Would Means Testing Title II Even Save Money?

From R.J. Eskow writing at Huffington Post:

Last week Republican Mitch Daniels once again pushed the "means testing" argument against Social Security, saying that we can no longer "afford to send millionaires pension checks" or "pay medical bills for even the wealthiest among us.".

Daniels and his fellow Social Security attackers are able to draw on a very reasonable-sounding (but completely deceptive) argument, one that's been honed and promoted by billionaire-funded think tanks and other anti-government organizations. The "means testing" argument does sound fair -- until you think about it.  ...


First of all, what's a "millionaire"? If you say that a millionaire is someone with $1 million or more in investable assets, past studies have showed that only about one American in one hundred meets that definition. After the collapse of the housing market and the decimation of private pension plans, the percentage of retirees who meet that definition is probably much smaller. And it's shrinking every year....

If you define "millionaire" in a more reasonable way -- say, as someone who earns at least a million dollars each year in investment and other income after retirement -- the number of people who fit the definition becomes extremely small.  ...


The Social Security Administration (SSA) is already cash-starved, especially by Republicans who have gutted its budget. These cuts have already delayed the processing of applications and appeals, and have threatened to slow the distribution of checks. These cuts hurt the disabled, children and seniors.

How is the SSA expected to handle this new means-testing function? Right now its overhead is admirably low because it's a simple cash-in/cash-out program. Will it now be forced to process new paperwork on every applicant? Will it have to link its computer systems with those of the IRS, creating a new electronic database of information on every American? Will every retiring senior be grilled by government officials as part of a screening process?

The cost of means-testing could well be greater than the amount of money saved. After all, there are more than 38,000,000 people over the age of 65 in the United States today. And every one of them will need to be screened every year.

I thought Republicans wanted to cut bureaucracy, not increase it....

Here's what would make sense: Tax those high earners so that they're contributing their fair share to the economy.

Don't Know What This Means

     Back in November, Social Security requested the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is part of the White House, for a proposal to:

... remove from our regulations the requirement that our adjudicators "consider the opinion given by one or more medical or psychological consultants designated by the Commissioner" when they make findings about medical equivalence to impairments listed in our Listing of Impairments (listings). We believe that this requirement is outdated and that we no longer need it. Removing it will allow us to issue some favorable disability determinations and decisions more quickly.  

      Social Security has now withdrawn that proposal, before OMB could act. This could mean that Social Security just changed its mind or it could mean that OMB made it clear to Social Security that the proposal would not be approved. OMB almost never officially disapproves a proposal. They just get withdrawn.

Language And Speech Listings In The Works

    Social Security is soliciting comments from the public on possible new listings for language and speech disorders. There is no proposal posted an this time so we do not know what Social Security is thinking about.

Astrue Visits Florida Office

From the Bradenton Herald:

Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue today joined U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan [R-FL] in visiting the local Social Security office to discuss how best to make the program more efficient at a time of diminishing budgets.

Astrue praised Buchanan, R-Sarasota, for taking the time to learn how Social Security works, as a member of House Ways and Means Committee, which is charged with writing tax legislation and bills affecting Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs.

“It’s an enormous advantage,” The Social Security chief said, when members of House committees take the time to learn the process....

“And Washington gets very stuck in its ways, so having members come out and say, ‘Look, we can change, we can be more efficient and serve the public better by doing these things’ if you understand what we’re trying to do, and why, it’s enormously helpful to us, and I wish that we could get even more members come out visiting their home offices,” Astrue said.

Electronic Informal Remand Special Project 2012

     Social Security has sent out instructions for something called the Electronic Informal Remand Special Project 2012. This is an effort to select particularly strong disability cases in which a request for hearing has been filed and divert them to a special review by someone other than an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to see if it is possible to pay them quickly. It sounds a lot like informal remand projects of the past. and present. It is not clear to me whether there is anything really new about this. This may be old wine in new bottles.

     The major problems with this sort of thing has been lack of personnel to do the reviews and, recently, a reluctance to approve anything other than the most gold-plated cases. We will see how this new process works.

Slowdown In Payment Of Back Benefits In January

     Social Security has posted updated numbers on payments of fees to attorneys and others who represent Social Security claimants. These numbers are important not just for those who represent Social Security claimants. We get paid at about the same time as our client gets paid. If you see a slowdown in payments to those who represent Social Security claimants you are seeing a slowdown in payments to claimants and the growth of a backlog.

     Social Security always has a problem in paying newly approved claimants in January because of the other workload pressure which go up dramatically at the beginning of each year. I had concerns about what would happen this year if no overtime was available. It turns out that some overtime was available but there was still a problem. Backlogs increased dramatically in October 2011 and January 2012. I hope someone at Social Security can tell me that overtime will be available in coming months to keep this backlog from growing but I don't expect that.

Fee Payments
Month/Year	Volume	Amount
Jan-11	34,467	$113,459,847.04
Feb-11	33,305	$107,796,771.38
Mar-11	34,885	$112,463,768.46
Apr-11	48,033	$153,893,755.37
May-11	36,479	$115,159012.77
June-11	33,568	$104,782,743.07
July-11	40,451	$123,981,011.36
Aug-11	35,575	$109,778,785.74
Sept-11	36,159	$109,990,042.36
Oct-11	27,269	$79,526,149.33
Nov-11	32,677	$100,272,851.46
Dec-11	38,447	$116,455,779.95

Jan-12

29,926

$89,749,312.99

     That's a 23% decline between December and January. Here are some January numbers for a couple of earlier years for comparison:

Jan-10     32,226     $111,440,046.23
Jan-09     28,423     $101,128,880.69

NADE Newsletter On Down Syndrome And ALJ Investigations

     The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), an organization of personnel who make initial and reconsideration determinations on Social Security disability claims, has posted its Winter 2012 newsletter.

     The newsletter contains a copy of a letter that NADE sent to Social Security on the agency's recent proposal to change its listings on Down Syndrome. As I read the letter, it looks like Social Security is setting a trap, I hope unintentionally, for those with Down Syndrome. Unless they have genetic testing for Down Syndrome and unless that testing meets certain criteria which may be of dubious relevance, Social Security may simply ignore the Down Syndrome regardless of any other evidence. If my understanding of the letter is correct and if NADE has it right, this is something that must be addressed. I really do not want to have to start representing a lot of people with Down Syndrome. That would be ridiculous.

     Another article describes a presentation by Social Security's Inspector General (IG) at a NADE event. The IG talked, at least briefly, about ongoing investigations of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in Puerto Rico and West Virginia.

Poll

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com