Please Keep It Coming Senator Simpson!

     Former Senator Allan Simpson, who was the co-head of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, often known as "Bowles-Simpson", is a crotchety old man who has great difficulty taking criticism, especially criticism of the "report" of his panel. I say "report" since it was never officially adopted. Here are some excerpts from a recent screed from Simpson reacting to a flyer, yes, a mere flyer:

Your little flyer entitled “Bowles! Simpson! Stop using the deficit as a phony excuse to gut our Social Security!” is one of the phoniest excuses for a “flyer” I have ever seen. You use the faces of young people, who are the ones who are going to get gutted while you continue to push out your blather and drivel. My suggestion to you — an honest one — read the damn report. The Moment of Truth — 67 pages, and then tell me if we’re not doing the right thing with Social Security. What a wretched group of seniors you must be to use the faces of the very people that we are trying to save, while the “greedy geezers” like you use them as a tool and a front for your nefarious bunch of crap. You must feel some sense of shame for shoveling out this bulls**t.

Veterans Get Big Break On Becoming ALJs

     From a Social Security press release:

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently announced that 10-point preference eligible veterans [those with service connected disabilities] interested in becoming an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and working for Social Security can take the examination now even though the test is closed to all other applicants. More information about this opportunity is available at www.fedshirevets.gov. ...

So far this fiscal year, the agency has hired 210 veterans, including 91 disabled veterans, representing 34% of total new agency hires. Most of these veterans handle benefit claims and help reduce Social Security’s backlog of disability cases. Overall, veterans represent almost 10% of Social Security’s current workforce.

COLA May Be Much Lower

     There's a warning out that the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Social Security is going to be way down this year, to around 1.7% instead of last year's 3.6%

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish

    From the Boston Globe:

Federal officials overseeing a fast-growing $10 billion children’s disability program have failed to follow up on the progress of 400,000 beneficiaries with behavioral, learning, and mental disorders, allowing families to receive monthly cash benefits for years even if their children’s condition has improved, according to a draft report from the Government Accountability Office obtained by the Globe.

The report by the investigative branch of Congress estimated that the Social Security Administration, which runs the Supplemental Security Income program, might save $9 for every $1 it spends on disability reviews by determining that some children no longer qualify. Reviews are typically required once every three years for the 1.3 million children now receiving benefits, a record high.

      And why is Social Security not doing these reviews? Because they don't have enough operating funds, that's why.

Commissioner Says Attorneys Have No Obligation To Submit Adverse Medical Evidence In Social Security Disability Cases

     I posted last week about Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue's testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. I wrote that Astrue said emphatically that attorneys who represent Social Security claimants are under no legal obligation to submit adverse medical evidence. (While I agree that there is no legal obligation, it is my practice to submit adverse medical evidence and I encourage other attorneys to do so but I won't detail my reasons now.)

     I wish I could get a video clip of Astrue's testimony just on this subject but so far I haven't. If anyone has the video editing software and experience to do it, this testimony is about one hour into the hearing. I think a lot of people would find it interesting if it were posted on Youtube. 

     At least, now we have this transcript:

In response to a question from Senator Thune (R-SD) regarding the December 2011 Wall Street Journal article re withholding evidence, the Commissioner responded:

Commissioner Astrue: Senator, I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with a number of the assumptions of your question. First of all, I am familiar with the Wall Street Journal article. We did not take no action - we did refer that to the Office of the Inspector General. If you have questions about the progress of that, I would encourage you to talk to the Inspector General.

But that article was relatively thin in terms of the content of allegations. There really was not, in my opinion, very much there. It's also based in part on the misassumption that there's a requirement for all relevant evidence to be provided to the judge. Right now, that is not the law. The previous two Commissioners tried to make that the law and my understanding is that they received a lot of opposition and not much support here in the Congress for that.

First of all, the Wall Street Journal had it dead wrong on what the law is. And second, there wasn't much in the way of allegations. Third, it would be unprecedented to go back and review all cases by a law firm on evidence anywhere near this thin. If you had proof of real fraud, and I have no information from the Inspector General that suggests that we have that, then it would be totally unprecedented to do that. Any court that would look at that would throw it out. It would be an enormous waste of the taxpayers' dollars for me to do that.

Sen. Thune asked the Commissioner whether he could summarize the Inspector General's findings. He responded that there is no report yet and he testified:

Commissioner Astrue: I don't have much more than that. But certainly, my expectation ... Again, Senator, read that Wall Street Journal article very carefully. When you realize, first ofall, that there is not a legal obligation to present every bit of evidence to the Agency because our rules are not written that way, there is a factual error underlying that whole article. Past that, there is not very much very specific in terms of evidence: there is unsupported hearsay, that type ... It may be true. But in order for us to take action, we've got to have some proof and evidence. The Wall Street Joumal article did not provide very much for the Inspector General to go on.

Romney And Marx Agree That The State Will Wither Away

     From the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

Governor Mitt Romney’s proposals to cap total federal spending, boost defense spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget would require extraordinarily large cuts in other programs, both entitlements and discretionary programs, according to our revised analysis based on new information and updated projections.

For the most part, Governor Romney has not outlined cuts in specific programs. But if policymakers exempted Social Security from the cuts, as Romney has suggested, and cut Medicare, Medicaid, and all other entitlement and discretionary programs by the same percentage — to meet Romney’s spending cap, defense spending target, and balanced budget requirement — then non-defense programs other than Social Security would have to be cut 29 percent in 2016 and 59 percent in 2022...

The cuts that would be required under the Romney budget proposals in programs such as veterans’ disability compensation, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for poor elderly and disabled individuals, SNAP (formerly food stamps), and child nutrition programs would move millions of households below the poverty line or drive them deeper into poverty. ...

      In practical terms for the Social Security Administration, there would not be enough money to pay SSI benefits by 2016 but, then, the agency wouldn't have enough money to administer SSI anyway. By 2022 there would not be enough operating funds to administer just Title II of the Social Security Act.

Saipan Wants In

     The Northern Marianas Islands (NMI) is (are?) a U.S. commonwealth, like Puerto Rico, with a population of around 50,000. Unlike Puerto Rico, employment in the NMI has not been covered by Title II of the Social Security Act. Now, the NMI government is trying to get its citizens covered by Title II of the Social Security Act and to do so retroactively for ten years. Social Security only wants to go back five years. Apparently, discussions have been taking place on this subject since 2006. The NMI's own Social Security system is going bankrupt. Anyway, read the article for yourself and try to figure it out. It confuses me. It's probably a headache for Social Security management as well. It sounds like things are coming to a head. I don't understand how the Social Security Administration could approve this without legislation but I do not pretend to understand the legal relationship between the NMI and the U.S.

A New Idea That's Going Nowhere

     This idea is going nowhere but Ezekiel Emanuel authored an op ed piece in the New York Times yesterday advocating that full retirement age for Social Security be raised on some sort of sliding scale based upon "lifetime wealth" which he defines basically as lifetime earnings covered by the F.I.C.A. tax. Full retirement age stays where it is for lower income people but raises for higher income people.

     I see few Democrats interested in this since it is a back-handed way of means testing Social Security and means-testing Social Security would undermine its support. I see few Republicans interested in this since it discriminates against high income individuals. Republicans already have problems with the graduated income tax.

     By the way Ezekiel Emanuel does not seem to know that full retirement age is already set to rise to 67 under current law. And also by the way, yes, Rahm Emanuel is his older brother and the two frequently disagree.