How Much Does Motherhood Cost Women In Social Security Benefits?

     A new study by Matthew Rutledge, Alice Zulkarnain and Sara King reports that:

• The lifetime earnings of mothers with one child are 28 percent less than the earnings of childless women, all else equal, and each additional child lowers lifetime earnings by another 3 percent.
• When examining Social Security benefits, the motherhood penalty is smaller than the earnings penalty. But mothers with one child still receive 16 percent less in benefits than non-mothers, and each additional child reduces benefits by another 2 percent.
• The motherhood penalty is almost negligible among women receiving spousal benefits, but mothers who receive benefits on only their own earnings histories see significantly lower Social Security income.

Over $1 Trillion In Social Security Benefits Paid In FY 2017

     Social Security benefits paid more than one trillion dollars in fiscal year 2017. This is the first time that benefits in a fiscal year topped the $1 trillion mark. The 2017 fiscal year ended on September 30, 2017.

Can Someone Explain This One To Me?

     From an item that the Social Security Administration published in the Federal Register today:

We are republishing SSR [Social Security Ruling] 16–3p, a ruling that rescinded and superseded SSR 96–7p, with a revision detailing how we apply the SSR as it relates to the applicable date. We changed our terminology from ‘‘effective date’’ to ‘‘applicable date’’ based on guidance from the Office of the Federal Register. ...

This SSR, republished in its entirety, includes a revision to clarify that our adjudicators will apply SSR 16–3p when we make determinations and decisions on or after March 28, 2016. When a Federal court reviews our final decision in a claim, we also explain that we expect the court to review the decision using the rules that were in effect at the time we issued the decision under review. If a court remands a claim for further proceedings after the applicable date of the ruling (March 28, 2016), we will apply SSR 16–3p to the entire period in the decision we make after the court’s remand. ...

     Update: When I posted this, I expected that someone would quickly step up to explain the reason this has been published. I figured there had to be some important point that Social Security wanted to make that was just eluding me. So far, no one has stepped up to explain this. Maybe a lot of other people are mystified by this. I think it mostly has to do with federal court but I don't see how it's going to help the agency.

To Hell With The Third Way

     The Atlantic may not be an important shaper of opinion among Democrats but this piece is the most convincing of several I've read saying that a major problem for Democrats in 2016 was a perceived lack of conviction caused by listening too much to the Third Way, a group heavily supported by Wall Street interests and country club Democrats, which has counseled Democrats  to support a "centrist" way, even asking Democrats to be open to cutting Social Security. While Hillary Clinton does have convictions, she didn't campaign that way. Neither did most other Democratic candidates apart from Bernie Sanders. For his part, Trump projected conviction even though he seems to have no true convictions unless you count greed and arrogance. There are strong signs that Democratic candidates are eager to avoid repeating the mistake of standing for little.

     I write about this because aggressively supporting increases in Social Security benefits would be an excellent way for Democrats to show conviction in 2018. Whether they make it a centerpiece of their 2018 campaign or not, it's clear that if Democrats win in 2018, there's going to be a dramatically different atmosphere in Washington and that will affect Social Security. If nothing else, Democratic leaders won't be suggesting any openness to Social Security "reform" in the foreseeable future.  If you support that, you're not a Democrat. The Third Way may have money but it doesn't have votes and, in the end, votes are what matter.

Why So Little Attention To Retiree Fraud?

     I don't bother to post about it since the stories are repetitive and boring but Social Security prosecutes a number of people each year for disability benefits fraud. It's usually recipients who failed to report under the table earnings. In comparison to the number of people drawing benefits it's a small number.

     I never hear anything about another similar type of Social Security fraud, one that I'm pretty sure happens regularly. It may even happen at the same rate as that of disability recipients hiding earnings. That's early retiree fraud. We don't have a retirement earnings test for those over full retirement age, currently 66, but we do for those between 62 and 66. Retirement benefits for people in this age group are subject to reduction due to earnings. There are many, many retirees between 62 and 66. Surely, some of them are working under the table and drawing retirement benefits they're not entitled to.

     Is Social Security making any effort to root out retiree benefit fraud?  The only retirement benefit fraud I ever hear about is concealing a death and continuing to collect the decedent's benefits. That can't be the only fraud going on.

    Why all the attention to disability recipients and little or no attention to retiree benefit fraud? Why single out disability recipients?

Do Media Pieces On The Hearing Backlog At Social Security Even Matter?

 Another day, another media piece on the hearing backlog at Social Security, this one with an interview of former Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue.

Yuck!

     From WAFF in Huntsville, AL:

Bed bugs inside Huntsville's Social Security office on Research Dr. have forced it to shut down for the second time in two weeks.

Regional communications director Patti Patterson [said] a pest control company first confirmed signs of bed bugs on Oct. 11. She said it was in an isolated area in the reception area in the 13,000 square foot building.

Patterson also said that area was tested and treated, but a pest control company again confirmed signs of bed bugs in the same area on Thursday. The area is being treated and tested again. ...

Starving Social Security

     From Michael Hiltzik writing for the Los Angeles Times:

Since they’ve been unsuccessful (thus far) at cutting Social Security benefits, congressional Republicans are continuing to resort to the backdoor assault on the program by starving its administrative budget. In the latest versions of the agency’s budget under consideration in Washington, the House is planning to keep the budget at the same inadequate funding level as the current year. The ever more ambitious Senate is trying to cut it by $400 million, or nearly 4%.

To retirees, near-retirees, and disability applicants the effects aren’t invisible. They show up in deteriorating customer service at every level. ...

The sole area of long-term growth in the budget has been a separate appropriation for “integrity funding,” which essentially means ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the disability program, a favorite Congressional hobby horse. That line item has grown to about $1.7 billion (in the budget proposals of President Trump, the House, and the Senate) from an inflation-adjusted $871 million in fiscal 2010 ...

Whether that search for fraud is worth the money is hard to gauge, since the level of improper payment in Social Security disability has been estimated at less than 1%, with underpayment a bigger problem than overpayment. A far greater impact on disability applicants is the record backlog. The Social Security Administration has been struggling with that issue for nearly two decades, but has been unable to get a handle on it consistently because of Congressional budget cuts. The backlog came down sharply from fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2012, a period in which the average wait time for a disability decision fell from more than 500 days to 350 days, the first time the wait had been less than a year since 2003.

Since 2012, wait times have again climbed steeply, as a surge of applicants during the recession combined with an inability to hire disability judges and support staff. The average wait time is back up to 626 days. ...