You Want An Example Of Government Waste?

     I didn't ask for it but someone at the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) was kind enough to put me on the mailing list for printed copies of their reports. I just got the printed copy of  Filing for Social Security Disability Benefits: What Impact Does Professional Representation Have on the Process at the Initial Application Level. It's been available online for about three months. Forget the negligible merits of the report. Let's focus on the printing of the report. It's printed on paper that is almost as stiff and slick as the stock my firm uses for our business cards. I don't think I've ever seen a magazine printed on stock this thick. This makes the report so stiff it's a little difficult to even read it. It's slick paper too, slicker than my firm's business cards which are themselves printed on coated stock. At least the report isn't in full color but it does use two colors (black and brown). Even two color printing costs money. Printing like this takes time. That's why it took three months to print it. No one would think of printing such an ephemeral document in this way if they had any concern with cost. Don't blame the Social Security Administration. The SSAB has its own appropriation controlled by its deficit-hating Republican majority.

"If You're Not Hypocrites"

     From R.J. Eskow:

Alan Simpson's the lead pitchman for a billionaire- and corporate-funded initiative to slash Social Security that has subjected the public to years of nonstop haranguing and lecturing.

The lecturing's gotten crude, too, as when Simpson insisted that anyone who disagrees with him is shoveling "bullsh*t."

That's tough talk, but it's a funny thing: When the public makes tough decisions, as it did in a new National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) survey, the tough-talking Mr. Simpson is nowhere to be found.

Much of this verbal abuse has been funded by right-wing billionaire Pete Peterson. Peterson tried to amplify the impression of an anti-deficit groundswell through a kind of three-card monte in which he funds many different shell organizations staffed by the same people and delivering the same message. They include the Concord Coalition, which may have been the first to trot out the phrase "we must make the hard choices on Social Security."

That statement's almost always conjoined with another Peterson-funded theme: that their harsh, right-wing benefit-cutting proposals are based on "arithmetic, not ideology." ...

A new survey from the National Academy of Social Insurance reinforces previous polling which showed Americans across the political spectrum oppose benefit cuts to Social Security and want wealthy Americans to pay more.

But the NASI study did something new: It presented respondents with a range of options and allowed them to select among them. The results were striking, and revealed a rock-solid consensus which spanned generations and political persuasions: Americans want wealthy people to pay their fair share, but they're willing to chip in more themselves - so much so, in fact, that Social Security benefits could be increased. ...

Younger Americans are willing to make the hard decisions, too.  87 percent of Gen X-ers and 85 percent of Gen Y-ers were also willing to pay more in taxes in order to protect the program. ...

Did you think Republicans never want to pay more taxes? Not true, at least when it comes to Social Security. Three out of four Republicans said they'd be willing to pay more to protect the program. So did 86 percent of independents - and 91 percent of Democrats.

What's more, 62 percent of Republicans thought we should consider increasing the program's benefits. So did 71 percent of independents and 84 percent of Democrats. ...

Guess who isn't willing to step up and pitch in?  The millionaires, billionaires, and corporations behind the deficit hysteria. Their pampered pitchpeople are hiding, too.

After all, the NASI survey's been out for a week and we haven't heard a peep from any of them. Not one of them has congratulated the American people for making those "hard choices." Not one of them has signed on to promote the NASI survey's common-sense, fiscally responsible agenda for Social Security.

Not even straight-shootin' Alan Simpson. ...

And the public's still being lectured. One lecture came from Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein who, thanks to the Wall Street bailout, benefited rom the largest free lunch in history.

Pack it in, guys. In fact, you should be celebrating: The public's made those hard choices you've been talking about. If you're not hypocrites you'll fight for their Social Security agenda, not yours.

If you're not hypocrites.

No Sign Of Action On Commissioner Nomination

     The AP has a story up about various nominations that President Obama is expected to make in the near future. Mentioned are openings at Commerce, Labor, Interior, Office of Management and Budget, Energy and Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency. Not mentioned is a nomination for the Social Security Administration.

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!