No Statute Of Limitations On Overpayments

     From the Contra Costa Times:

For Vietnam War veteran Thomas Testerman, a letter he recently received from the Defense Department was a reminder of the mistreatment his generation of soldiers faced.

Landing in his mailbox two days before Veterans Day, the letter informed him that he owes nearly $500 because of checks the Social Security Administration mistakenly sent him in 1972. If Testerman does not pay or dispute the bill, the letter stated, deductions from his monthly military retirement checks will begin just days before Christmas.

     I have posted this sort of story before. Every time I do, I get comments which say, in effect, "Death to all who defraud Social Security!"  I find this bloodthirstyness shocking. Do they really believe the government should be vengeful? I wonder if these people know that many Social Security overpayments are due to mistakes made by the Social Security Administration itself. That was almost certainly the case here as the rest of the article makes clear.
     I know this man can almost certainly get his overpayment waived but he doesn't know where to turn.
     Isn't it time for a reasonable statute of limitations on non-fraudulent Social Security overpayments? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? Thirty years?

Getting Hosed By COLA

     Danny Vinik at Business Insider argues that Social Security recipients are getting hosed by the Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) even without chained CPI. He thinks Congress should require the use of the CPI-E (with E standing for Elderly) for the COLA instead of the measure being used now, CPI-W. The CPI-E would result in significantly higher benefits for those staying on Social Security benefits for an extended period of time.

Eunuchs Who Receive Crazy Checks: A Preview Of The Debate On The Social Security Disability Trust Fund

It Looks Different From The Top

     CEOs with 1,200 times your retirement savings want to cut Social Security.

November 22, 1963

Will President Nominate New Commissioner Now That Filibuster Is Off The Table?

     The Senate has voted to end filibusters on executive branch nominations.
     The Social Security Administration has had an Acting Commissioner since February of this year. So far there has been no nomination to the position.
     The Senate's action has to make it more likely that the President will nominate a new Commissioner and that the Senate will act promptly on that nomination. For that matter, it is also more likely that the President will nominate a new Deputy Commissioner for Social Security.
     The Senate confirmation process had degenerated to the point that all of the President's nominations were being delayed for months and large numbers of them were being filibustered. Often, the filibusters had nothing to do with the qualifications of the nominee. The President was forced to be obsessive about the qualifications of nominees.
     I cannot say whether a nominee can be expected in the near future but I hope so. It is certainly less difficult for the President to make a nomination now and to expect that nominee to be confirmed within a reasonable time.
     I have wondered whether the delay at Social Security had to do with same sex marriage. There is a very big question about whether Social Security will recognize same sex marriages for claimants who live in states that refuse to recognize same sex marriages. Today's action in the Senate would prevent Republicans from filibustering a nomination over this or any other issue. Majority rule will prevail. What a concept!

Privacy At Social Security Offices

     One person writing a letter to the editor of The Post Standard in Syracuse, NY thinks there's no privacy in the Hillside Commons Social Security field office.

     I'm aware of a not dissimilar situation at the Roanoke Rapids, NC remote hearing site. The walls are so thin there that anyone in the waiting room could hear anything said in the hearing room. The solution has been to play a radio in the waiting room.

Yesterday's Oversight Hearing

     I had a chance today to listen to the recording of yesterday's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on Social Security disability while I ate lunch and did some other things. I'd like to compliment the chairman of the Subcommittee, James Lankford, and the Subcommittee members for holding a hearing without partisan rancor, a hearing directed at informing the Subcommitte members. I'm tired of listening to Congressional hearings where the members are just trying to score meaningless political points or attacking career federal employees who have done nothing wrong. It's good to see that a Congressional hearing can still be done in an appropriate manner. 

     Marianna LaConfora testified that Social Security hoped to design a new occupational information system in such a way that no changes in the agency's regulations would be required. That's exactly what I expected and exactly the problem. I don't want the agency to massage the data so that it justifies what they're already doing. Follow the data where it goes. Amend the regulations if need be. If you're wondering why an attorney who represents Social Security disability claimants would be insistent on this, it's because I'm pretty sure that the data is going to show that the cognitive demands of employment have increased significantly over the years putting claimants with low cognitive abilities at a huge disadvantage. That's a lot of my clients. Add significant health problems on top of low cognitive abilities and you've got disability in my book. The United States is not Lake Woebegone. Not all the children or adults have even average cognitive abilities. That portion of the population in the lowest 20% of cognitive abilities account for a outsized portion of the disability claims filed. All those new computer jobs that have been created in the last thirty years are useless to those with low cognitive abilities. I don't think we're doing justice to people with lower cognitive abilities now. I don't like hearing a suggestion that Social Security will try to find a way to avoid following the data which should result in more of these claims being approved.

     I did hear references during the hearing to the "truly disabled." Let me repeat a point I've made many times before. There is no gold standard for determining who is disabled, truly disabled or truly, truly disabled. There is no way to say with certainty that an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who is approving 80% of the claims he or she hears is any more or less accurate in determining disability than an Administrative Law Judge who is approving 40% of the claims. You can call an ALJ who approves 80% of the cases he or she hears an outlier if you want but it's completely inappropriate to say that that ALJ is doing anything wrong and it would be wildly inappropriate to suggest that there is anything criminal or abusive going on when an ALJ is approving 80% of the cases he or she hears. A 99% reversal rate looks fishy but not an 80% reversal rate or even a 90% reversal rate. 

     By the way, I think that almost everyone agrees that ALJs who issue huge numbers of decisions are worrisome, regardless of their reversal rate. That sort of outlier worries everyone involved in the process, not because those ALJs have done anything criminal but because there's only so many hearings you can hold and so many hearing files you can review and do justice to the interests involved. Social Security could have reined in the handful of ALJs issuing well over 1,000 decisions a year but didn't do so until recently. They should have.

     Also, just in case any Subcommittee member or staffer reads this blog, they should be aware that the proposal pending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to require attorneys representing Social Security claimants to obtain and submit all medical records on their clients is almost certainly unworkable. Scroll down and read my posts on this subject and the comments that others have posted. The proposal sounds great but I'd be very surprised to see it become a final rule.