People Are Noticing

Now it is Forbes asking why the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees has not been issued yet this year. It was supposed to be out on April 1. Forbes puts its own spin on this -- that the delay is an effort to hide Social Security's terrible finances from the public. I doubt that is the reason but I do not know what is.

Current Picture Of A Building Where A New Hearing Office Is Supposed To Open In Early 2011

This is in Fayetteville, NC. It was not long ago that we were being told that a hearing office would open in Fayetteville in August, 2010. We are now being told that a temporary hearing office will open somewhere in Fayetteville -- no one seems to know where -- in September, 2010 but that a full hearing office will open in the building pictured below in early 2011.

Here is an article from the local newspaper. The owner is hoping to open the building by next summer. Below is another current photo of the building.

The Problem Solver Gets It Done

From the Chicago Tribune:

Fran Lubelchek and the Social Security Administration have a long and twisted history.

When the 70-year-old retired schoolteacher began receiving benefits five years ago, the government miscalculated her monthly payment. By the time it realized the error years later, Social Security had overpaid the Northbrook resident by roughly $14,000.

To pay the money back, Lubelchek and Social Security worked out a deal. Because she received a teacher's pension, her correct monthly Social Security payment was small, about $100. To repay the $14,000, Lubelchek agreed to receive no monthly benefit until she was almost 85.

She thought she had everything squared away, but her relationship with Social Security took another odd turn after her husband, Harvey, died in February.

In March, April and May, Social Security continued to deposit her late husband's $1,576 monthly benefit check into the couple's joint account. Then in May, the agency removed the three payments, all $4,728, from Lubelchek's bank account without saying a word. ...

After visiting her local Social Security office repeatedly and failing to get things straightened out, Lubelchek e-mailed What's Your Problem?

"I never realized that the SSA could withdraw significant money from a checking account without permission from the account holder," she said.

Lubelchek said that on her last visit to her Social Security office, she was told she was entitled to more than $1,000 a month in benefits based on her late husband's account, but it was unclear when those payments would begin.

"The woman said, 'I can't do anything here,'" but promised to make it a priority, Lubelchek said.

After that, she heard nothing.

"I want the correct benefits paid to me, and I think it is awful that it is taking this long," she said.

The Problem Solver called Social Security Administration spokeswoman Carmen Moreno, who had a team look into Lubelchek's case.

On Wednesday, Moreno called Lubelchek with some surprising news.

After researching Lubelchek's file, Social Security determined that she was, in fact, overpaid based on the amount she received from her teacher's pension, and that she still owed the government $12,591.70.

But Social Security employees also discovered that many years ago, wages Lubelchek had not earned were attributed to her account. Based on those erroneous wages, Lubelchek had more money deducted from her paychecks than should have been.

The extra deductions meant Lubelchek had paid an extra $37,218.70 into the system.

To make things right, the government took the $12,591.70 Lubelchek owed Social Security from the $37,218.70 it owed her.

The end result: Social Security deposited $24,627 into her checking account Wednesday morning.

Could This Letter Be The Genesis Of the Astrue-Goss Conflict?

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.

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.

It is taking a lot of effort for me to avoid speculating on what issues there might be between Astrue and Goss concerning policy and actuarial projections for Social Security's disability programs. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who knows more about this. Note that you can send anonymous e-mail to me using the Feedback button to the right.

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

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!