We've Already Cut Benefits

From a press release:

Changes enacted by Congress in the 1980s to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security will cut retirement benefits by 19 percent for workers born in 1960 and later, and more cuts could undermine the basic economic security of future retirees, a new report said today.

The report, released by the National Academy of Social Insurance, said modest benefit improvements and revenue increases are affordable, have broad public support and can close Social Security's long-term financing shortfall without more benefit cuts.

"Social Security benefits are already being cut more than many people realize," said Virginia Reno, NASI's vice president for income security and a co-author of the report. "Cutting benefits further is not necessary to preserve Social Security for future generations. Other alternatives merit consideration by policymakers."

NASI is a nonpartisan organization made up of the nation's leading experts on social insurance. 

As policymakers consider calls for further retirement benefit cuts, the NASI report said it is important to remember that the Social Security amendments passed by Congress in 1983 relied far more on benefit cuts than new revenue to balance the system's long-term finances. Those amendments changed Social Security by:

• Gradually raising the full-benefit retirement age from 65 to 67, a change that results in a 13.3 percent reduction in benefits.
• Taxing part of benefit income, which results in a 5.1 percent benefit cut.
• Delaying the cost-of-living adjustment by six months, resulting in a permanent 1.4 percent cut.

Social Security Laborforce Declines Rapidly

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted  updated figures for the number of employees at Social Security. Here they are with earlier numbers for comparison purposes.

•  March 2011 68,700
• December 2010 70,270
• June 2010 69,600
• March 2010 66,863
• December 2009 67,486
• September 2009 67,632
• June 2009 66,614
• March 2009 63,229
• December 2008 63,733
• September 2008 63,990
• September 2007 62,407
• September 2006 63,647
• September 2005 66,147
• September 2004 65,258
• September 2003 64,903
• September 2002 64,648
• September 2001 65,377
• September 2000 64,521
• September 1999 63,957
• September 1998 65,629

Notice the rapid decline since the beginning of the fiscal year. Republican foot-dragging in the last Congress and the election results have more than a little to do with this.

Where Are You?

Google Analytics gives me all sorts of interesting statistics on this website. Here is a list of the top states (and D.C.) from which people visited this blog in the last month and the number of visits:

1. Maryland 9,113
2. Illinois 7,613
3. California 1,979
4. Pennsylvania 1,749
5. Ohio 1,381
6. New York 1,255
7. District of Columbia 1,174
8. Texas 962
9. North Carolina 751
10. Florida 729

The one that surprises me is Illinois. I looked back and a year earlier Illinois was in 7th place with only 781 visits. I will take a guess that the change has to do with the routing of some visits from the Social Security domain, as does the number of visits from Maryland.

You Don't Need A Lawyer To Appeal

From the Asbury Park Press:

Q: I was turned down for disability. Do I need a lawyer to appeal?A: You are fully entitled to hire an attorney if you wish to, but it is not necessary. In fact, you can file a Social Security appeal online without a lawyer. Our online appeal process is convenient and secure. Just go to www.socialsecurity.gov/disability/appeal. If you prefer, call us at 1-800-772-1213 (TTY 1-800-325-0778) to schedule an appointment to visit your local Social Security office to appeal. ...

“Social Security” appears Sundays. Joanne Crane is district manager of the Social Security office at 3310 Route 66, Neptune, NJ 07753. Call 800-772-1213 for information.

This was almost certainly prepared not by Ms. Crane but by a public relations employee at Social Security.

Astrue's Opponents On Children's Benefits Are "Old-Line Left Wingers" With "60s Mentality"

I missed this earlier. From the Boston Globe:

The era that launched a generation determined to change the world is now being blamed for resisting change — especially the kind that saves taxpayer money.

That’s the lens through which Michael J. Astrue, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration, views some critics. During a recent visit to The Globe to discuss flaws with the $10 billion children’s disability program, he addressed advocates who oppose what he considers necessary changes to an admirable, but flawed, program.

He described them, generally, as people “older’’ than he and went on to label such reform-resisters as “old-line left-wingers’’ with “a ’60s mentality.’’ Their opposition to change, he said, is “ideological and philosophical:’’ They believe in shifting economic and income distribution, he explained. As a result, some of those he sees as aging flower children look at people who might be abusing the system, and conclude, “These people are poor … it doesn’t really matter how they get the money,’’ he said.

