George W. Bush Campaigning For Partial Prizatizaton Of Social Security

Unemployment Benefits and Disability

     From Overlapping Disability and Unemployment Benefits Should be Evaluated for Potential Savings, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study:

In fiscal year 2010, 117,000 individuals received concurrent cash benefit payments from the Disability Insurance (DI) and Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs of more than $850 million, which is allowable in certain circumstances under current program authority. While these individuals represented less than 1 percent of the total beneficiaries of both programs, the cash benefits they received totaled over $281 million from DI and more than $575 million from UI. ...

Under certain circumstances, individuals may be eligible for concurrent cash benefit payments due to differences in DI and UI eligibility requirements. Specifically, the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) definition of a disability involves work that does not rise to the level of substantial gainful activity (SGA). In 2010, a monthly income of $1,000 or more for a non-blind beneficiary generally demonstrated SGA. In contrast, the Department of Labor allows states’ determination of “able and available for work” eligibility criteria for UI benefits to include work that does not rise to the level of SGA. ... Reducing or eliminating overlapping or improper payments could offer substantial savings, though actual savings are difficult to estimate because the potential costs of establishing mechanisms to do so are not readily available.

An Idea

Clint Eastwood for Social Security Commissioner in the Romney Administration. Isn't it time for a senior citizen at the helm?

Why Do All Those OIG Employees Need Firearms Training?

     The recent blowup about Social Security's purchases of ammunition may hint at a bigger issue. My understanding is that federal law enforcement officers are eligible for full retirement under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) after 20 years of service if they are 50 or older or after 25 years of service at any age. For non-law enforcement federal employees, it's more complicated but certainly more demanding. Is the real issue here whether Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) is classifying far too many of its employees as law enforcement officers requiring that they qualify on the shooting range requiring the purchase of lots of ammunition? Ammunition isn't cheap but early retirement for lots of employees who jobs don't remotely compare to those of front line police officers is far more expensive.
     This goes well beyond the OIG at Social Security. Dozens of federal agencies have employees that they characterize as being in law enforcement, including:

• Office of Export Enforcement at the Department of Commerce
• OIG at the Department of Education
• OIG at the Department of the Interior
• OIG at the Department of State
• OIG at the Department of Veterans Affairs
• OIG at the Environmental Protection Administration
• OIG at the NASA
• OIG at the Office of Personnel Management
• OIG at the Small Business Administration
• OIG at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
• OIG at Amtrak
• OIG at the Tennessee Valley Authority
• OIG at the Agency for International Development

     I don't think you have to be in the black helicopter fringe to find guns and weapons training at all these governmental agencies a bit unsettling but the bigger issue may be giving special retirement advantages to employees whose jobs have the same occupational risks as benefits authorizers and claims representatives at Social Security, mainly carpal tunnel syndrome.

Demographics Affect Private Long Term Disability Insurance Companies In The Same Way As Social Security

From a press release:

The Council for Disability Awareness (CDA) today announced that the number of long term disability claims [mostly as a part of employer pension plans] continued to increase year over year, while the number of wage earners protected by private disability income insurance declined in 2011 for the third consecutive year. ...

The age group that experienced the largest increase in the number of new approved claims over the past four years was individuals over age 60, in part, reflecting the aging of the baby boomer generation. ...

"When you look at the Social Security Disability Insurance program, the number of workers receiving payments increased to 8.6 million by the end of 2011, its highest level ever," [the President of CDA] continued. "Given the current trends, analysts predict that the SSDI trust fund will be depleted within five years. However, the silver lining is that applications and new SSDI claim approvals declined during 2011 after several years of increased applications and approvals." ...

By a large margin, diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue - such as arthritis, spine disorders, back pain, sciatica and osteoporosis - continue to be the leading cause of disability claims (representing 30.5 percent of all 2011 claims).

      Notice that it's not just Social Security that's experiencing an increase in disability claims. Private insurance companies are experiencing the same increase and it's for the same demographic reasons and that musculoskeletal problems are the leading cause of disability for both. Notice also that this increase is leveling out as the number of baby boomers entering their most disability prone years is being balanced out by the number entering their retirement years.

