Playing Rope-A-Dope?

From Josh Marshall at TPM:

It's astonishing to me that there's actually a growing number of Republicans pushing to make major cuts to Social Security as part of the bum's rush push for spending cuts this summer and fall. The idea has zero public support. And it doesn't make much sense from a policy standpoint since Social Security isn't what's driving the country's structural deficits. What's most surprising though is that many Democrats are along for the ride.

That's Rich

It was just last Friday that AARP let out that it might not be totally opposed to any cut in Social Security. You would think that Republicans might be feeling a little love for AARP right now. Not at the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. They are blasting AARP for what they say are fibs about the budget and entitlements. They are even criticizing the AARP for suggesting that the budget can be balanced simply by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. 

I don't think it's the AARP's fault that most people believe that the budget can be painlessly balanced by the elimination of "waste, fraud and abuse." Republicans have been making a living off the "waste, fraud and abuse" myth since Ronald Reagan was President. Look in the mirror, Republicans. You're the ones responsible for the public believing this myth, not AARP. And while you're at it, remember who is to blame for the myth that cutting taxes increases revenue.

E-Folder Access At Appeals Council

The National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) has sent out a notice to its members that Social Security has extended E-folder access to the Appeals Council. Attorneys who have E-folder access can now access their clients' files online when they are at the Appeals Council level.

I have not used this yet. I wonder if it will be possible to access the recordings of Administrative Law Judge hearings through the E-folder.

Thin Skin?

A press release from Social Security:

Statement of Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, on Flawed Syracuse University Report

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) “analysis” of our hearing backlog reduction efforts is sloppy and irresponsible. It focuses on the wrong measures, ignores the tremendous progress we have made in addressing the disability hearing backlog, and reaches the incorrect conclusion that we are “faltering.”

What matters most to someone waiting for a decision is how quickly we decide their case, not how many other people are waiting for a hearing. We have made significant progress in reducing that time. In August 2008, the average wait time for a decision peaked at 532 days. In May 2011, the average processing time for a hearing decision was less than a year at 354 days -- the lowest monthly figure since October 2003.

The agency’s published benchmark for processing hearing cases is 270 days, and we established it in consultation with Congress and the disability advocacy community. In 2008, nearly half of the people waiting for a decision waited more than 270 days. As of May 2011, only 29 percent of pending hearings were over 270 days. TRAC misrepresents the facts by failing to note this standard and the data that relate to it.

TRAC’s focus on the number of pending hearings is a flawed measurement of our improving service and bears little relevance to the public’s experience. Due to the economic downturn and the aging of the baby boomers, our workloads have been skyrocketing. We received 130,000 more hearing requests in 2010 than we received in 2008. Despite this increase, we have steadily improved service. We are deciding more cases, and deciding them accurately and quickly.

Our backlog reduction plan is working and has made a difference to the hundreds of thousands of people waiting on a hearing decision. Without it, the average processing time would be approaching 600 days, and we would be well on our way to 1 million people waiting on a decision. The TRAC report is clearly wrong in its conclusion that our backlog reduction efforts have been unsuccessful, and I call on Syracuse University to separate itself from this report and its authors.

Social Security Inspector General Asked To Investigate Outlier ALJs

A press release from the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee:

Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Members, led by Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) and Ranking Member Xavier Becerra (D-CA), sent a letter to Social Security Administration (SSA) Inspector General Patrick O’Carroll inquiring into recent press reports which have raised concerns about decisions made by a Social Security administrative law judge (ALJ).

In the letter the Members stated: “We are very concerned about the particulars of this story as well as any potentially similar occurrences that may be taking place elsewhere in the Nation. Over the years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has made great strides in tackling the hearings backlog, but it is essential that this progress adhere to the Agency’s policies and procedures while also demonstrating good stewardship of precious taxpayer dollars.”

The Members asked that SSA:

1. Revew ALJ workloads, adherence to Agency policies and procedures, and related monitoring.

2. Provide information on those ALJs who differ very significantly from their peers in their productivity or decisional outcomes.

3. Assess what factors may account for any variances in these rates, as well as how the ALJs obtained the cases they worked and whether they held hearings.

4. Describe and assess the use and effectiveness of management controls regarding ALJ adherence to SSA policies and procedures and any constraints, including statutory limitations, which make it difficult to ensure ALJs’ adherence to those policies and procedures.

5. Describe and assess the effectiveness of SSA’s quality review system for ALJ decisions, including reviews by the Appeals Council and the Office of Quality Performance.

