited support, NADE is hopeful positive action may occur on this issue.One odd note to the newsletter is a photo of NADE members participating in a "mud volleyball tournament." That's something you don't see everyday!
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)