Two Proposed Listings Changes And One New Final Listing

     Social Security has published in the Federal Register Notices of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRMs) for new Listings for genitourinary and respiratory system disorders and also a notice of a final rule establishing a new Listing for congenital disorders that affect multiple body systems. The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE) had expressed concern when the multiple body system Listing was proposed. NADE believed that the new Listing would establish a significant and unrealistic barrier that would prevent many persons with Down Syndrome from qualifying for disability benefits. However, NADE was the only commenter on this proposal. I hope that ARC carefully reviewed this and that NADE was wrong. ARC gave Commissioner Astrue a big award. They wouldn't have done that if Astrue was about to dramatically harm people with Down Syndrome, would they? Would Social Security really want to deny benefits to people with Down Syndrome? I hope not.

Serious, Bold And Brave But Also Crazy

     From Alex Parteene writing for Salon:

Despite the staggering popularity and undeniable success of Social Security, a lot of political figures are obsessed with killing it. Some people want Social Security ended for honest ideological reasons, but most of the loudest voices in favor of “reforming” the program wish to do so because it would make them or their friends a lot of money by effectively forcing all Americans to gamble their retirements on the fluctuations of the giant Wall Street casino.

There’s also this common Washington thing where if a certain proposal is hugely unpopular with everyone in the country besides a tiny wealthy elite, supporting that proposal is considered “serious” and “bold” and “brave.” So despite it being a horrible and unpopular idea, proposals to weaken or effectively eliminate Social Security come up all the time in discussions of “the deficit.”

Updated Fee Payment Numbers

     Social Security has issued updated numbers on payments of fees to attorneys and some others for representing Social Security claimants. These fees are withheld and paid by Social Security but come out of the back benefits of the claimants involved. The attorneys and others who have their fees withheld pay a substantial (in my opinion, excessive) user fee for this privilege. Since these fees are usually paid at the same time that the claimant is paid, these numbers show how quickly or slowly Social Security is able to get claimants paid after a favorable determination on their claims.

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
June-12	43,816	$128,559,225.66
July-12	33,342	$97,458,955.82
Aug-12	41,441	$119,484,061.59
Sept-12	38,393	$115,676,630.23
Oct-12	29,646	$84,612,068.75
Nov-12	37,384	$110,226,459.65
Dec-12	34,780	$104,926,570.07

Jan-13

32,663

$96,690,734.65

     I can't get January 2013 to line up with the 2012 numbers. They are from two different tables and Blogger has problems with that. 

     January is a tough month for Social Security because the SSA-1099s and the earnings estimate forms for retirees between 62 and 65 go out in January which cause more people to call Social Security and because many people retire at the end of each calendar year and because many people put off business around the holidays.

Is Social Security Law "Undertheorized?"

     Jacob Sherkow of Stanford Law School thinks that Social Security law is "undertheorized." I've always felt so bereft that Social Security law hasn't received more attention from law school professors! Haven't you? I don't know how the agency has been able to plow forward for the last 73 years.
     Sherkow also thinks medical evidence is pretty much irrelevant to judicial review of Social Security disability decisions. How does a judge determine whether "substantial evidence" supports the denial of a disability claim without having some idea of what the evidence is? Sherkow's answer seems to be that judges should ignore that issue since there must always be "substantial evidence" supporting the denial of benefits. Of course, why bother with judicial review in the first place? Maybe it should be dispensed with since the poor judges can't know what to do with a field of law that is so badly undertheorized!

Can Someone Explain To Me Why Republican Congressional Leaders Think That Cutting Social Security Benefits Is Politically Feasible?

     From a study done by Matthew Greenwald & Associates for the National Academy of Social Insurance:

• Americans don’t mind paying for Social Security because they value it for themselves (80%), for their families (78%), and for the security and stability it provides to millions of retired Americans, disabled individuals, and children and widowed spouses of deceased workers (84%). 

• 84% believe current Social Security benefits do not provide enough income for retirees, and 75% believe we should consider raising future Social Security benefits in order to provide a more secure retirement for working Americans. [The study shows that even 74% of working Republicans agree with this.]

• 82% agree it is critical to preserve Social Security for future generations even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans, and 87% want to preserve Social Security for future generations even if it means increasing taxes paid by wealthier Americans. ... 

• Of those currently receiving Social Security, 96% say it is important to their monthly income, and 72% say that without Social Security they would have to make significant sacrifices or would not be able to afford the basics such as food, clothing, or housing. Of those not currently receiving Social Security, 87% say it will be important to their income when they begin receiving benefits. 

• 57% of Americans say they are not confident about the future of the program. 

• 69% of those not currently receiving Social Security benefits lack confidence that they will receive all their earned benefits when they retire.

     The study shows that 68% of Republicans favor gradually, over ten years, eliminating the cap on earning that are taxed for Social Security. Only 10% of Republicans oppose this. Only 26% of Republicans favor increasing Social Security's full retirement age to 70. A higher percentage of Democrats favor increasing full retirement age to 70 than Republicans!

Did You Know?

     There is a Social Security Alumni Association. It has an office at Social Security headquarters in Baltimore.

Senators Press SSA To Assist VA

     From a Senate Finance Committee press release:

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today called on the Social Security Administration (SSA) to work with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to reduce the dramatic backlog in veterans’ disability claims.  The senators wrote a letter to SSA in response to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, which found SSA’s delays are major contributors to the backlog. ...

In their letter, the senators noted that VA has consistent problems getting the medical records it needs from SSA.  In one instance, regional VA officials commented that SSA takes more than a year to respond to requests.  The senators asked SSA to provide information on any changes it is currently making or plans to make in the future to resolve their delays.

The Problem With Direct Deposits Of Social Security Benefits

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

In October 2011, we began tracking allegations that indicated individuals other than the beneficiaries or their representatives had redirected benefit payments away from the beneficiaries’ bank accounts to accounts the individuals controlled. As of August 27, 2012, we had received over 18,000 reports concerning an unauthorized change or a suspected attempt to make an unauthorized change to an SSA beneficiary’s record. ...

Controls over direct deposit account changes were not fully effective and did not prevent field office staff from processing direct deposit account changes requested by someone other than the beneficiary or his/her authorized representative.

     OIG has only posted a summary of the report, perhaps out of concern that criminals might use the full report to come up with new methods of defeating Social Security's security processes.
     I fear this problem is only going to get worse with time. While it has been possible to have paper checks diverted, criminals always had the problem of negotiating the paper check after they stole it. With direct deposit, the negotiation problem is eliminated. Open a bank account online, divert money to it for one or two months, use a debit card to take the money or, if you're more sophisticated, divert the money overseas. Disappear. Repeat. There's little risk of being caught. No one's going to investigate each case that closely since only a few hundred dollars are involved.