Controversial Pay-Fors In ABLE

     Support has been growing in Congress for the ABLE Act of 2014 (H.R. 647). ABLE stands for Achieving a Better Life Experience. Under ABLE, individuals receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid could establish tax favored accounts to cover qualified expenses for medical care, housing and transportation. The accounts would not count against SSI and Medicaid resource limits. There is a chance that ABLE will become law this year.

     The ABLE bill, apart from its "pay-fors", is certainly worthy of passage. However, I would prefer that ABLE be a part of a comprehensive effort to update the income and resource provisions of SSI and Medicaid. I'm not sure about Medicaid but the SSI income and resources provisions in SSI haven't been updated since SSI became law more than 40 years ago. They are ridiculously out of date. As it stands, ABLE is primarily a bill to help the disabled children of middle class and wealthy parents. Those parents could use ABLE accounts to transfer funds to their disabled children. Those who are on SSI and Medicaid seldom have the ability on their own to accumulate assets in an ABLE account.

     The big problem with ABLE is that it would cost money and the House of Representatives is proposing "pay-fors" that would:

• Eliminate the percentage and dollar cap on the user fee that those representing Social Security claimants pay for processing direct payment of fees for representing Social Security claimants.
• End the Single Decisionmaker pilot currently used in twenty states.
• End the Reconsideration elimination pilot currently used in ten states.

     Ending the single decisionmaker and reconsideration elimination pilots would make it more difficult to be approved for disability benefits in the affected states. I don't think there is any substantive opposition to those pilots. Instead of eliminating them, they should be extended to all states. Why should ABLE be used to help middle class and wealthy families at the expense of disability claimants generally?

     Eliminating the percentage and dollar caps on the user fee is a big deal. Already, attorneys and others pay hefty fees to Social Security for the processing of their fees. This would increase those fees to preposterous levels that bear no relationship to Social Security's actual costs. Why would it cost Social Security almost $400 to compute 25% of a claimant's back benefits and authorize a direct deposit?
     I will write more about this later but those who represent Social Security claimants are already under considerable economic stress. Although no statistics have been released, it seems clear to me that fewer claimants are represented now than was the case a few years ago. Representing Social Security claimants is a high overhead, low profit margin business. Reducing the gross income of those who represent Social Security claimants by, perhaps 5%, would reduce their net income by a much higher percentage. Should ABLE be adopted with the elimination of the user fee caps, I expect a downward spiral of Social Security representation. At some point, it's just not worth it any more and we're rapidly approaching that point even without this proposal.
     The "pay-for" in the current House proposal will undoubtedly generate some opposition in the Senate which would endanger ABLE. As difficult as it is to pass any legislation in Washington, I would have thought that House Republicans would have tried harder to find less controversial "pay-fors" assuming they really want to pass ABLE. There aren't many legislative days left in this Congress. It may not take much of a dispute to kill ABLE in this Congress.

Three Confirmed To SSAB

     From The Hill:

The Senate voted Monday to clear three nominations to the Social Security Advisory Board.

Henry Aaron’s nomination was confirmed on a 54-43 vote. Shortly after, the Senate approved the nominations of Alan Cohen and Lanhee Chen by voice-votes. ...

President Obama is expected to make Aaron chairman of the board.

      Aaron was nominated to the SSAB in 2011. That's how long it took to get his noncontroversial nomination through the Senate.
     Chen was a campaign aide to Mitt Romney. He referred to President Obama's plans for Social Security as "laughable." Aaron and Cohen have a history of avoiding partisanship.

But Our Customer Satisfaction Ratings Are About 80%

     From the Baltimore Sun:

Hiring by Maryland's largest employer — the federal government — has fallen by more than 40 percent nationally over four years, and the state's job market is feeling the pain. ...

One agency that has taken an especially hard hit is the Social Security Administration, headquartered in Woodlawn. New hires in Maryland fell from 1,507 in 2009 to 117 in 2013. Employment at the agency in Maryland has dropped from 12,744 in 2010 to 10,769 this year. ...

Withold Skwierczynski, president of the American Federation of Government Employees' council for employees of Social Security field offices, said attrition has led to shorter office hours and longer waits for people seeking services. "The public is getting very frustrated and angry because of the diminishment of service, and people take it out on our employees," he said. "We're really producing a shoddy product. It's not the Social Security of old." ...

Nicole Tiggemann, a spokeswoman for Social Security, said service has not deteriorated. She pointed to customer satisfaction ratings in which the agency consistently scores about 80 percent...

     Why, why, why would Social Security try to downplay its service delivery problem? That's how the Department of Veterans Affairs got in such trouble. Is denial just a conditioned reflex in the public affairs office?

Three Former Social Security Employees Charged

     From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Five women, including three former Social Security Administration employees, have been arrested in connection with what prosecutors are calling a “complex welfare, childcare and medical benefits scheme,” the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office announced Friday. 

Investigators said Sakeenah Belle, 31, Chanae Thomas, 31, Felicia Fernandez, 30, Shonda Wayman, 30, and Abigail Millian, 38, received SNAP, subsidized childcare and medical assistance benefits totaling more than $76,000 between 2009 and early 2013. ... 

Prosecutors said the Social Security Administration received a complaint March 6, 2012 alleging Belle was using the computer and hard drive assigned to her by the SSA to create bogus Leave and Earnings Statements for herself and the four other women. 

The women allegedly used the fictitious statements to gain eligibility or to remain eligible for the welfare benefits.

Social Security Sets Up Message Board For Comments On Open Data Project

     Social Security has established a message board to allow the public to offer its opinions on the agency's Open Data project which has been mandated by the White House. A number of data sets have been made available to the public as part of this project.

Social Security's Service To The Public Poll

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

"Dumb Ass Stupid Management"

     Alan Weiss believes his local Social Security field office has "dumb ass stupid management."

Big Dual Benefit Overpayment Problem

     A recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that "Of the 50 sample Title II beneficiaries who were receiving benefits on 2 Social Security records, we determined that SSA incorrectly paid 29 (58 percent) beneficiaries full benefits on both records." 

     Let me give an example of how this happens. A woman goes on Social Security disability benefits at age 50. A couple of years later, her husband dies. She files a claim for Disabled Widows benefits. What's supposed to happen is that the widows benefit is reduced by the amount of benefits she's already receiving on her own account. The OIG report, which is based on a fairly small sample, suggests that more than half the time, Social Security is paying the full widows benefit. That would quickly cause a large overpayment. There are many, many cases along these lines.

     OIG estimated that there were over $6 million in potentially recoverable overpayments in just the 29 cases identified in their small sample, over $200,000 per case, and that there were more overpayments that would not be potentially recoverable.

     You can look at this report and say that Social Security is run by a bunch of incompetents. Maybe. What I see here is a demonstration of how completely inadequate Social Security's data system is. Why didn't the computers stop these overpayments before they ever happened? How can anyone think that Social Security's data systems are so wonderful that the agency can dispense with field offices?

     Note that these overpayments are entirely due to agency error. The claimants would have no idea they're being overpaid. They'll be very unhappy when they're told of the large overpayments. It's not just the Social Security trust funds that are the victim here. These claimants are victims also.
     In any case, the OIG report has identified a problem that will have to be addressed. This data system problem must be definitively resolved quickly.