Answer To Quiz

Question: Mrs. D's husband died in 1999. The two had been married for 27 years. He was fully insured at the time he died. On September 6, 2011 Mrs. D files a claim for widow's benefits on the basis of age rather than disability. She is 62 at the time. She had stopped work on December 31, 2009. When does Mrs. D's entitlement to widow's benefits on account of age begin?

Possible Answers:

• January 2010
• September 2010
• March 2011
• October 2011

Correct answer: March 2011.

     Some of you have raised the question of whether Mrs. D should elect a later month of entitlement. That is a reasonable question. Mrs. D's widow's benefits are subject to an actuarial reduction. The earlier she goes on benefits, the less she gets a month. It may be wiser for Mrs. D to elect to start benefits now rather than retroactively. She will get no back benefits but she will get more per month for every month into the future. This option should be discussed with Mrs. D -- one of the many things that can't be done online. I should have phrased the question to read "What is the earliest possible month of entitlement?" But honestly, if you knew enough to quibble with the question, you knew what I was getting at!

Update: I knew this was going to happen eventually. You're right. I got it wrong. The month of entitlement would be September 2011. I was confused since it is done differently with aged widows than disabled widows. I thought I remembered an aged widow client of mine getting back benefits but I must be misremembering.

Making It Tougher For Those With Down Syndrome To Qualify For Disability Benefits

     Today's Federal Register has a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) that would change Social Security's listings for congenital disorders. The main change is to make it far more difficult for some individuals with Down syndrome to qualify for Social Security disability benefits. The change would affect those with mosaic Down syndrome, which is the less common variety.
     This is a microcosm of what has been happening with the Listings for about 15 years or so, seemingly small changes always designed to make it more difficult to qualify for benefits. The world does not notice because each change seems small and technical. Who is familiar with the differences between mosaic and non-mosaic Down Syndrome?
     Where does the impetus for this come from? Is it Social Security's medical staff? Is it Social Security's upper management? Is it the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)? My bet is on OMB but I just do not know.
     Does it not seem a bit surprising that they are trying to make it more difficult for people with Down Syndrome to be found disabled?

More Than 300 Remote Service Sites Closed

From the Daily Chronicle of DeKalb, Illinois:

Federal budget cuts have led to the discontinuation of Social Security services at the DeKalb Senior Services Center, ending a 32-year program that helped up to 200 people per month.

The DeKalb location is just one of more than 300 remote service sites throughout the country that have ended services because of a $1 billion cut to the Social Security Administration this year. Services had been declining in DeKalb as weekly visits turned biweekly a few years ago and finally became monthly visits in the spring.

Quiz

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

Does This Make Sense To You?

     Is there some tension, or perhaps self-contradiction, in this section of Social Security's manual?

Section 207 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C 407) states: “The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the monies paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.”...

Any arrangement in which the claimant shares control of the funds from his or her benefit with a person or entity that has an interest in charging or collecting money from the claimant is an assignment-like situation that violates SSA’s policy.  ...

Some representatives are authorized by third parties to ensure that debts beneficiaries owe to the third parties are repaid immediately after the beneficiary starts to receive benefits. There is no assignment-like situation if:

• The representative has no financial interest in the beneficiary’s direct deposit account (i.e.., he is not named on the account and/or has no authority to direct the money in the account); and
• The representative is not charging the beneficiary a fee; and
• The beneficiary pre-authorizes (according to his financial institution’s policy) a withdrawal of funds from his account to repay a debt to a third party; but
• The representative did not obtain the pre-authorization from the beneficiary through deceit, coercion, or intimidation; and
• The representative gets confirmation from the beneficiary (oral or written) of the pre-authorization to withdraw the money from the account after the funds are deposited into the beneficiary’s account and before a transfer of funds is made to pay the third party debt. This confirmation is necessary because a beneficiary may have signed the pre-authorization before learning whether he will receive benefits and the amount of past-due benefits he will receive (i.e., authorizing the representative to take benefit funds before the beneficiary has had any chance to exercise control over the funds). The beneficiary also may have signed the pre-authorization without specifying the amount of money that the representative will withdraw from the account. This circumstance is different than other pre-authorizations (e.g., mortgage payments, loan repayments, investments, nursing home fees, etc.) because, in most cases involving pre-authorizations, the beneficiary has an ongoing relationship with the organization that is making pre-authorized withdrawals, the beneficiary knows the amount of money they are pre-authorizing, and those pre-authorizations occur continuously after the beneficiary is receiving regular benefits.

     Right. Assignments are forbidden unless there is an ongoing relationship with the entity to which you are making the assignment and the assignments continue after you start receiving benefits.
     In my opinion, this is indefensible. This was a Bush era policy that should have never happened and which should be undone as soon as possible. If Long Term Disability insurers want this section of the statute amended, they need to lobby Congress.

