It's So Easy To Get The Overpayment Waived, Why Bother Declaring It

From the Des Moines Register:

Steve Caseley couldn't believe what showed up in the mail last week. Was it some kind of joke?

No, the letter to Lisa Moser arrived on official Social Security Administration stationery. Moser - who has Down syndrome and lives with Caseley and his wife, who is Moser's sister, in West Des Moines - owed the government $4,425.40.

"Due to incorrect computation for the period of November 1987 through June 2010," the letter said, Moser received $183,227.55 in disability insurance benefits when she should have received $178,802.15. ...

Privacy laws prohibit Social Security officials from discussing specific situations, but communications director John Garlinger did speak in general terms.

Could the source of the problem be the wages Moser earned from Panera and Wendy's? It's possible.

"Part of the definition of disabled means you can't work," Garlinger said. "If we say someone has been overpaid because they were earning too much money, they need to gather up their income tax records and bring them in. We'll go through that. It's not impossible we missed something. It's not impossible, for whatever reason, not all the income was reported."

That link in the article --it goes to a PDF of the overpayment notice, with the Social Security number plainly visible. Real smart, Des Moines Register.

Refugees To Lose Benefits

From the New York Times:

The Social Security Administration is about to terminate cash assistance for thousands of indigent refugees who are severely disabled or over the age of 64.

“You will lose your Supplemental Security Income on Oct. 1,” the agency says in letters being mailed to more than 3,800 refugees.

All fled persecution or torture. Many are too old or infirm to work and are not yet eligible to become United States citizens.

Federal law sets a seven-year limit on payments to refugees. ...

The extra eligibility period is now ending, and Congress has not taken action to extend it.

New Hearing Office In Wisconsin

A new hearing office is to open in Madison, WI with six Administrative Law Judges (ALJS). The newspaper article about this seems confused. It suggests that there will be two hearing offices in Madison.

Social Security Disability Awards

From the Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2009
Social Security disability awards, 1980–2009

I Thought This Might Be Coming

From a press release:

Today, Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) introduced H.R. 5987, The Seniors Protection Act of 2010. The bill would assist 57 million American seniors, retired and disabled veterans, and disabled individuals with a one-time $250 payment that they deserve in the event that no inflation adjustment is announced this Fall.

“Seniors did not cause the near meltdown of the economy that occurred in the last days of the prior Administration, yet too many are still feeling the brunt of its fallout,” said Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND). “Today we help seniors across the country who face the likely possibility that on October 15th Social Security will announce for the first time ever—as a result of a long-standing statutory formula—that there will not be a cost-of-living-adjustment in Social Security benefits in back-to-back years.”...

Chairman Pomeroy pledged: “This bill is responsible to seniors and to taxpayers. The authors are committed to fiscal responsibility and will ensure that the Seniors Protection Act of 2010 shall not cause an increase in the federal deficit. When the bill comes to the House floor it will include the necessary offsets to comply with the PAYGO law.”

Medicare's 45th Anniversary

Today is Medicare's 45th anniversary. When Medicare first started, the Social Security Administration was in charge of the program. The picture is of Social Security Commissioner Robert Ball holding a press conference to announce Social Security's plans for implementing Medicare.

Coalition Forms To Protect Social Security

There was a press conference yesterday to announce the formation of Strengthen Social Security, a coalition of 60 groups united around the following principles:

1. Social Security did not cause the federal deficit; its benefits should not be cut to reduce the deficit.
2. Social Security should not be privatized in whole or in part.
3. Social Security should not be means-tested.
4. Congress should act in the coming few years to close Social Security’s funding gap by requiring those who are most able to afford it to pay somewhat more.
5. Social Security’s retirement age, already scheduled to increase from 65 to 67, should not be raised further.
6. Social Security’s benefits should not be reduced, including by changes to the COLA or the benefit formula.
7. Social Security’s benefits should be increased for those who are most disadvantaged.

Good News, Bad News

According to a Gallup survey, there is good news and bad news when it comes to public attitudes about Social Security. First the bad news: "Seventy-seven percent of Americans say they believe the retirement, disability and survivors' benefits program 'is in a state of crisis' or 'has major problems.'" I think the public has been unduly alarmed. Things are not that bad, not even close. Now the good news:

Of six possible ways of addressing Social Security's long-term funding challenges, most Americans favor two, both of which would affect only wealthy Americans.

Sixty-seven percent think "higher-income workers" should pay Social Security taxes on all their wages, with 60 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents and 79 percent of Democrats agreeing with the idea, the poll found.

Sixty-three percent want to limit benefits for wealthy retirees, with 55 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats agreeing.

A minority favor increasing taxes, reducing most people's benefits or increasing the age at which most people are eligible to receive full retirement benefits.

So, would someone explain to me why it is that most commentators seem to think it is inevitable that Social Security benefits are going to be cut in some way such as by increasing full retirement age.