Amazing Naivete

From Fred Barnes, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

One [Social Security] reform that could win bipartisan support would, over time, raise the Social Security retirement age to 70. An extension of retirement age to 67 from 65 was pushed in 1983 by the Greenspan Commission, along with a boost in the income base for payroll taxes. President Reagan backed the changes and Congress enacted them.

A second reform, bolder and more controversial, would means-test Social Security, gradually slowing the growth of benefits for the more affluent but sparing those with lower incomes. The model for this is the Pozen plan, the brainchild of Robert Pozen, a former vice chairman of Fidelity Investments and influential Social Security reformer.

I am sure that I have my illusions about Republicans but nothing tops Republican naivete about Democrats. People who should know better are misled by the fact that President Obama appointed Erskine Bowles, nominally a Democrat, to the deficit reduction commission. Bowles is not representative of Democrats in his home state of North Carolina (which is one of the reasons he could not get elected to public office in North Carolina), much less Democrats nationally. Means testing of Social Security has zero chance of adoption and raising the retirement age to 70 has very, very little chance of adoption. I do not think you could get even a majority of Congressional Republicans to vote, publicly, for either one. If you can imagine Barack Obama campaigning for either one, you just might be a Republican.

Plans For Social Security 75th Anniversary?

I know there will be some major event to mark Social Security's 75th anniversary, coming up on August 14, 2010. The Social Security Administration has not announced anything yet. The National Park Service, which runs the Franklin Roosevelt house in Hyde Park, NY, has not announced anything yet. Hyde Park has been the site for similar events in the past. I would bet that the White House is arranging this. I wonder if they delay announcing these things for security reasons. Does anyone know what is in the works?

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare isn't waiting. They have an extensive commemoration planned.

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