Congressional Opposition To No-Match Letters

     From a press release:

Today, Ways & Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA), Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John B. Larson (D-CT), and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman John Lewis (D-GA) sent a letter to Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner Andrew M. Saul stating their opposition to SSA’s resumption of sending “no-match” letters. Specifically, the members cite their concerns that the letters may lead to the firing of U.S. citizens and work-authorized immigrants, that they may result in the unauthorized sharing of tax data, and that they are a poor use of SSA’s scarce resources. 

SSA started sending these no-match letters (also known as Educational Correspondence (EDCOR) and Employer Correction Request letters) earlier this year to employers who have a W-2 employee name or Social Security number that does not match SSA’s records. This discrepancy may occur for a variety of reasons, including typographical errors, misspellings of complex names, name changes due to marriage or divorce, or with respect to undocumented workers. 

SSA had not sent these letters for years because they have been shown to be wholly ineffective in correcting wage records and not a cost-effective use of the agency’s limited resources. Moreover, SSA is prohibited by law from using its funds for any purpose other than administering Social Security, such as immigration enforcement. ...

Social Security 2100 Act Moves Forward

     John Larson, the Chair of the House Social Security Subcommittee, has been pushing the Social Security 2100 Act. Now comes word that he's planning a hearing on the bill next month and a markup in September. This doesn't guarantee that the bill will proceed to markup before the full Ways and Means Committee much less that it will get a vote on the House floor but it's a sign that the bill is moving forward. Of course, the bill won't get a vote in the Senate in this Congress. This is about setting the stage for what happens after the 2020 election if Democrats control both Houses of Congress plus the White House. Of course, that's a big "if" but this bill would be hugely important if that "if" comes to pass.

      Here are the major provisions of the Social Security 2100 Act:

• Benefit bump for current and new beneficiaries – Provides an increase for all beneficiaries that is the equivalent of 2% of the average benefit. The United States faces a retirement crisis and a modest boost in Social Security benefits strengthens the one leg of the retirement system that that is universal and the most reliable. [Sec. 101]

• Protection against inflation – Improves the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) formula to better reflect the costs incurred by seniors through adopting a CPI-E formula.  This provision will help seniors who spend a greater portion of their income on health care and other necessities.  Improved inflation protection will especially help older retirees and widows who are more likely to rely on Social Security benefits as they age.  [Sec. 102]

• Protect low income workers – No one who paid into the system over a lifetime should retire into poverty.  The new minimum benefit will be set at 25% above the poverty line and would be tied to wage levels to ensure that the minimum benefit does not fall behind.  [Sec. 103]

• Cut taxes for beneficiaries – Over 12 million Social Security recipients would see a tax cut[ii].  Presently, your Social Security benefits are taxed if you have non-Social Security income exceeding $25,000 for an individual or $32,000 for couples.  This would raise that threshold to $50,000 and $100,000 respectively. [Sec. 104]

• Holding SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP Beneficiaries Harmless – Ensures that any increase in benefits from the bill do not result in a reduction in SSI benefits or loss of eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP. [Sec. 105]
• Have millionaires and billionaires pay the same rate as everyone else – Presently, payroll taxes are not collected on wages over $132,900. This legislation would apply the payroll tax to wages above $400,000.  This provision would only affect the top 0.4% of wage earners. [Sec. 201, 202]

• 50 cents per week to keep the system solvent – Gradually phase in an increase in the contribution rate beginning in 2020 so that by 2043, workers and employers would pay 7.4% instead of 6.2% today. For the average worker this would mean paying an additional 50 cents per week every year to keep the system solvent. [Sec. 203]

• Social Security Trust Fund Established – Social Security provides all-in-one retirement, survivor, and disability benefits funded through the dedicated FICA contribution paid by workers. There are technically two trust funds, Old-Age and Survivors (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI), and that are usually referred to as the Social Security Trust Fund. This provision combines the OASI & DI trust funds into one Social Security Trust Fund, to ensure that all benefits will be paid.  [Sec. 204]

SSA And Its Employee Unions

     Tom Temin has written a piece for Federal News Network on Social Security's problems with its employee unions. The latest is that the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ), which is a union, has declared that their negotiations with Social Security are at an impasse.

     This is not just an in-house matter. I'm not sure how many fans the AALJ has in Congress but the much larger American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents most Social Security employees, has friends in high places in the House of Representatives.

Andrew Saul's Docket

     We have heard little from Andrew Saul since he was sworn in as Commissioner of Social Security. Below are some of the decisions he'll have to make in coming months in addition to the obvious staffing decisions he must make. I'm sure there are other items on his plate, particularly in Informational Technology, but I'm not familiar enough with those to write about them.

What To Do About Hicks v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Social Security twisted its rules to cut off benefits for as many of Eric Conn's former clients as possible. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the agency on November 21, 2018. Ever since then the Solicitor General and Social Security have been "considering" whether to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. I doubt that they are seriously considering that. I think they've just been stalling until a new Commissioner was confirmed because it's hard to decide how to implement the decision of the Court of Appeals.  They can't stall much longer.

