Don't Overreact; We're Already At The Peak Of Disability Claims

I will have more on this in coming days but this is an excerpt from the written testimony of Steve Goss, Social Security's Chief Actuary, before the House Social Security Subcommittee yesterday:

Sustainable solvency can be restored for the Disability Insurance program with a 16-percent reduction in benefits, a 20-percent increase in revenue, or some combination of these changes. Even in the absence of such change, a simple tax-rate reallocation between OASI [Old Age and Survivors Insurance] and DI [Disability Insurance], as was done in 1994, could equalize the financial prospects of the trust funds. We estimate that temporarily raising the Disability Insurance program’s share of the 12.4-percent OASDI payroll tax rate from 1.8 to 2.2 percent for 2012 through 2024 and to 2.0 percent for 2025 through 2029 would make scheduled benefits payable for both OASI and DI beneficiaries until 2036. ...

[T]he baby boomers already moved from young ages (25-44) in 1990, where few were disabled, to older ages (45-64) in 2010, where many more are disabled. Thus, the 20-year demographic shift in the age-distribution of the population has already occurred for DI. ...

As a result, the number of workers per DI beneficiary is expected to be relatively stable in the future. This means that restoring sustainable solvency for the DI program will not require continually greater benefit cuts or revenue increases. A one-time change to offset the drop in birth rate is all that is needed to sustain the DI program for the foreseeable future.

Remand Assignment Policy Documents

As I come across them, I have been trying to upload to Scribd documents concerning Social Security policy over the years. Below are some documents showing Social Security policy on which Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is assigned a case remanded by the Appeals Council or the federal courts. Should it be the same ALJ who heard the case the first time or a different one? This policy has changed over the years.

History of Remand Assignment Policy

Windfall Offsets Remain A Quagmire

From a recent audit report of Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

Our objective was to determine whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) had adequate controls to ensure Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) benefits that had been withheld pending a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) windfall offset determination were paid accurately and timely. ...

Based on our random sample, we estimate that:

• 35,398 beneficiaries had SSI windfall offset actions that were not processed. As a result, SSA withheld about $306 million in OASDI benefits, of which we estimate approximately $232 million is payable to these beneficiaries.

• 17,067 beneficiaries had SSI windfall offset actions that were incorrectly processed. As a result, SSA improperly withheld or overpaid about $51.5 million in OASDI benefits for these beneficiaries.

• 60,051 beneficiaries had SSI windfall offset actions that were correctly processed but not in a timely manner. As a result, these beneficiaries did not promptly receive about $725.9 million in OASDI benefits

Quiz Answer

Question: Mrs. R is a widow of a man who died currently but not fully insured. What sort of benefits does the currently insured status make possible at various points in her life her assuming she meets other requirements (a child under 16 in her care or being 60 or older, for instance)?

Possible Answers:

• Mothers benefits but not widows benefits
• Widows benefits but not mothers benefits
• Both mothers benefits and widows benefits
• Neither mothers nor widows benefits

Correct Answer: Mothers benefits but not widows benefits

Quiz

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

Will FICA Tax Cut Be Continued?

     The FICA tax that supports the Social Security trust funds has been reduced from 6.2% to 4.2% for the past year as a means of stimulating the economy. The difference has been made up by general revenues. President Obama has proposed that the reduction be continued for another year. The number two Republican in the Senate, Jon Kyl, has expressed opposition to the President's proposal saying that the tax cut did not stimulate the economy. His opposition apparently stems from another part of the President's proposal that would pay for the one year extension of the tax cut by increasing taxes on those with incomes over $1 million. Kyl believes that tax increase would undermine the economic recovery.

     I would prefer that the FICA tax revert to 6.2%. Delinking the trust funds from payroll taxes has to be bad for Social Security in the long run. However, if you were trying to caricature Republican positions you could not do better than what Senator Kyl is saying: A tax increase for ordinary Americans is of no consequence for the economy while a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans would be terrible for the economy.

An Astroturfer Comes To Social Security News?

