Eliminating The F.I.C.A. Cap Would Solve Social Security's Long Term Financing Problems And Would Affect Few Americans

     One proposal to eliminate the long term financing problem for the Social Security trust funds is to eliminate the cap, currently $110,100, on earnings covered by the F.I.C.A.tax that supports the trust funds. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has done a study on who would be affected if this becomes law. CEPR also studied an alternate proposal to raise the F.I.C.A. cap to $250,000. The alternate proposal would not completely eliminate the long term financing problem but would dramatically reduce it. The CEPR gives figures for various demographic groups and for each state but the chart below shows the gist of what the study found -- only a small percentage of the population would be affected by increasing the cap to $250,000 and only a tiny additional percentage would be affected by lifting the cap altogether.

     The cap on the Medicare portion of the F.I.C.A. tax was eliminated years ago. It wasn't even particularly controversial then. Why should eliminating the F.I.C.A. cap be that big a problem now?

Many Listings Extended Without Change, Including Mental Disorders

     Social Security is extending without change the following listings of impairments:

• Growth Impairment 100.00
• Musculoskeletal System 1.00 and 101.00
• Respiratory System 3.00 and 103.00
• Cardiovascular System 4.00 and 104.00
• Digestive System 5.00 and 105.00
• Hematological Disorders 7.00 and 107.00
• Skin Disorders 8.00 and 108.00
• Neurological 11.00 and 111.00
• Mental Disorders 12.00 and 112.00

     Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue has twice tried to amend the mental disorders listings. Not long before the 2008 election, Astrue received approval from the Bush Administration to publish a proposed new Listing. Astrue did not promptly send the proposal to the Federal Register for publication as is normally the case. I think it would have been published if McCain had won that election. With Obama winning, the 2008 proposal was shelved.  There is no way of knowing what was in the 2008 proposal but I doubt that I would have liked it. In 2010, Astrue received Obama Administration approval for new proposed mental impairment listings. The proposal was controversial and Social Security had to issue a "clarification." In theory, despite the notice in today's Federal Register, Social Security could attempt to get Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the mental impairment listings proposal made in 2010. Due to the length of time that has passed and the proximity to the election, I doubt that will happen. If it were submitted to OMB today, it probably wouldn't be acted upon until September. It's just too late to do before the election, considering that it would be controversial.

Alan Simpson Can't Take The Heat

     Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson of Social Security Works have an open letter to Alan Simpson on Huffington Post. Responding in kind to Simpson's inflammatory rhetoric, Altman and Kingson talk of Simpson's "bigotry and bullying" and his "undermining of human dignity." They charge him with wanting to "begin pulling apart our Social Security system brick by brick."

     Simpson, by the way, has backed out of his earlier commitment to debate those who oppose his views on Social Security.

You Get What You Pay For

     This is from the Social Security Advisory Board's Aspects of Disability: Decision Making: Data and Materials. CDRs are Continuing Disability Reviews, reviews to determine whether a Social Security disability recipient is still disabled. These are required by statute. Most reviews are supposed to happen every three years. Even the most severely disabled are supposed to be reviewed every seven years (which is a waste of resources). A review by "mailer" is simply sending the disability benefits recipient a form to complete. Assuming the recipient completes the form and does not report that he or she has improved, which few do, it is almost certain that nothing will happen. Medical CDRs involve the collection of medical records to look to see how the recipient is actually doing. Note the dramatic decline in medical CDRs after George W. Bush was elected President. This was because of Social Security's severely restricted operating budget. After Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Social Security's operating budget went up, the medical CDRs started going up and the nearly meaningless mailers went down, although not nearly enough to cross paths.

     This chart tells the story clearly. If you want real reviews to determine whether Social Security disability recipients remain disabled, you have to appropriate sufficient operating funds. This matters greatly since CDRs save about $10.50 for every dollar spent on them.

Fee Payment Numbers

     Below are the numbers on payments of fees to attorneys and others who represent Social Security claimants. While administered by Social Security, these payments come out of the back benefits of the claimants represented. Those who receive these fees pay a user fee to Social Security to cover the costs of administering the payments. Since the attorney or other representative receives his or her fee at about the same time as the claimant receives his or her benefits, these numbers are a good analogue to show how quickly or slowly Social Security is paying benefits to people after they are approved. As the numbers show, these payments vary dramatically from month to month.

Fee Payments
Month/Year	Volume	Amount
Jan-12	29,926	89,749,312.99
Feb-12	43,946	134,207,416.10
Mar-12	47,376	139,571,577.57
Apr-12	38,239	113,225,483.07
May-12	37,648	112,446,283.39

First Social Security Board

Left to right: (seated) Mary M. Dewson; Arthur J. Altmeyer, Chairman; and George E. Bigge. Standing are Jack B. Tate, Acting General Counsel and Frank Bane, (right) Executive Director

Warning: Witch Hunt Ahead

     Former Representative Charlie Melancon (D-La) warns that budget hawks have the Social Security disability programs in their sights as a target for a "witch hunt."

Ethics Complaint Concerning Attorneys Working For Non-Attorney Group

     I have received an anonymous report of an anonymous attorney ethics complaint filed with a state bar against some named attorneys who represent Social Security claimants in the employment of a non-attorney outfit. Representing clients as an attorney as an employee of a non-attorney is, in my understanding, itself a violation of attorney ethics rules. The complaint also alleges that the non-attorney group engages in practices which are considered unethical by attorneys. I will not give more details about an anonymous complaint.

     The complaint is interesting but I think it would be investigated more thoroughly if had not been filed anonymously. I know that Social Security has told its Administrative Law Judges not to file ethics complaints against attorneys which could explain why this is being filed anonymously but there is a detail, which I'm not to reveal here, concerning the material I received which suggests that it was not filed by any Social Security employee.

     There are many, many newly minted attorneys who are desperately seeking employment.  I feel for them but if you are representing Social Security claimants in the employment of a non-attorney group, you had better think about your situation from a legal ethics point of view. This is from the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, which has its counterparts in every other state:

A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:

     (1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration; or

     (2) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.