In Fairness To Eric Conn

     This wouldn't excuse Eric Conn, if the allegations against him are true, but does this sound familiar?

• Non-physician disability examiner whose salary is paid by Social Security completes a residual functional capacity (RFC) form. The disability examiner knows that if the claim is denied, whether rightly or wrongly that it is unlikely to be reviewed any further but that if it's allowed, it's going to be reviewed at two different levels. If the reviewers disagree with the allowance, the case is returned to the examiner. Too many returns and the examiner's job is at risk.
• Disability examiner gives the RFC form to a physician whose salary is paid by Social Security.
• The physician receives so many completed RFC forms from disability examiners that he or she has no realistic way of actually reviewing all the medical evidence in each of the cases.
• The physician signs the RFC form after a cursory review of the medical evidence or no review.
• Under Social Security Ruling 96-6p, Social Security's Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) are required to consider the RFC forms generated in this manner because they come from "highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are experts in the evaluation of the medical issues in disability claims."

     What is described above is pretty much the norm. I don't think there's any excuse for what Conn is alleged to have done, but how different is it from what Social Security does regularly? And Social Security demands that the "medical opinions" produced in this way be carefully considered. Does Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) want to investigate? Does anyone in Congress want to hold a hearing?

Scare Tactics Work -- To Some Extent

     From a press release:

Only 31 percent of American adults believe that Social Security will still be around when they retire, according to a new survey from FindLaw.com. ...

Not surprisingly, faith in Social Security rises as people get older. Only 11 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 24 expect Social Security to still be around when they retire, But even among middle-aged people, less than one-third expect to receive Social Security checks.

18-24 yrs.	11%
25-34 yrs.	18%
35-44 yrs.	24%
45-54 yrs.	29%
55+ yrs.	64%

     This shows that right wing efforts to scare people about the future of Social Security work, to some extent, but Social Security isn't going away. It won't even be changed in any significant way.

New Condition For Raising Debt Limit: Raise Social Security Retirement Age?

     I have a hard time believing this but BuzzFeed reports that Senator Rand Paul is saying that the retirement age for Social Security should be raised and that Republicans will make this a condition for raising the debt ceiling. Paul is thought to be a candidate for President in 2016. This sounds more like a report from The Onion.

Conn's Troubles Not Playing Well In Kentucky

     The Lexington Herald-Leader is calling for the Kentucky Bar Association to take action against embattled attorney Eric Conn, arguing that the recent accusation that he colluded with a Social Security Administrative Law Judge is not the first time that Conn has been in trouble. He had already agreed to stop practicing before the Court of Veterans Appeals because of professional misconduct charge. Also, Conn was recently convicted of illegal campaign finance contributions.

     What I don't understand is why Social Security hasn't already suspended Conn from representing Social Security claimants -- if there is the substantial evidence against Conn indicated by at the Senate hearing last week. There is a process to take away Conn's ability to represent Social Security claimants. It can be done in a few months. Social Security wouldn't have to prove bribery. Even if it the bribery happened, it probably won't be proven unless one of the parties decides to confess. The charge of manufacturing physician opinions would be enough to stop Conn from representing Social Security claimants -- if it can be proven. Charges don't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Has Social Security just been slow to act? Has the evidence of manufacturing physician opinions just come forward? Is the evidence not as strong as it was made to appear at the Senate hearing?

Sequestration At Issue

     From Jonathan Karl at ABC:

Democrats are still willing to accept a short-term deal to reopen the government at sequester spending levels (the Senate, of course, passed a 6-week extension on those terms), but now that talks are centered on funding the government into 2014, they are insisting on undoing some of sequester cuts. To Republicans, this is a non-starter, unless the sequester spending cuts are replaced with cuts to entitlement programs — and that is a non-starter for Democrats.   

     Note that a likely result at this time is a short term continuing resolution that would fund the government for a few weeks leading to a threat of a later shutdown over sequestration.  A Huffington Post article quotes a Democratic aide as saying that Democrats are trying to "break the will" of Congressional Republicans so that the Republicans would have no leverage in future negotiations over sequestration.
     Social Security desperately needs to get out from under sequestration.

COLA Likely To Be 1.5%

     The Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Social Security is likely to be 1.5% this year.

Status Of The Shutdown And What It Portends For The Future

     Here are a couple of excerpts from pundits, suggesting that we're nearing a solution to the current impasse but that even though Social Security and Medicare are safe, any government benefit that older white voters perceive as going to the undeserving will continue to draw fevered opposition from the GOP:

     Jonathan Bernstein writing for the Washington Post:

Republicans do seem to be getting ready to surrender (although they seem to have only reached the stage at which they’re asking for rewards for surrendering; it may take a while longer for them to fully understand the concept). A true economic disaster may yet be avoided. But everyone should remember just how irresponsible they’ve been on this one.

     Ronald Bernstein writing for the National Journal:

Veteran Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who has studied the two parties' coalitions since the 1980s, recently conducted several focus groups with GOP voters that probed this passion. He concluded that the roaring sense of embattlement among the almost all-white tea party and evangelical Christian voters central to the GOP base draws on intertwined ideological, electoral, and racial fears. ... 

Greenberg's analysis echoes the findings of other scholars, such as Harvard sociologist Theda Skocpol, whose studies have concluded that the tea party's most ardent priority is reducing government transfer payments to those it considers undeserving....

House GOP leaders flailing for an exit strategy this week are again suggesting broad negotiations that will constrain entitlement programs such as Medicare. But our latest polling shows older and downscale whites overwhelmingly resist changes in Medicare or Social Security, which they consider benefits they have earned—and pointedly distinguish from transfer programs.

Those findings suggest that the real fight under way isn't primarily about the size of government but rather who benefits from it. The frenzied push from House Republicans to derail Obamacare, shelve immigration reform, and slash food stamps all point toward a steadily escalating confrontation between a Republican coalition revolving around older whites and a Democratic coalition anchored on the burgeoning population of younger nonwhites.

Republicans Proposing Benefits Cuts

    The Associated Press reports that House Republicans are proposing benefits cuts as a price for reopening the government. The article does not specify Social Security cuts but it's hard to imagine this proposal not including the chained CPI proposal to cut Social Security's Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLA).