Congressmen Want Bipartisan Social Security Commission

     From TPM:

Reps. Tom Cole (R-OK) and John Delaney (D-MD) plan to introduce a bill this Congress that would create a Social Security commission to propose changes to the program, Cole's office confirmed to TPM on Monday.

 The bill's language and timing has not been finalized, but Cole, a close ally of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Delaney co-sponsored similar legislation last year. ...

Last year's bill would have created a 13-member commission to produce recommendations to keep Social Security solvent for 75 years. If tax revenue were transferred from the retirement to the disability fund to avoid the 2016 benefits cliff for the latter program, both funds are projected to start running out of money in 2033.

One member would have been appointed by the president, and each caucus leader in Congress would have picked three members, under last year's bill. They would be tasked with issuing recommendations to Congress one year after the commission's creation. Those recommendations, if approved by nine of the commission's 13 members, would then be expedited to the House floor for a vote, with no amendments allowed.

Cole outlined to The Hill some of the proposals that he thought the commission would recommend.

“The commission would probably gradually raise retirement age, it would probably look at chained CPI, would probably look at means-testing and probably look at some sort of revenue, or reduce benefits for upper-income people,” he said. “Then you have to vote.” ...

     This just looks like Republicans looking for bipartisan cover for benefit cuts. There's no reason for Democrats to cooperate with this. Republicans are in the majority in both houses of Congress. If they're willing to vote for benefit cuts, they get them through without Democratic votes. Even the filibuster won't work for Democrats on this because it can go through the budget reconciliation process which only requires a majority vote. If Republicans are unwilling to vote for benefit cuts, why should Democrats?

CALJ Charles Boyer 1950 - 2015

     Former Social Security Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles Boyer passed away on January 20.

Reno To Become Deputy Commissioner For Retirement And Disability Policy

     The National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) announced today that its longtime Vice President for Income Security Policy, Virginia Reno, is leaving NASI to become Social Security's Deputy Commissioner for Retirement and Disability Policy. In previous testimony to the House Social Security Subcommittee she did not indicated support for cuts in Social Security disability benefits.

Social Security Headcount Gets Back To 2002 Level

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted updated figures for the number of employees at the Social Security Administration:

• September 2014 64,684
• June 2014 62,651
• March 2014 60,820
• December 2013 61,957
• September 2013 62,543
• June 2013 62,877
• March 2013 63,777
• December 2012 64,538
• September 2012 65,113
• September 2011 67,136
• December 2010 70,270
• December 2009 67,486
• September 2009 67,632
• December 2008 63,733
• September 2008 63,990
• September 2007 62,407
• September 2006 63,647
• September 2005 66,147
• September 2004 65,258
• September 2003 64,903
• September 2002 64,648
• September 2001 65,377
• September 2000 64,521

Senate Subcommittee Assignments

     The Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security has released its subcommittee assignments. The subcommittee assignments seem to be vastly less important in the Senate than in the House but here is the lineup for the relevant subcommittee:

Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy

Republicans	Democrats
Dean Heller, Nev., Chairman	Sherrod Brown, Ohio, Ranking Member
Johnny Isakson, Ga. Pat Toomey, Pa.	Charles Schumer, N.Y.
Tim Scott, S.C

Big Downturn In Senior Attorney Decisions In Recent Years

     I had recently wondered about the state of the senior attorney advisor decision program at Social Security. The newsletter of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) (which is not available online) has some numbers on senior attorney advisor decisions:

• FY 2012: 37,423
• FY 2013 18,625
• FY 2014 1,872

ALJs Lose In Court Of Appeals

     The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the lawsuit filed by the Association of Administrative Law Judges, a labor union, claiming that agency productivity guidelines interfered with ALJ independence. 

     I have always thought that the argument that encouraging greater productivity somehow forced ALJs to approve more claims was preposterous. For goodness sake, the ALJs don't write their decisions! 

     The agency has not always treated its ALJs with the respect they deserve but this lawsuit wasn't the answer. The ALJ Association would be on sounder ground if it stuck to issues like removing the decision writers from hearing offices. That's an issue where most people would agree that the agency's position is preposterous.

Skepticism Towards Recipients Of Government Assistance Clouds Judgment On Disability

     From an op ed piece in the L.A Times by Rourke O'Brien, postdoctoral fellow in population health at Harvard University:

[W]e must not let the rhetoric of fraud, abuse and “welfare queens” that accompanied the end of welfare as we know it in the 1990s frame the conversation [on the future of Social Security disability].

Americans generally are skeptical of individuals who receive government benefits, biased to think that they are undeserving. It may be our unyielding belief in everyone's ability to bootstrap his or her way to success through hard work or just the way we esteem self-sufficiency. In the context of cash welfare, research shows that this bias leads us to assume all benefit recipients are lazy. In the context of disability — where benefits are predicated on the existence of a qualifying health condition — our skepticism toward recipients of government assistance may influence the way we evaluate their health.
And new evidence suggests that it does just that.

As part of a nationally representative survey I conducted, about 1,000 individuals were asked to read several vignettes, each describing an individual with a health condition such as chronic back pain, depression or symptoms consistent with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (for children).

Respondents were then asked to rate the severity of each condition and the degree to which they considered it “disabling.” Before reading the vignettes, the respondents had been randomly assigned to either a treatment or control group. After reading instructions for the study, those in the treatment group read an additional sentence noting that
individuals with disabilities may be eligible for government benefits.

The result? Respondents primed with a reference to government assistance were less likely to consider the health conditions described as severe or disabling relative to the control group. Just hinting at the existence of government assistance was enough to change their evaluation of health conditions. What's more, in follow-up questions, respondents in the treatment group were more likely to blame the individual for her health condition. ...

In efforts to paint some of those applying for disability benefits as undeserving, we tend to question both the severity and the legitimacy of the qualifying health condition. We tell ourselves they don't deserve assistance because the condition just isn't that bad, and regardless, they are to blame for their health problems anyway.