Retired Social Security Administrative Law Judge Leonard Yoswein of New York City died on February 25, 2011.
Mar 3, 2011
Union Organized Protests On Budget
The labor union that represents most Social Security employees has arranged demonstrations in 100 places around the country to protest the draconian cuts in Social Security's operating budget proposed by Republicans, cuts that would lead to massive furloughs for Social Security employees. I am not going to try to track down all the news articles generated by these protests. Here are a few:
Threat Of Government Shutdown Has Not Passed
I have been writing a good deal about the threat of a government shutdown. The President has signed a bill that extends the Continuing Resolution (CR) that is currently funding the Social Security Administration and other government agencies. This is good news. Without it, there would be a government shutdown beginning at 12:01 Saturday morning.
The problem is that this CR only lasts for two weeks. We now start the countdown to a new deadline of midnight on March 18. If there is no agreement by then, there will be a government shutdown.
This CR was passed because Republicans and Democrats found some budget cuts that were low hanging fruit, items they could quickly agree upon. There may be no more low hanging fruit. We are still on a collision course that may result in a government shutdown in the near future.
The problem is that this CR only lasts for two weeks. We now start the countdown to a new deadline of midnight on March 18. If there is no agreement by then, there will be a government shutdown.
This CR was passed because Republicans and Democrats found some budget cuts that were low hanging fruit, items they could quickly agree upon. There may be no more low hanging fruit. We are still on a collision course that may result in a government shutdown in the near future.
Mar 2, 2011
Commissioner's Broadcast E-Mail
A Message To All SSA And DDS Employees
So good news, at least for now.
The House and Senate have passed legislation providing for a two-week extension of the continuing resolution that includes four billion dollars of cuts, none of which reduces our budget any further.
I want to thank all of you for staying focused on your work during this difficult period. We recently had a successful launch of some important new systems improvements, average processing time for hearings dropped to exactly one year (a reduction of about six months over the past three years), the staff and contractors have started development work on the common IT system for the DDS’s and we are wrapping up the Special Disability Workload effort after a decade of fine work. Most measures of quality and responsiveness are at recent or all-time highs.
I will be testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee next week about our budget, and we will be sure to update you about that hearing and other developments in the coming weeks.
Thanks again for all you do.
Michael J. Astrue
Commissioner
Proposed Regs On Collecting Debts
From today's Federal Register:
We propose to amend our Tax Refund Offset (TRO) and Administrative Offset regulations. We are conforming our regulations to those of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) for the following reasons: (1) Treasury removed the 10-year limitation to collect delinquent debts owed the United States by reducing eligible Federal payments, and (2) more States are participating in reciprocal agreements with Treasury to offset State payments, including tax refunds to reduce or extinguish a federally owed debt.
Mar 1, 2011
Workers Compensation Offset Study
Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has done a study to determine the agency's accuracy rate in making the offset computations required when a recipient of disability insurance benefits from Social Security is also receiving workers compensation. This was a followup to a 2006 study. The earlier study showed a 17% error rate. This new study shows a 12% error rate which is a significant improvement but still far too high.
The report does not make clear who determined whether there was an error. I strongly doubt that OIG has anyone with the training and experience needed to spot all possible errors, especially errors when there is a lump sum settlement of a workers compensation case, a not uncommon situation. Without knowing more about how this study was done, I cannot say how meaningful it is.
In fairness to Social Security and OIG, workers compensation offset computations are complicated. There are reasons for the high error rate and reasons why OIG would have difficulty doing an audit.
The report does not make clear who determined whether there was an error. I strongly doubt that OIG has anyone with the training and experience needed to spot all possible errors, especially errors when there is a lump sum settlement of a workers compensation case, a not uncommon situation. Without knowing more about how this study was done, I cannot say how meaningful it is.
In fairness to Social Security and OIG, workers compensation offset computations are complicated. There are reasons for the high error rate and reasons why OIG would have difficulty doing an audit.
Feb 28, 2011
What Do You Think?