COLA For 2013 Will Be Low

     Social Security's Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is based upon the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the last quarter of one calendar year and the first three quarters of the next. This means that the COLA for 2013 will be based upon the one year time period ending September, 2012. As of the last month for which figures are available, July, the COLA would be eight-tenths of one percent. This could certainly go up or down when the figures come in for July and August but it looks like we're heading for a COLA of less than one percent.

Republican Platform On Social Security -- George W. Bush Redux

     Party platforms do not bind nominees but are still a sign of a party's core value. Here's what the Republican platform for 2012 says about Social Security:

While no changes should adversely affect any current or near-retiree, comprehensive reform should address our society’s remarkable medical advances in longevity and allow younger workers the option of creating their own personal investment accounts as supplements to the system. Younger Americans have lost all faith in the Social Security system, which is understandable when they read the non- partisan actuary’s reports about its future funding status. Born in an old industrial era beyond the memory of most Americans, it is long overdue for major change, not just another legislative stopgap that postpones a day of reckoning. To restore public trust in the system, Republicans are committed to setting it on a sound fiscal basis that will give workers control over, and a sound return on, their investments. The sooner we act, the sooner those close to retirement can be reassured of their benefits and younger workers can take responsibility for planning their own retirement decades from now.

     These are the same ideas that George W. Bush relied upon when he undertook to "reform" Social Security. That effort didn't work out too well for him.

Responding To A Leading Question

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

In a January 17, 2012 email, the Commissioner of SSA requested that we determine why some ready to schedule (RTS) cases remained unscheduled. The Commissioner also requested we review the role work-at-home days (Flexiplace) play in case scheduling and report on any office dynamics that are of concern in terms of effective service. ...

Of the 11 hearing offices we contacted, 8 experienced an increase in RTS cases from April 2011 through March 2012. Hearing office staff cited various reasons for this increase. For example, staff at several hearing offices attributed the increase to their development of additional cases for hearings so they would have a larger inventory from which to select when scheduling conflicts occurred. Staff at other hearing offices attributed the increase to expanded service areas and a greater number of disability filings. In contrast, three hearing offices experienced a decrease in RTS cases. Hearing office staff attributed the decrease to transferring cases to other hearing offices, modifying their scheduling procedures, and spending less time developing cases.

Hearing office staff cited various obstacles that impacted their ability to timely schedule hearings. Most notably, staff cited claimant representative availability as the greatest obstacle they faced when scheduling hearings. To a lesser degree, hearing office staff cited ALJ availability as another key obstacle that caused scheduling difficulties. Other less cited obstacles included availability of medical and vocational experts, hearing rooms, and video teleconferencing (VTC) equipment. Hearing office staff also reported difficulties when scheduling hearings for incarcerated claimants.

We acknowledge that accommodating the schedules and preferences of multiple hearing participants is difficult and cumbersome. However, based on our review of 11 hearing offices, we believe ODAR can take additional steps to address some of the key obstacles hearing office staff face when scheduling hearings. To improve the timeliness of hearings, we encourage ODAR to consider limiting the number of times it offers claimant representatives specific dates and times before scheduling a hearing. In addition, we encourage ODAR to analyze hearing office and ALJ performance data to determine whether it should take additional steps to address key obstacles hearing office staff face during the scheduling process. Specifically, we believe ODAR should encourage hearing offices to better coordinate hearing dates and rooms among its ALJs. We also encourage ODAR to consider limiting ALJs’ use of Flexiplace to once a week, where appropriate. Furthermore, we encourage ODAR to reexamine its policy of allowing ALJs to transfer to another hearing office soon after meeting their 90-day service requirement  ...

      We can debate each of the individual factors. The points I would make is that there hasn't been any recent change in ALJ or attorney behavior and there has been no sign of decreased ALJ productivity. To the contrary, ALJ productivity has continued to increase. To me, the answer seems simple.  More cases are getting worked up than there are ALJs to hear them. OIG was responding to a leading question from the Commissioner, one which indicated a desire to point the finger of blame at someone other than Social Security management.