She's A Pistol And He's Tuf But Don't Mess With Vice Or Gospel Will Get You

     Nameberry (there's a website for everything) has used Social Security's list of brand new baby names to create its own list of the most outrageous baby names of 2013, with the number of children given each wacky name:

Girls

• Vanellope, 63 
• Burklee, 10 
• Pistol, 9 
• Happiness, 8 
• Pemberley, 8 
• Envie, 7 
• Prim, 7 
• Rarity, 7 
• Avaa, 6 
• Charlemagne, 6 
• Kinzington, 6 
• Prezlee, 6 
• Ransom, 5 
• Rebelle, 5 
• Sierraleone, 5 
• Siqi, 5 
• Snowy, 5 
• Temprince, 5 

Boys

• Rydder, 10 
• Jceion, 10 
• Hatch, 8 
• Tuf, 8 
• Lloyal, 7 
• Psalms, 7 
• Xzaiden, 7 
• Charger, 6 
• Forever, 6 
• Kyndle, 6 
• Power, 6 
• Warrior, 6 
• Gospel, 5 
• Kaptain, 5 
• Subaru, 5 
• Vice, 5

EEOC Criticizes Social Security

     From the Baltimore Sun:

The Social Security Administration has failed to establish an adequate process for handling discrimination claims from employees and has sparked concerns about conflicts of interest in some of those cases, according to a scathing federal report obtained Thursday by The Baltimore Sun.

Auditors at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charged with enforcing workplace discrimination laws, said the agency failed to follow regulations when handling complaints, manipulated data to boost case completion rates and created the impression that managers had intruded into what should have been impartial investigations.

Of 2,292 complaints processed over a four-year period, not one resulted in a finding of discrimination, according to the report.

"Cost Per Case"?

     I received an e-mail recently from a company offering a free "analysis" of my firm's "cost per case" during the conference of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) this week.
     The company didn't explain exactly what they meant by "cost per case." I think they were talking about the cost of advertising for cases and screening prospective new clients. The company said that the "industry average" of "cost per case" is $500-$800. They claim to be able to do it for $275-$395 per case.

     I have no idea how they could possibly compute an "industry average" since law firms aren't sharing this sort of information. Indeed, I don't think that law firms are computing this sort of thing nor could they do so on any reliable basis. If a prospective client calls my firm, we ask who referred them, but we can't rely upon their statement of how they got our name. They may say it was a former client and then not be able to give the referrer's name because they are embarrassed to be relying upon a television ad rather than a personal referral. They may say it was a television ad but they may have first heard of my firm from a former client and merely been reminded about my firm by the television ad. Much of the time, a prospective client will have heard of my firm in more than one way. It's the same for other law firms.

     Still, that company's "cost per case" number may not be that far off from what's normal these days. Those not practicing in this field may not understand the heavy expenses associated with representing Social Security claimants.  Despite what you may think if you're not involved in this field, representing Social Security claimants is a low profit margin business. Advertising is just one element of those expenses. Unfortunately, it's one element that we can't skimp on and stay in business.

From The NOSSCR Conference -- Via Tweets

     I have been tweeting like crazy from the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) this morning. You don't have to have a Twitter account to read the tweets.
     By the way, it's possible to have a Twitter account but never tweet. You can just use the twitter account to follow the tweets of those people you want to follow. That's a lot easier than going separately to the Twitter account of each individual tweeter.

Oh, Those Days When Cutting Social Security Seemed Inevitable

     From Huffington Post:

American deficit hawks gathered in the nation's capital on Wednesday to commiserate over the collapse of the U.S. austerity movement, solemnly hobnobbing with political royalty to reminisce about the days when slashing Social Security seemed all but inevitable. 

For the past five years, billionaire Peter G. Peterson's annual Fiscal Summit has been a Washington sensation, buzzing with top Obama administration policymakers, celebrity journalists and caffeinated think-tankers pitching budget plans to anyone who would listen. But the centrist scream for a Grand Bargain on taxes and spending has quieted as the budget deficit has declined and prophecies of a debt apocalypse remain unfulfilled. Interest rates on government bonds are near historic lows, and even Republicans appear to have abandoned "government spending" as a political weapon in favor of feverish Benghazi accusations.

Strengthening Social Security To Be Subject Of Senate Hearing

     The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing for May 21 on "strengthening Social Security." Stephen Goss, the agency's Chief Actuary, among others, is scheduled to testify.

Social Security "Fully Committed" To Field Office Structure

     The recent appropriations bill required the Social Security Administration to provide Congress with a report on its polities and procedures for closing and consolidating field offices. That report has now been filed. Given the ongoing study of closing all field offices, it's interesting that the report says that the agency is "fully committed -- now and in the future -- to sustaining a field office structure that provides face-to-face service..."

     It may be worth noting that the National Academy of Public Administration's website is careful to state that its study is being done "at the request of Congress."
     Closing the field offices may be popular with some members of Congress but it looks like it is an idea that many other members of Congress and Social Security Administration's own leadership oppose.

Waterfall Chart 2013 -- What Changed?

     Compare the chart above to the 2012 waterfall chart showing Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) approving 52% of the cases they reviewed and the 2011 waterfall chart showing ALJs approving 58%. Does anyone think the claims got weaker? What did cause this dramatic change in just two years?