What To Do About Cases Pending At The Appeals Council Which Were Decided Prior To Lucia v. SEC And An Objection Has Been Made To ALJ

• The Supreme Court decided last year that Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) as then appointed were unconstitutional. Social Security changed the way ALJs were appointed to adjust to this decision but there are thousands of cases still pending at the Appeals Council that were heard before the Lucia opinion. The agency has suggested that they want to avoid remanding all these cases for new hearings with different ALJs by having the Appeals Council issue new decisions on its own. This is arguably illegal and probably impractical. A decision on this can't be delayed much longer.

Proposed Regulation That Has Been Published For Comments And Can Now Be Made Final

• Removing inability to communicate in English as a factor in determining disability. Anti-immigrant proposals are very popular with Republicans these days but Saul will poison his relationship with Congressional Democrats if he goes ahead with this one and they have the power to make his life difficult.

Proposed Regulations That Have Not Yet Been Published For Comments

• Considering social media in determining disability. Unpopular with many in Congress, including Republicans.
• Revising evaluation of vocational factors in determining disability (probably increasing age categories in grid regulations). Go ahead with this one and you've made a declaration of war on Congressional Democrats.
• Hearings held by Administrative Appeals Judges. Nobody knows exactly what this one is but if it's what I think it is -- trying to get rid of independent ALJs -- it's going to be unpopular with all Democrats and many Republicans in Congress.

Stance On Employee Unions

• The Trump Administration has taken an extremely aggressive and antagonistic stance on federal employee unions. Social Security has followed suit. Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee are already pressuring Saul to soften Social Security's approach. Will he be a loyal Republican and continue the harsh anti-union stance or does he modify it to avoid conflict with Congressional Democrats who can make his life difficult? His message to agency staff suggests that he'll soften the anti-union stance.

Process For Appointing New ALJs

• The old process for appointing ALJs was found unconstitutional. What will the new process be?

Fee Cap 

• This one may be wishful thinking on my part. The cap on fees that may be charged for representing Social Security claimants hasn't been raised since February 9, 2009. By any normal standard it's way past time to increase it. However, I'm not sure that the organizations that represent those who represent claimants have been able to generate any real pressure to increase the cap.

This Isn't Something To Crow About

     Congresswoman Susan Wild, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, is taking credit for a $300 million increase in Social Security's appropriation included in the House of Representatives bill. 

     While the Congresswoman's efforts are appreciated, the $300 million isn't enough to keep up with inflation much less to improve service and almost certainly the Congresswoman had nothing to do with it. She's in her first term in the House of Representatives and is not on the Appropriations Committee.

Evidence To Support The Discouragement Theory

     Back in April I posted a longer piece speculating on the reasons behind the declining number of Social Security disability claims being filed. I'm sure that we can't credit any reduction in unemployment for what is going on at the moment. The number of disability claims is continuing to decline even though there's been little or no decline in the unemployment rate in the last two years. What is causing the decline isn't clear.

     I ended the piece by speculating that at least some of the decline may be due to declining service at Social Security discouraging claimants from applying. I admitted that I had no evidence to support this theory. However, I had forgotten about a study that does support this theory. About two years ago I had posted about a study done by a couple of researchers about what happens to the number of disability claims filed when Social Security closes a field office. They found that the number of claims declined because people with lower education levels and lower earnings were discouraged from applying. The effect they found, 11%, was significant and the effect persisted.

     Social Security hasn't closed that many offices. What's happened is that service has declined at the offices which are still open. It's harder to get through to Social Security over the telephone. Your wait time if you visit in person is longer. People get discouraged and give up.

     This issue merits more study but I think the discouragement theory looks like a major factor in the decline in the number of disability claims.

Social Security Online System Vulnerable

     From ZDNet:

The 2017 Equifax security breach has thrown a wrench in the process used by US government agencies to verify the identity of US citizens applying for various benefits via its online portals.

This process, called online identity verification or remote identity proofing, relied on data provided by credit reporting agencies (CRAs) like Equifax, as a proof of the applicant's identity. ... 

In 2017, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reacted to this hack by issuing guidance to government agencies, with recommendations on replacing the CRA-based online identity proofing with other solutions like sending an SMS to a user's phone, or having the user send/upload a scan of a physical ID to the government agency, as a proof of identity. ... 

But a report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), a bi-partisan government agency that provides auditing, evaluation, and investigative services for Congress, has found that only two of six of the government agencies they tested had followed the NIST guidance. 

GAO found that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the US Postal Service (USPS), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) were still relying on the old CRA databases for online identity verification. ... 

The agencies who were part of the GAO inquiry said that one of the reasons they haven't migrated to a new system yet, as per the NIST guidance, is because of "high costs and implementation challenges for certain segments of the public," which the agencies fear might prevent certain US citizens from being able to use their online portals. ... 

The Social Security Administration (SSA) and the United States Postal Service (USPS) intend to reduce or eliminate their use of knowledge-based verification some time in the future but do not yet have specific plans for doing so. ..

Smaller COLA This Year?

     The Motley Fool says to expect a smaller cost of living adjustment this year.