You Can't Cut Social Security Without Hurting Current Recipients

From a press release issued by Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee:

Any cuts to Social Security imposed by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction would be borne almost entirely by current Social Security beneficiaries and those who are very near retirement, a new analysis by Social Security Chief Actuary Stephen C. Goss makes clear. Three-quarters of all Social Security payments between 2012 and 2021 – the 10-year period in which the Select Committee is required to generate deficit reduction – will go to current recipients, while an additional 21 percent will go to Americans who are very close to retirement-age and will start receiving benefits between 2012 and 2019, according to the Actuary’s analysis.

The analysis highlights that there is virtually no way for the panel to use Social Security cuts to meet its target without harming current beneficiaries. Current retirees have struggled in recent years because there was no cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 2010 or 2011. The Social Security Administration yesterday announced a 3.6 percent COLA for 2012.

Some Management Bonus Information

     The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the union that represents most Social Security employees has issued its October 2011 newsletter. AFGE routinely makes Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to find out about bonuses going to high level Social Security employees. This issue of their newsletter includes the following results of AFGE's most recent FOIA requests (and read to the end for some information on who did not get a bonus).

Atlanta Region:
Paul Barnes, Regional Commissioner 
Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Award 03/29/09 $23,000
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $19,750

Mary Ann Sloan, Regional Chief Counsel 
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $19,000

Quittie C. Wilson, Assistant Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $7,600
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $8,000

Boston Region:
Manual Vaz, Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $19,750

Susan Harding, Deputy Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $15,000
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $15,000

Chicago Region:
James F. Martin, Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $13,500
Commissioner’s Leadership* 09/16/10 $00.00*
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $17,500

Kim L. Bright, Regional Chief Counsel 
Individual Performance Award 06/21/09 $800
ECS Award 08/16/09 $400
Individual Performance Award 07/04/10 $731
Individual Performance Award 08/29/10 $500

Danny L. Byrns, TSC Manager 
Individual Performance Award 07/05/09 $1,400
ECS Award 08/30/09 $700
Individual Performance Award 06/06/10 $1,500
Individual Cash Award 08/29/10 $500

Donna L. Calvert, Regional Chief Counsel 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $10,000
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $10,000

Mary D. Mahler, Assistant Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $8,200
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $8,500

Marcia R. Mosley, Deputy Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $10,000
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $10,000

Dallas Region:
Martha Lambie, Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $8,500
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $10,000

Ramona Schuenemeyer, Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $19,750

Tina M. Waddell, Regional Chief Counsel 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $20,000
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $10,000

Denver Region:
Nancy A. Berryhill, Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $22,500
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $19,750
SES Rank Award 09/30/10 $34,995

Yvette Keesee, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel
Quality Service Award 05/12/09 $00.00*
Individual Performance Award 08/16/09 $3,500
Individual Performance Award 03/28/10 $1,200
Individual Cash Award 08/29/10 $500

Katherine E. Kintz, Deputy Asst. Regional Cmsnr.
Individual Performance Award 06/30/09 $1,800
Individual Performance Award 03/09/10 $1,100

Sean P. Brune, Deputy Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $10,000

Kansas City Region:
Michael Grochowski, Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $16,000
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $17,500

William K. Powell, Asst/Deputy Regional Cmsnr. 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $11,000
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $12,500

New York:
Beatrice Disman, Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $26,500
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $19,750

Paul M. Doersam, Deputy Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $18,500

Anne Jacobosky, Assistant Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $8,400
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $9,000

Teresa C. Rojas, Acting Deputy Regional Cmsnr. 
ECS Award 08/02/09 $1,000

Philadelphia Region:
Laurie Watkins, Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $21,500
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $18,000

Lewis H. Kaiser, Deputy Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $9,000

Paula M. Newcomer, Deputy Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $8,000
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $8,300

San Francisco Region:
Peter D. Spencer, Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $26,500

Stephen J. Breen, Assistant Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 03/29/09 $9,000
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $9,000

Patricia A. Robidart, Deputy Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $8,550

Seattle Region:
Stanley Friendship, Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $10,000

Alan W. Heim, Assistant Regional Commissioner 
SES Performance Award 01/03/10 $8,500

James P. Burkert, Deputy Asst. Regional Cmsnr. 
Individual Performance Award 07/05/09 $1,700
ECS Award 07/06/09 $500
Individual Performance Award 05/09/10 $1,750

Robert Pagan, Acting Deputy Regional Cmsnr. 
QSI (Quality Step Increase) 07/05/09 $0.00*
Individual Performance Award 06/06/10 $1,600

* Honor Award

     And from the Newsletter:

It’s also worth noting that San Francisco Regional Commissioner Pete Spencer apparently did not receive any award money in Fiscal Year 2010. Spencer sponsored “Management Tango” in 2009, an event that cost more than $675,000 and generated a great deal of bad publicity for Social Security. ... Spencer recently announced his retirement from the agency.

Susan Daniels

Susan Daniels, who served as Social Security's Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs in the Clinton Administration, died earlier this week. She had helped with the Obama transition team for Social Security.