Despite Budget Deal We're Not Out Of The Woods Yet

     The budget deal that you heard about yesterday isn't exactly what you might think it is. The process is supposed to work like this. First a budget is passed. The budget merely sets top line numbers for the total amount to be spent and for each separate appropriations bill. It's the actual appropriations bills that give agencies money to spend. Budget summaries often say how much individual agencies are to get but these summaries are merely recommendations.

     Passing appropriations bills is tough in this political environment. Social Security's appropriation, or Limitation on Administrative Expenditures (LAE) as it's officially known, is part of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. The Labor-HHS appropriations bill is always the most contentious of the appropriations bills, particularly now since Republicans are still trying to find a way to use the appropriations process to hobble the Affordable Care Act. If the hobbling can be done, it would be done through the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

     Passage of the budget deal announced yesterday is itself no slam dunk. House Democrats had earlier said they would not vote for the deal unless it included an extension for Unemployment Insurance benefits set to expire this month and this deal doesn't do that. Some Republican members of the House had announced that they would not vote for the deal because they thought that the budget was set too high. If all of the House Democrats and all the dissenting Republicans vote against this budget bill, it will fail in the House of Representatives and we're back to square one.

     Despite the budget deal announced yesterday, there's a real risk of a government shutdown in January either because the budget deal itself can't be passed or because appropriations bills can't be passed.

   

The Death Master File Again

      Even though budget bill announced yesterday is supposed to deal just with top line numbers, budget bills  often contain extraneous items. The agreement announced yesterday contains an extraneous item affecting Social Security. From the press release on the budget deal:

Restriction on access to the Death Master File 

This provision creates a program under which the Secretary of Commerce restricts access to information contained on the Death Master File (a list of deceased individuals and their Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and dates of death, maintained by the Social Security Administration) for a three-year period beginning on the date of an individual’s death — except to persons who are certified under the program to access such information sooner. A penalty of $1,000 is imposed for each improper disclosure or misuse of information obtained from the DMF, up to a maximum of $250,000 per person per calendar year. The Secretary is required to establish and collect user fees sufficient to recover all costs associated with the certification program.

     The Death Master File (DMF) sounds deadly boring but it's important. Benefit payments to dead people make for bad publicity for the Social Security Administration. That's why the DMF exists. However, the DMF isn't completely accurate. Some people get listed as dead when they're alive. It's a small percentage but it still amounts to a lot of people because the DMF is so large. It's bad enough that their Social Security payments are halted but what's worse is that financial institutions and other government agencies have been able to get access to the DMF and they have been freezing financial accounts and non-Social Security government payments of the supposedly dead people. Often these people have not been receiving Social Security benefits and have no idea that an error in the DMF is the reason that financial institutions and government agencies are freezing their accounts. They have no idea where to turn to prove that they are alive. Even after they have convinced Social Security that they are alive, they are at risk because bad people can compare the DMF over time to look for names that have been removed from the DMF. These are people that the identity thieves will know to be alive and they will know their name, date of birth and Social Security number. Also, some identity thieves look for the names of those who died as children years ago. They use the identities of those who died as children to apply for financial accounts which they loot. They seem to be able to do this despite the DMF. The relatives of those who died as children find this deeply unsettling.

     On the other hand, financial institutions have a legitimate interest in freezing the accounts of those who have died. The DMF is also used to identify life insurance policy holders who have died but whose relatives have not filed claims because they were unaware of the life insurance policies. The insurance companies don't really want to do this but they're forced to do so by state insurance agencies. Billions of dollars in life insurance benefits are paid each year because of the DMF. Those involved in genealogy research scream loudly about any possible change to DMF access since it's crucial to what they do. Genealogy researchers are a stronger lobby than you might imagine.

     I have no idea why this bill would give the Secretary of Commerce some control over the DMF. I have no idea who might get certified to get access to the DMF. Just government agencies? Just federal agencies? Some financial institutions? We'll have to wait for the fine print.

Central Offices Closed By Snow

     All federal offices in the Washington, DC area, including the Social Security Administration's Central Offices, are closed today due to snow.

Central Offices Opening Two Hours Late Today

    Because of weather conditions, Social Security's central offices are opening two hours late today.

Slowdown In Processing Claimants Onto Benefits

     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 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-13	32,663	$96,690,734.65
Feb-13	35,508	$102,242,540.93
Mar-13	45,189	$130,690,281.94
Apr-13	33,178	$92,566,832.32
May-13	42,841	$122,781,135.03
June-13	33,954	$97,627,420.68
July-13	35,221	$103,494,644.97
Aug-13	46,695	$129,774,228.90
Sept-13	33,295	$93,251,401.56
Oct-13	31,811	$87,109297.64
Nov-13	35,001	$98,454,659.66

Bad Social Security Reporting

     Trudy Lieberman writes for the Columbia Journalism Review on the bad reporting on Social Security issues.

Third Way Is A Fraud

    Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times has a fine article on Senator Warren's response to a misleading Third Way op ed in the Wall Street Journal. 

     The right wing lies about Social Security are out of hand and it mostly starts with bogus front groups like "Third Way" which poses as a centrist organization but which is nothing of the sort. Its board is thoroughly dominated by Wall Street and corporate executives who want no change in current law that allows most of their high incomes to escape the FICA tax while every penny of Joe Sixpack's income is taxed.

I Agree With Cato On This One

     From a press release issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services (USCIS) division of the Department of Homeland Security:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas today announced an enhancement to the E-Verify program that will help combat identity fraud by identifying and deterring fraudulent use of Social Security numbers (SSNs) for employment eligibility verification.

This enhancement provides a critical safeguard to the E-Verify system by detecting and preventing potential fraudulent use of SSNs to gain work authorization. An employer, for example, may enter information into E-Verify that appears valid – such as a matching name, date of birth, and SSN – but was in fact stolen, borrowed or purchased from another individual. This new safeguard now enables USCIS to lock a SSN that appears to have been misused, protecting it from further potential misuse in E-Verify. ...

USCIS will use a combination of algorithms, detection reports and analysis to identify patterns of fraudulent SSN use and then lock the number in E-Verify. This will help deter and prevent fraudulent use of SSNs in the E-Verify system.

If an employee attempts to use a locked SSN, E-Verify will generate a “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (TNC). The employee receiving the TNC will have the opportunity to contest the finding at a local Social Security Administration (SSA) field office. If an SSA field officer confirms the employee’s identity correctly matches the SSN, the TNC will be converted to “Employment Authorized” status in E-Verify. Employees who successfully confirm their identities are encouraged to call USCIS so they can learn more about available resources on identity theft and fraud prevention.

    Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute is concerned about this process:

The largest and most obvious problem is the Kafkaesque bureaucratic resolution process that could catch employees in an endless loop of lockdowns. To begin with, the onus for establishing a valid ID is placed on the user of the number as opposed to USCIS having to prove that the user is fraudulent. Mere identification by a USCIS algorithm shouldn’t prevent somebody from lawfully working.

Legitimate holders of Social Security numbers that are locked down are forced to go through the standard and long TNC resolution process to unlock their numbers, which in turn involves the use of state and federal issued documents to prove the applicant’s validity.

But these documents are dependent on Social Security numbers.  Driver’s licenses in most states, passports, and most of the other forms of government issued ID use Social Security numbers to establish the bearer’s validity. In essence, the holder of a suspect Social Security number is forced to use documentation derived from a number considered suspect by USCIS in order to prove identification to USCIS.  The government has not stated how it will resolve this conundrum or even if it has considered it.