     Below is a post made by Obshellums in response to a post I had made about Congressional Republicans who were expressing concern after the horrendous report of mentally disabled individuals being locked in a basement while their representative payees stole their Social Security disability checks:

SSA's hearing offices or at least mgmt at the one I worked at was annoyed if an employee pressed the issue that incorrect payee, recipient might be getting checks by virtue of an outdated or improper designation. I was accused of "denigrating" co-workers many times when I tried to bring old & wrong recipient and/or address info to managements' attention. Check on this a year from now & you'll see little to no improvement. SSA's ODAR is an elite and badly supervised part of SSA that cruises along ineffectively and expensively because there is no oversight that benefits taxpayers and claimants, just a subservient mind-set to pamper judges, overpaid do-little attorneys and too much middle management. Collect overpayments? Concern themselves with payee info? No, they pretend to "care about privacy of claimants--ask no questions about payees" but really that just makes their work easier. Once they decide to pay or not pay, their work is done. Looking at all that other recipient-relationship, etc., residence info might "hurt thier numbers" by slowing them down a little and hey, the money keeps pouring in to pay out so, why stress?

     Let's go through and outline what this person is saying:

• I used to work at a hearing office.
• Management at that hearing office was annoyed if an employee pressed the issue of an improper payee getting payment due to an outdated or improper designation.
• I was accused of "denigrating" co-workers many times when I tried to bring old & wrong recipient and/or address info to managements' attention.
• The conditions that I saw will not change because the hearing offices are an elite and badly supervised part of SSA that cruises along ineffectively and expensively because there is no oversight that benefits taxpayers and claimants, just a subservient mind-set to pamper judges, overpaid do-little attorneys and too much middle management.
• Hearing office management pretends to "care about privacy of claimants--ask no questions about payees" but really that just makes their work easier.
• Looking at all that other recipient-relationship, etc., residence info might "hurt their numbers" by slowing them down a little.
• The money keeps pouring in to pay out so, why stress? 

     This may sound like a plausible grassroots report of malfeasance if you don't work at Social Security or deal with it first hand. However, if you do, the post is nonsensical, almost gibberish. Social Security's hearing offices are not responsible for policing representative payees. They recommend that payees be appointed. On very rare occasions they adjudicate whether a payee is needed but, in general, they are just not involved, not because they are poorly managed but because others at Social Security, mostly those who work in field offices, have that responsibility.
     Other items in the post also ring a false note. Pretending to care about the privacy of claimants as a reason not to do something about representative payee problems? Social Security is obsessive about privacy for good reason. It is expected of them. However, it is hard to imagine privacy being given as a reason for failing to act on a representative payee problem. Dealing with "recipient-relationship" and "residence" issues would cause delay? What is the poster talking about? Why is the poster making comments about the hearing offices being "elite", "badly supervised", "ineffective" and "expensive." Why is the poster going out of his or her way to talk about "pampered" judges and "do-little attorneys" or to suggest that money is "pouring" in or out? I could go on but why bother. This sounds like something that Newt Gingrich would have written.
     This is not the first time I have seen this sort of post. There have been a number that rang a false note. This is just the most obvious example. Prior examples have put forth the notion that Social Security is badly overstaffed and ought to be given lower appropriations.
     I cannot imagine this post having been written by someone who used to work at Social Security. So, who did write it and why? There are "trolls" on the internet who like to write things that are wildly provocative in order to draw a response. Could this have been written by a "troll" who jut wants to annoy and provoke? Maybe, but I doubt it. Why be a troll when you don't understand enough to even troll effectively or to understand the outrage you provoke?
     Obviously, the poster has a political agenda. He or she is pretending to have been a Social Security employee. He or she has little actual knowledge of operations at Social Security. I can think of two possibilities here:

• This person could be a tea partier who has gotten carried away.
• This person could be an employee or contractor of a right wing "astroturf" group. "Astroturfing" is faux grassroots action. Astroturfers pretend to be concerned citizens but are actually paid for by corporations or wealthy individuals, such as the Koch brothers.

     I may flatter myself to think that some minion of the Koch brothers would actually care about this obscure blog but the post is just so weird and so full of abusive, politically charged language that it is hard for me to see it as anything other than astroturfing.

Hearing Backlog Increases

     From the Fort Wayne Journal:

Anyone filing for Social Security disability benefits expects a wait.

Hoosiers appealing their cases in the Fort Wayne office have been waiting shorter amounts of time since the start of 2010, but an analysis by a Syracuse University research center suggests that might not be true much longer.

Data through September show the backlog nationally has risen 9.3 percent from what it was a year ago, the fifth straight quarter the number of cases has increased, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a Syracuse University organization that gathers, researches and distributes public data.

     And what happened a year ago this month? Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives and more members in the Senate. An increase in the backlog may not have been a Republican goal but they are largely indifferent to it, blaming it on government inefficiency.