NY Times Argues Against Chained CPI

     From today's NY Times editorial page:

At the end of last year, just shy of the 11th hour in the fiscal cliff negotiations, President Obama made an offer that included a Republican-backed idea to cut spending by lowering the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits. The move shocked Congressional Democrats and dismayed Mr. Obama’s liberal base. 

The offer, however, was rejected by House Republicans who could not stomach the tax increases and other concessions that Mr. Obama demanded as part of the deal. The talks moved on, and when all was said and done, Republicans did not get the lower cost-of-living adjustments (known as COLAs) and Mr. Obama did not get the concessions he had sought.  

But that is not the end of the story. As the next round of deficit reduction talks gets under way, the administration seems determined to include the COLA cut in any new package of spending reductions. Rather than using the issue as a bargaining ploy, the administration appears to have embraced it as a worthy end in itself.

Is it? In a word, no.

That is not to say that Social Security should be off the table. There are reforms that are eminently sensible, if only the political will could be found to enact them. But reducing the COLA is not a sound idea now and may never be....

The administration and other proponents of switching to a chained C.P.I. contend that it is a technical fix in the interest of greater accuracy, not a benefit cut per se.

But that claim does not stand up to scrutiny. The chained index is in many ways a better method of tracking price changes for the broad working population, but there is no compelling evidence that it is better for computing the Social Security COLA.

What is known is that elderly households tend to have lower incomes and lower expenditures than younger households, and that more of their purchases are for needs that cannot be met by switching to products and services in unrelated categories. That indicates that they do not have the same flexibility as younger households to respond to price changes while still maintaining their standards of living. ... 

Social Security Settles Class Action On Low Approving ALJs

     From the New York Times:

Thousands of poor Queens residents with debilitating conditions who were denied federal disability benefits would have their cases reconsidered, under a settlement proposal in a class-action lawsuit that accused judges of bias. 

The lawsuit claimed that five administrative law judges with the Queens office that reviews claims for Social Security benefits had presided over hearings that trivialized the applicants’ physical and mental impairments and subjected them to harsh questioning that often brought them to tears. Now, in a settlement accepted by the plaintiffs and the Social Security Administration, the agency has agreed to remove the judges from those cases, allowing applicants — many of whom have been unable to work for years — to appear before new judges. As part of the settlement, the administration would enact new policies against bias and establish a special unit to monitor disability claims for the next 30 months.  ...

However, one of the judges named in the lawsuit, David Z. Nisnewitz, was replaced as the chief of the Queens review board after the lawsuit was filed. As part of the agreement, he and the other four judges named — Michael D. Cofresi, Seymour Fier, Marilyn P. Hoppenfeld and Hazel C. Strauss — would be retrained....

Lawyers with the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which handled the suit pro bono, and the Urban Justice Center, a nonprofit group, estimated that more than 4,000 cases — applicants who were denied benefits between January 2008 and the date of the settlement — would be reconsidered. ...

[T]he Queens board is already changing its ways. Before the suit, Judges Cofresi and Fier denied over 60 percent of the applications before them; those rates have dropped by more than half. The denial rates of Judge Nisnewitz and Judge Hoppenfeld also declined. Only the rate of Judge Strauss, who denied more than 80 percent of claims before the lawsuit, increased: In the most recent quarter, she denied 90 percent.

      I first posted about this class action lawsuit at the time it was filed in April 2011. I didn't say so at the time but I thought it quixotic. Hats off to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the Urban Justice Center.
     Here are the denial rates -- not allowance rates but denial rates -- of the individual ALJs involved at the time the class action was brought:

• Strauss 81%
• Fier 63%
• Cofresi 63%
• Nisnewitz 62%
• Hoppenfeld 48%

Another Crisis Averted

     From the Washington Post:

Turn up your noses if you must, but this is one of those tales that can only occur in that vortex of life, work and bureaucracy.

The Social Security Administration reprimanded an employee last month for allegedly creating a “hostile work environment” by regularly passing gas at the office, according to an official letter sanctioning the worker.

The Smoking Gun Web site published the document online. The agency said it withdrew its action against the employee before the letter was publicized, but officials did not respond to requests for a date of the rescinding action.

