In The Olden Days

     I was looking through some old things the other day and came across some yellowed issues of the National Senior Citizens Law Center (NSCLC) Informational Mailings. In the olden days, before so much information became available over the internet, those of us interested in Social Security issues had much less access to information. We relied upon the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) and, if we really wanted to get into the weeds, on the NSCLC Informational Mailings. Below is an issue of an Informational Mailing from 2001. Click on each page to view full size if you'd like to take a look.

How Much Disability Adjudication Costs At Each Level

     From Improving the Social Security Disability Determination Process by Jack Smalligan and Chantel Boyerns for the Urban Institute:

Click on image to view full size

     This report recommends improving the reconsideration step although it is vague on what an improved reconsideration step would look like. 

     Over the decades that I've been involved with the Social Security disability process the reconsideration stage has been remarkably stable. Apart from experiments with eliminating it, recon just hasn't changed over the years. My conclusion is that even though everyone knows recon doesn't make the system fairer, it still meets the perceived needs of Social Security policymakers by introducing an extra hurdle that reduces the number of people asking for hearings. If you're looking for any other reason for its existence or any way to improve it, you're looking in vain.

How Do You Deal With This Sort Of Thing?

     I thought I would share with you a string of notes from my firm's database on one of our clients:

05/20/19--Faxed rep pw [representative paperwork, that is the paperwork showing that the client has authorized me to represent him] to DO [District Office].

06/17/19--Recv'd 1695 [the form I send so that Social Security knows where to pay any fee the case generates] confirmation from DO.

06/20/19--TC DDS [Telephone call Disability Determination Services] and they don't have the 1696 [the form needed so that Social Security knows I'm representing the client].

07/02/19--TC DDS and they still don't have the 1696.  Faxed it to DO asking they make it available to DDS.

07/16/19--TC DDS and the 1696 isn't there.  Faxed pw again to DO.

07/19/19--TC DDS and the 1696 isn't there. Faxed pw again to DO.

07/24/19--TC DDS and no 1696.  TC Raleigh DO and was told they have the 1695 but nothing else!!! REALLY??!! Faxed and mailed hard copy.

07/26/19--Faxed copy of pw to DO.

     There's nothing unusual about this other than them saying they have the 1695 but not the 1696. I could copy the same sort of thing from the database on many other clients. This happens all the time. We waste a ton of time repeatedly sending paperwork to Social Security showing that I'm representing a particular client.
     I'm not blaming the DOs too much. They're overworked and stressed out. They prioritize. They can't get all their  work done but it keeps getting harder to deal with the agency.
     How well do you think unrepresented claimants are able to deal with an agency that offers such poor service?
    

More And More Student Loan Debt Among Social Security Recipients

     The Christian Science Monitor has a nice article on the big and growing problem of student loan debt among those receiving Social Security retirement benefits. Here's a chart from the article showing just how big a problem it is.

     Unlike other debts, student loan debts can be collected by garnisheeing Social  Security benefits.

     I don't know the entire solution but I'm sure part of it is to make tuition at public universities more reasonable and to have public universities offer more distance education. There's too much student loan debt generated by questionable for profit education enterprises. The private for profit sector does a lot of things well but I don't think education is one of them.

Raising The Minimum Wage Would Mean Higher Social Security Benefits For Many

     From MarketWatch:

More than doubling the federal minimum wage is quite the controversial proposal currently sitting in Congress, but there’s no debate about one facet of the concept: doing so would boost Americans’ retirement savings.

The House of Representatives recently passed the Raise the Wage Act, which would increase the minimum wage across the country from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2025. The bill still needs to get approved in the Senate and then by the president ...

If a single worker with a life expectancy of 90 were to earn the current minimum wage her whole life, and claimed Social Security benefits at her full retirement age, she would receive a monthly benefit of $924, compared with that same type of worker earning $15 an hour, who would receive $1,337, said Bill Meyer, chief executive officer of software firm Social Security Solutions.

But Social Security benefits can also be calculated cumulatively — that is, the total amount in one’s lifetime. Cumulatively, a worker claiming at 62 after having earned the current minimum wage his whole life would receive $294,000 (assuming a 2% cost-of-living adjustment), and $398,000 if he claimed at 70. But if a worker earned $15 an hour and claimed at 62, he would see $425,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits, and $576,000 if he claimed at 70....

They Never Give Up

     The right wing hasn't given up on privatizing Social Security. Here's a recent Wall Street Journal op ed calling for giving people the right to divert their FICA taxes into a private account, which would, of course, quickly destroy funding for Social Security benefits. At least, I think that's what this incoherent proposal amounts to. These proposals never go into details because their authors never bother to understand how Social Security works. They hate Social Security and want the government to funnel money to them.

Democratic Senators, All Of Them, Urge Difference Stance On Employee Unions

     Each of the Democratic Senators has now signed a letter urging that Andrew Saul, the new Commissioner of Social Security, end the unilateralism and return to the bargaining table to work out new contracts with employee unions. 

     The Senators have these pointed questions for Saul:

1. Did the White House. Office of Management & Budget (OMB), or any entity outside of SSA provide direction or guidance on any proposals SSA negotiators have submitted? If so, please describe the nature and source of this direction or guidance.

2. Please explain the demonstrated need for each of these proposals:
      a. setting contracts for all three unions at SSA to be for seven-year terms;
     b. requiring the unions to submit unfair labor practices (ULPs) to the agency before filing with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA);
     c. adding new requirements for information requests from the union;
     d. putting telework at the sole discretion of the agency; and
     e. limiting the ability to file grievances

3. What discretion did your negotiation team have in deviating from the seven-year contract term, the grievance proposal, or guidelines the White House, OMB, or any other entity may have issued to SSA management?

So, What's Your Plan?

     Here's a first report on today's House Social Security Subcommittee hearing on the Social Security 2100 Act. Predictably, the GOP members oppose it because it raises taxes, particularly on the wealthy, but have no plan of their own. Let's line up a GOP plan that achieves long term balance solely by cutting benefits against this bill and see which one the American people prefer.