I don't think you have to be an "old-line left-winger" (not that that's a bad thing) to think that the criticism of the SSI child's disability program is greatly overblown. Determining disability in anyone is inherently difficult and especially so in children. It's easy to take shots at the SSI children's program. It's vastly more difficult to propose improvements. I doubt that Astrue comprehends just how long and how  hard the folks he blithely characterizes as having a "60s mentality" worked to get us to the SSI children's system we have. The system we have now isn't perfect but it's a lot better than what preceded it. People such as Richard Weishaupt don't deserve to be dismissed like this any more than Michael Astrue deserves to be dismissed as a right-wing nutjob.

Are You Kidding Me?

Data Center Knowledge asks whether Social Security new data center will be strong enough to withstand a tornado. The answer is clearly NO but the scarier thing is that it may not be strong enough to stand up to even a minimal hurricane either. It's only designed for 90 mile per hour winds!  I don't think you are allowed to construct even an ordinary home that close to the coast in North Carolina, where I live, without building it to stand up to much more than 90 mile per hour winds.

Think that hurricanes don't hit as far North as Maryland? Tell that to the hundreds of people killed by the hurricane that hit New England in 1938 with winds of 160 miles per hour. Since 1980 Maryland has been hit by 55 cyclonic storms, including hurricanes! Hurricane Hazel, which is still vividly remembered in many places, including Toronto, Canada, pummeled Maryland with hurricane force winds in 1954.

Japan has just demonstrated the chaos that can happen when you don't plan for uncommon events hitting major infrastructure locations. What is Social Security thinking?

Testimony At Today's Congressional Hearing

Written testimony from today's hearing before the House Social Security Subcommittee on the recent report of the Social Security Trustees:

Charles P. Blahous, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution and Public Trustee for Social Security

The financial challenges facing Social Security should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected have adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also afford elected officials with a greater opportunity to minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and those who are already substantially dependent on program benefits.

Robert D. Reisehauer, President, Urban Institute and Public Trustee for Social Security

The fact that Social Security's financial viability is significantly affected by the strength of the overall economy in no way diminishes the undeniable fact that changes will have to made in currently scheduled benefits and payroll taxes if the program is to provide our children and grandchildren an adequate level of retirement security. The sooner we address this challenge, the less disruptive the changes will be. Those most adversely affected can be given the time they need to prepare, the burden can be more equitably shared across the generations, and the political animosity and public anxiety associated with the unavoidable changes can be moderated.

 The Republican does not make any recommendation on what to do while the Democrat says that the "undeniable fact" is that benefits will have to be cut as well as taxes raised, a statement which is undeniably false. The problem could easily be solved simply by lifting the cap on income covered by the FICA tax.

Can Social Security Improve Its Regulations?

From a notice posted by Social Security in the Federal Register:

On January 18, 2011, the President issued E.O. 13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' which requires Federal agencies to develop a preliminary plan to

``periodically review its existing significant regulations" ...

We have posted the preliminary plan on our Open Government Web site, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/open/regsreview, and are now requesting public comments on the plan.

Social Security's "plan" is, essentially, to do nothing they were not already planning to do since they believe that their "regulations do not generally address economic competitiveness or job creation." In general, I agree with that but the Social Security Administration does regulate a billion dollar industry and I happen to be part of it -- representing Social Security claimants. Social Security's regulation of this group is pathetically haphazard and unpredictable. Take a look at Social Security's regulations on attorney fees. They are virtually non-existent. Social Security's operating manual on attorney fees contains absurdities. Those who represent Social Security claimants have a hard time figuring out what Social Security's policies are on fees for representing Social Security claimants. The agency seems incapable on comprehending that most attorneys are employed by entities called law firms and tries to pretend that they do not exist. Social Security's refusal to deal with these issues is causing me and others like me unnecessary headaches and money. This unnecessary burden could be lifted with intelligently crafted regulations.

You can comment on Social Security's "plan" by e-mailing: RegsReview@ssa.gov.