“When senior management became aware of the reprimand it was immediately rescinded,” agency spokeswoman Dorothy J. Clark said in an e-mail.

Credit Reports Freeze Creates Problems

     From Ann Carns, writing in the New York Times "Bucks" column:

I wrote this week about expanded online services offered by the Social Security Administration through its My Social Security Web site.

In response, a Bucks reader wrote to express his disappointment that, because he had a security freeze on his credit reports, he had been unable to create an online account...

Mark Hinkle, a spokesman for the agency, said My Social Security works through Experian, one of the three major credit bureaus, to verify the identities of people setting up online accounts. When you go online to register, the agency’s system performs a so-called “soft” inquiry of your Experian credit file. If a freeze is in place, your information can’t be accessed and you can’t create an account, at least not without jumping through some extra hoops.

Maybe Republicans Don't Really Want Sequestration

     From The Hill:

House Republican defense hawks are pushing back strongly against Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) claim that he has GOP support to allow steep automatic budget cuts to take effect if President Obama does not agree to replace them with other reductions. ...

“I don’t support that,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a member of the Armed Services Committee whose district includes one of the nation’s largest military installations. “You get into dangerous territory when you talk about using national security as a bargaining chip with the president.” ...

The Speaker suggested the sequester was a stronger leverage point for Republicans than the upcoming deadline to raise the debt ceiling ...

“In order to get the Republican Conference to pass the debt-limit increase last time, he promised them sequestration would not go in place,” the Republican House member said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “To be using sequestration and these defense cuts in the next debt-limit talks certainly is pretty bad déjà vu for the Republican Conference.”

"He's Been Campaigning For The Job Forever"

     From the Boston Globe:

Tufts Health Plan chief executive James Roosevelt Jr. is a candidate to run the Social Security Administration, the program his grandfather signed into law in 1935, according to people briefed on the matter....

He helped lead a review of the Social Security Administration as part of President Obama’s transition team, and previously served as associate commissioner for retirement policy for the agency under President Clinton. ...

A number of lawmakers are backing Roosevelt. US Representative Michael Capuano, Democrat of Somerville, said in a statement, “Jim’s health care expertise as well as his Massachusetts roots and previous work with Social Security make him an excellent choice to oversee this vital program.” ...

Said [Michael] Tanner [of the Cato Institute], “He’s been campaigning for the job forever.”

     Let me guess. We see a newspaper article tomorrow promoting Earl Pomeroy.

SSA Employee Arrested For Accessing Child Porn At Work

     From the Seattle Times:

A 49-year-old employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA) has been arrested and charged with accessing child pornography at work, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Thomas Joseph Barrett, of Lynnwood, was arrested at the SSA’s Official of Disability Adjudication, where he worked as a senior case technician. He is expected to appear before a U.S. Magistrate in Seattle this afternoon.

The complaint alleges that Barrett had viewed child pornography on his work computer in November 2012, and had looked up news stories about the penalties for possessing or distributing child porn. The crime carries a penalty of up to 10 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Social Security May Owe Millions To Employees

     From the Federal Times:

The Social Security Administration may be forced to fund millions of dollars in additional back pay to black male employees who say the agency breached the terms of a 2002 class action discrimination settlement, according to the Federal Times.

In a ruling issued on Dec. 18, Carlton Hadden, the director of the Office of Federal Operations at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ordered an administrative judge to oversee distribution of back pay to black males working at SSA’s office in Baltimore from April 1, 2003, through Sept. 30, 2005. Hadden said that the agency must “correct any misapplications of its policies for granting performance awards,” and instructed the agency to provide written notification to a compliance officer. ...

In a statement, Michael Kator, the employees’ lawyer, said that the ruling would mean that SSA would be forced to pay a steeper penalty than if they had followed the terms of the original settlement. As many as 2,200 current and former employees would likely be affected, according to the settlement documents.  

“While it may ultimately be for the experts to decide, SSA’s liability could well exceed by 10 times the amount of the original settlement,” Kator wrote.

Kia Anderson, a spokeswoman for the Social Security Administration, told the Federal Times that the agency “disagreed with the ruling” and would “defend its position” to the administrative judge, who will determine the final sum the agency owes the employees.