I'm Not Expecting Calm Deliberation

     The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has scheduled a hearing for June 27 at 9:30 a.m. on Oversight of Rising Social Security Disability Claims and the Role of Administrative Law Judges. This is supposed to be the first of a series of hearings on this subject. In advance of the hearing, there is an Associated Press piece saying that Social Security's Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are approving claims at "strikingly high rates." There is also mention of "management problems" which have led to "misspending." The article quotes Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Energy, Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements as saying "This is not one or two judges out there just going rogue and saying they are going to approve a lot of cases. This is a very, very high rate" of approving claims.

     I suppose this particular House Committee does some good but under both Democrats and Republicans, it has had a reputation for conducting partisan witch hunts when the White House has been in the hands of the opposite party.

     By the way, didn't Social Security's ALJs as a group receive an official award from the American Bar Association back in the early 1990s for demonstrating courage in resisting outside pressure?

Error In Blast E-Mail From SSA

     I received this e-mail from Social Security today, probably because I have set up a MySSA account:

Affordable Health Care

Need health insurance or know someone who does?  Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, more Americans now qualify to get coverage that fits their needs and budgets.  Visit the Health Insurance Marketplace at www.HealthCare.gov or call 1-800-318-2596 to get more information.  If you are deaf or hard of hearing, you may call 1-855-889-4325.

 

---

Questions for SSA? Contact Us

     What you see if you try to go to the HealthCare.gov link is not HealthCare.gov but a Social Security website asking that you enter the "Word of the Day." I think somebody made a mistake. I wonder how many people got this e-mail with a bad link.

     Update: They're resent the e-mail with the correct link.

Hearing Office Average Processing Time Report

     From the newsletter of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (click on each page to view full size):

Why Is The Chamber Of Commerce Attacking Social Security?

     Jamelle Bouie writing for the Washington Post asks why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has rededicated itself to a campaign to slash Social Security. Bouie notes that the Chamber's executive director for government affairs recently gave a speech about Social Security that was filled with overstatements and inaccuracies, a speech that seemed lifted from Republican campaign rhetoric. 

     The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has never been a liberal organization but the question is why it wants to attack Social Security. Why not just stick to the knitting -- issues that directly affect business interests?

I Don't Know What To Make Of This

     Below is a table from the Social Security Administration's monthly International Update. The Update deals, in part, with changes made in early retirement programs. I don't think that differences in social insurance programs can explain these dramatic differences between countries or that changes in social insurance programs explain the differences over time in individual countries. I don't know what to make of a lot of this. For example, why the dramatic differences between Spain and Portugal for those aged 65-69? In any case, the Update notes that many European countries are raising the minimum age for early retirement under their social insurance programs and that they are generally encouraging older workers to stay in the workforce, or, perhaps, more accurately, punishing those who don't.

Table 1. Older workers in the labor force in selected European Union countries, as a percentage of their age group, 2001 and 2011

Country	Aged 55–64		Aged 65–69
	2001	2011	2001	2011
Belgium	25.2	38.7	2.4	3.5
Czech Republic	37.1	47.6	7.6	9.3
Denmark	56.5	59.5	12.2	13.5
Finland	45.9	57.0	5.3	11.8
France	30.7	41.4	2.1	5.3
Germany	37.9	59.9	5.4	10.1
Greece	38.0	39.4	10.3	8.6
Ireland	46.9	50.8	14.8	16.8
Netherlands	37.3	56.1	5.6	11.4
Poland	29.0	36.9	10.8	9.4
Portugal	50.2	47.9	27.8	21.9
Spain	39.2	44.5	3.9	4.5
SOURCE: "Older Workers Scorecard, 2001, 2005, and 2011," OECD, 2011.

Problems With MySocialSecurity

     From the testimony of Theresa Gruber, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration to the Senate Special Committee on Aging:

In May 2013, we added key measures to combat fraud through our on line MySocialSecurity portal. For example, we have added unique and stringent fraud protection tools to our online registration and authentication technology. Because of these changes, we have seen a significant drop in the volume of successful MySocialSecurity registrations - indicating we may be preventing some fraudulent accounts from being established. We also established an executive-level workgroup tasked to identify additional fraud deterrent measures to explore and implement, including items recommended by OIG. We will be implementing several of these real-time fraud prevention measures by the end of the year. In August 2013, we will eliminate the ability change payment information via the internet for users who have a block in place.