The full letter can be read here.

Research Fraud?

From the Washington Post:

Four-and-a-half years ago, the Social Security Administration set out to reduce a growing backlog in appeals from sick and disabled Americans who could no longer work but were denied disability benefits.

A study due out Monday concludes that despite these efforts and assertions by top agency officials that things have improved, the backlog has only grown in the last year — and a spike in new applications is threatening to swamp the system.

The review by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), an independent research organization at Syracuse University, found that 735,660 appeals will be pending in the current fiscal year, up from 705,367 in fiscal 2010. Applicants waiting for their appeals to be heard will wait 369 days on average, a big improvement from the peak of 514 days in 2008 but still more than a year, the report found.  ...

Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue assailed the report as a “real disservice to disabled Americans” and Congress, whom he said will be misled by its conclusions. In the past two years, the agency has indeed struggled with a wave of new applications for disability benefits from about 200,000 people each year, he said. 

But that growth should not be considered part of a backlog in processing appeals, which have edged closer to Social Security’s goal of 270 days to resolve, Astrue said. 

“No matter what we do, we’re always going to have a certain number of cases in the queue,” he said. “We’ve made nothing but steady progress for four straight years.” He called the report “research fraud” for implying that new applicants become part of the backlog.  ... 

With budget cuts this year and more expected in the next fiscal year, Astrue said he does not expect to hire more administrative judges to handle appeals.

ODAR Average Processing Time Report

From the newsletter of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR)(click on each page to view full size and see below for a list indicating the recent trend line):

• January 25, 2007 -- 508 days
• February 29, 2008 -- 511 days
• March 8, 2009 -- 499 days
• July 5, 2010 -- 415 days
• February 1, 2011 -- 371 days
• April 29, 2011 -- 357 days

What Exactly Is The AARP? An Answer In Four Parts

I.

From the New York Times:

AARP, the powerful lobby for older Americans that has been seen as one of the leading opponents of Social Security benefit cuts, said on Friday that it was open to modest reductions in benefits for future recipients.... 

“Our goal is to limit any changes in benefits,” John Rother, AARP’s policy chief, said in a telephone interview, “but we also want to see the system made solvent.” 

Mr. Rother said the group’s stance on possible cuts, which was first reported in The Wall Street Journal in Friday’s editions, should be seen less as a major change in position than as a reflection of the political and financial realities facing the Social Security system and the country as a whole. 

“You have to look at all the tradeoffs,” Mr. Rother said, “and what we’re trying to do is engage the American public in that debate.”... 

But other advocacy groups that are pushing to preserve Social Security benefits accused AARP of effectively abandoning its core constituency.  ... 

As word of AARP’s position set off debate in Washington on Friday, the group’s chief executive, Barry Rand, issued a formal statement saying that the group’s position had not changed in any substantive way and refuting what he described as “misleading” media reports.

II.

From Politics Plus:

Many years ago, I joined AARP. Even though I had opted out of receiving special offers from their partners, a virtual rainforest flooded my mailbox, with offers for everything from Depends to senior vacation retreats. I am on the “do not call list”. Nevertheless I was harassed half to insanity with telephone solicitors that said they can call me, because they had a “business relationship” with me as “AARP partners”. I complained long and loud to AARP, but they were insensitive to my needs. It seemed apparent to me that AARP was far more interested in marketing to me than representing or informing me. AARP betrayed me by supporting the Bush Part D plan without demanding that US made drugs, imported from Canada, be allowed. I tore up my membership card and mailed them the pieces. Now they have betrayed senior citizens again.

III.

Two days ago -- two days ago! -- AARP put out a press release promising "a new television ad campaign to urge Congress not to make any deal to pay the nation's bills that would result in harmful cuts to critical Medicare and Social Security benefits..." (emphasis added). This is to be a national multi-million dollar ad buy. Notice that key word "harmful" in AARP's press release. This ad buy appears to be an effort to convince the world that the AARP isn't selling out its membership. The ads will, in effect, be an effort to sell Social Security cuts since AARP is telling the world that it would never accept anything harmful.

By the way, AARP is also planning nation-wide town hall meetings to convince its members to accept Social Security cuts -- as long as AARP declares those cuts not to be harmful. 

These AARP town-hall meetings could get interesting. I hope they get media coverage.

 

IV.

Does anyone like or respect or trust the AARP? Not that I know of. The right wing finds it just about as obnoxious as the left.