Christmas Eve

Americans Aren't Prepared Financially For Retirement And The Problem Is Getting Worse

     From the abstract of a study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

The National Retirement Risk Index (NRRI) measures the share of working-age American households “at risk” of being unable to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living in retirement. ... As of 2010, the NRRI showed that, even if households worked to age 65 and annuitized all their financial assets (including the receipts from reverse mortgages on their homes), 53 percent of American households were at risk.

     By the way, the study shows that the problem has been getting worse.

Merry Christmas

Change In ALJ Position Description

     I could use a link but I've been told that the position description (PD) for Social Security's Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) has changed. The new PD emphasizes increased supervision and management by the Social Security Administration.  There is a new emphasis on compliance with Social Security's procedures, regulations, rulings, and policies and on timely processing of cases.

     For those of you on the inside, what does this mean in practical terms? Has the agency explicitly told ALJs that their job has changed?

Merry Christmas!

Republicans Willing To Accept Higher Social Security Benefits?

     Steven Rosenfeld at Salon finds it remarkable that at the Senate Finance Committee hearing last week on "America's retirement crisis" none of the Republicans felt that Social Security benefits couldn't be increased, at least for the poorest Americans. 

     I have to point out that Republicans are cutting food stamps and cutting large numbers of people off unemployment benefits this Christmas season, hardly a sign that they have grown a heart. Andrew Biggs, who testified at the behest of the Republicans at the hearing, was willing to accept higher Social Security benefits for the poor only at the cost of means testing Social Security benefits, the long standing dream of Republicans to explicitly turn Social Security into a "welfare" program that they can hate more openly.

     I think that running on a plan to increase Social Security benefits would be a winner for Democrats in 2014 and 2016 but I'm sorry to say that don't see that sort of audacity in the Democratic party. I hope I'm wrong.

Merry Christmas

Has Washington Finally Woken Up To The Real Meaning Of Social Security?

     Josh Rosenbaum at AARP asks "Has Washington Finally Woken Up to the Real Meaning of Social Security?" I'd say that the answer is "no." Democrats didn't just awaken to the importance of Social Security. It's always been crucial to them. Republicans have  also taken Social Security very seriously all along. They've wanted to find a way to kill it but have almost always realized that it's an impossible dream. George W. Bush and a few other Republicans have occasionally had delusions of grandeur and tried to find a way to privatize or otherwise cut Social Security but they are always punished for their foolishness. There are plenty of pundits and think tank denizens in D.C. who think that it's mandatory that Social Security be cut. Serious People in Washington take them seriously but no one else does. The Serious People in Washington sometimes forget that we live in a more or less democratic country and that cutting Social Security is wildly unpopular everywhere other than D.C. It's hard for them to believe but the Serious People in Washington don't really matter, even in Washington.