     Some things to note here. At the moment, putting a block on one's online MySocialSecurity "portal" doesn't prevent some stranger from using one's online MySocialSecurity "portal" to divert your Social Security benefits to a bank account they control. Are you kidding me? What does a "block" mean if it doesn't block this? Why is Social Security even pretending that a "block" is of some use when they know it is worthless and they don't have a plan to change this situation for at least another couple of months? Second, now that Social Security has implemented new fraud prevention measures, they've seen a significant drop in online registrations. This indicates one of two things: either fraudulent registrations were a significant part of all registrations or a significant number of those who want to establish an account for genuine reasons are being thwarted by the new security measures. Either way, this isn't good news.

Threatening To Rape Little Girls Isn't Cool

     From WOOD-TV:

A Battle Creek man may spend up to five years in prison after threatening to "rape little girls" in a message to the Social Security Administration. 

In December 2012, Timothy Burgess sent a message via the Internet to the Social Security Administration office in Maryland, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. 

In the message, he said he wanted more money. He threatened to rape and implied he may murder "little girls" if his demands were not met.

What Happens If DOMA Is Found Unconstitutional?

    The Supreme Court is likely to hand down its opinion on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) next week. DOMA forbids the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages even though some states recognize them. Many observers expect that DOMA will be found unconstitutional. This would not take care of the same sex marriage issue for Social Security, however.  The Social Security Act says that the determination of whether a person is married is based upon the law of the state in which he or she is domiciled, or was domiciled as of the date of the person's death. 

     What if two men or two women marry in New York or some other state that recognizes same sex marriage and one party to the marriage later starts to draw Social Security benefits based upon that marriage but the couple then moves to North Carolina, one of the many states that refuse to recognize same sex marriages within their borders, even if the marriage took place in another state? Does that mean that the spouse who was eligible for Social Security benefits while living in New York is suddenly ineligible because he or she has moved to North Carolina? That would be a weird result and hard for Social Security to implement. There is certainly an argument that North Carolina has a constitutional duty to give "full faith and credit" to the marriage that took place in New York but that issue isn't before the Supreme Court at the moment and won't be for at least another year. So what can Social Security do now? Let's look at the Social Security Act itself. In addition to providing that in determining marital status Social Security must look to state law in the state in which the claimant is living, 42 U.S.C. §416(h)(1)(B) provides that:

In any case where under [state law a person is not married] but it is established to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Social Security that such applicant in good faith went through a marriage ceremony with such individual resulting in a purported marriage between them which, but for a legal impediment not known to the applicant at the time of such ceremony, would have been a valid marriage, then ... such purported marriage shall be deemed to be a valid marriage.

     Doesn't that apply here? The parties to this same sex marriage went through their marriage ceremony in New York in good faith. It was no "purported" marriage to them or to the state of New York. The only legal impediment is one that arose after the marriage when the parties moved to North Carolina. Shouldn't the marriage be deemed to be a valid marriage even after the couple move to North Carolina? That's no slim reed. It's a strong argument based upon the plain language of the statute, one that I'd be happy to litigate. This interpretation avoids the ridiculous outcome of a person being eligible for Social Security benefits in one state but ineligible if he or she moves to another state. This doesn't force same sex marriage on states that don't want it. They're free to ignore them. This just allows for a uniform application of the Social Security Act across the country.
    The problem with the "deemed marriage" provision is that it doesn't help the Obama Administration deal with the issue in other settings, such as veteran's benefits (update: the concept of deemed marriage does exist to some extent in veterans benefits law, 38 C.F.R. §3.52) and federal employee benefits. It's possible that the Obama Administration will decide that if DOMA is unconstitutional that state laws that refuse to recognize same sex marriages contracted in other states are unconstitutional and refuse to apply them. The President felt that he was obliged to apply DOMA (but not defend it in court) even though he believed it unconstitutional but DOMA was federal law. The President swore an oath to uphold federal law. He never swore an oath to abide by state laws that he regards as unconstitutional.
     We'll see what the Supreme Court does and what the White House does thereafter but my bet is that if DOMA is found unconstitutional, one way or another Social Security will start recognizing same sex marriages that were valid at the time the parties entered into them regardless of where the parties move thereafter.