Fact Situation: Ms. Claimant has a Social Security disability claim pending in one state. She hires Attorney A to represent her. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Claimant moves to another state. She contacts Attorney A to tell him. He tells her that he knows Attorney B who practices in the state she is moving to. Attorney A tells Ms. Claimant to contact Attorney B once she gets to the state she is moving to. Attorney A tells Ms. Claimant that he will waive his fee so she will not have any problem hiring Attorney B. She contacts Attorney B once she gets to her new state. Attorney A withdraws and waives his fee. Attorney B files the appropriate paperwork to represent Ms. Claimant. Some months later after a hearing, Ms. Claimant's case is approved. She is paid. Attorney B receives her fee but is shocked to discover that it is half of what she expected. The reason is that Social Security has decided that since Attorney A waived his fee that it will release half of the fee to Ms. Claimant.
The above fact situation is in accordance with Social Security policy, although it is a policy that is haphazardly implemented.
Queries: Does this policy make sense? Is the rare implementation of this policy an indication that it does not make sense? Does this policy unduly restrict a claimant's ability to obtain a new attorney if he or she moves or otherwise needs or wishes to change attorneys? Why does Social Security have such difficulty in developing policies concerning attorney fees? Why are there almost no regulations concerning attorney fees?
Update: Many of the comments say there is something wrong with the fact pattern given. The assumption is that this cannot possibly be correct. Social Security's manual states that:
The above fact situation is in accordance with Social Security policy, although it is a policy that is haphazardly implemented.
Queries: Does this policy make sense? Is the rare implementation of this policy an indication that it does not make sense? Does this policy unduly restrict a claimant's ability to obtain a new attorney if he or she moves or otherwise needs or wishes to change attorneys? Why does Social Security have such difficulty in developing policies concerning attorney fees? Why are there almost no regulations concerning attorney fees?
Update: Many of the comments say there is something wrong with the fact pattern given. The assumption is that this cannot possibly be correct. Social Security's manual states that:
SSA will not authorize to any co-representative the share of a co-representative who waived a fee. When SSA has withheld title II and/or title XVI past-due benefits for payment of a representative's fee, SSA releases the waived share to the claimant(s).This policy is being applied, haphazardly, to the fact situation given. Yes, the manual instructions can be read differently, but what is happening on the ground is chaotic and attorneys have no recourse. It is a mess.
Feb 27, 2011
And On The Seventh Day He Rested
Ted Nugent writing in the Washington Times:
President Franklin D. Roosevelt created Social Security 75 years ago. As with many other Fedzilla programs, Americans got suckered into believing Social Security was a healthy, wealthy and wise program.
Social Security is bloated, broke and busted. FDR’s New Deal turned out to be the Rip-off Deal. ...
The only way to truly reform Social Security is to sink it. ...
Eliminating Social Security isn’t our Sputnik moment. It’s our sink-the-Bismarck moment. ...
First, we need to pass whatever law is needed to keep the Jesse James-like hands of Congress off the dollars collected from Social Security. No more stealing.
Second, we need to take the cap off of the Social Security tax. Currently, only the first $107,000 earned is taxed. We need to take the lid off and tax all income. We need the money. Yes, that will be a tax increase for some Americans. This is pain and real sacrifice.
Third, there must be means-testing. If a retired person or couple has more than a certain amount in assets, they will not receive Social Security or will receive limited benefits. This will be a huge sacrifice, but tough times require tough people who are willing to sacrifice for the future good of the nation.
Fourth, we need to raise the retirement age now. It is a fact that people are living longer. Retirees today will collect more from Social Security than what they paid in, while the pool of workers paying into Social Security is shrinking . That is an upside-down, unsustainable model. Shovel on more personal pain and sacrifice.
Fifth, people in the work force will be required to continue to pay into Social Security in order to pay for the masses of baby boomers retiring, but the people younger than 45 will not receive Social Security. We will have sunk the Bismarck by the time they would have reached the age to receive Social Security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)