A Minimum 2.5% COLA Every Year: If The UK Can Do It, Why Can’t We?

     From Forbes:

In the United States, Social Security benefits increase in line with inflation, that is the CPI-W. Presumed Democratic nominee Joe Biden, as well as others advocating for boosts for recipients, support a shift to a special (but currently experimental) windex for elderly-specific inflation. Others support a shift to the “chained-CPI” in which weightings are adjusted whenever people shift their buying patterns due to disproportionate price hikes (e.g., buying more chicken, less beef, means that the lower CPI for chicken would be more relevant than the higher CPI for beef, in a “chained” calculation). But ...  the U.S. is actually in the minority, in terms of developed countries, in adjusting its Social Security benefits solely based on inflation; other countries are likely to use wage increases or a combination of both inflation and wage increases. (Should the United States make such a change? In a perfect world, maybe — but it’s hardly practical when we’re still unable to make the necessary changes to restore the system to sustainability in the first place.) 

But the UK goes even further: its pensions increase each year by the greater of inflation, the average wage increase, or 2.5%. ...

OIG Report On Field Office Service

     In response to a request from Congressman John Larson, the Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has produced a report on Field Office Customer Service. Below are some tables and charts from that report. Click on each image to view full size.

     By the way, the transmittal letter from Gail Ennis, the Inspector General, says that "My office is committed to combating fraud, waste, and abuse in the Agency’s operations and programs." That's fine but there's no mention of customer service being part of OIG's mission even in a report on customer service. That may tell you something there about how Ms. Ennis views her office's responsibilities. Would her office ever look at customer service without being prodded to do so by Congress?

This Must Be Why There Will Be A Social Security Subcommittee Hearing Tomorrow

     John Larson, the Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, has come up with a bill that would make some modest changes in Social Security aimed at reducing inequities caused by Covid-19. He's asked Social Security's Chief Actuary to tally the costs. It's pretty much small bore stuff -- $75 billion over ten years, all to be reimbursed out of general revenues. It will certainly be going nowhere in this Congress. Who knows about the next Congress? I imagine this proposal will be the focus of tomorrow's Subcommittee hearing.

Arrests In Large Impostor Scheme

     From a press release:

The Inspector General for the Social Security Administration, Gail S. Ennis, is announcing the arraignment of two individuals in a significant Social Security imposter telephone scam case. Chaitali Dave, 36, and Mehulkumar Patel, 36, both of Lexington, South Carolina are facing Federal charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering in the Northern District of Georgia. ... This husband and wife are alleged to have retrieved over $400,000 from at least 24 victims of Social Security and tech support scam phone calls. 

According to the indictment, Patel and Dave are members of a network based in India that defrauded U.S. residents, including senior citizens, by using technical support and Social Security number scams. The scheme often involved call center employees pretending to be government officials. These scammers deceived victims by telling them their Social Security numbers were involved in criminal activity. They threatened arrest and loss of assets if the victims did not send funds via FedEx and UPS. 

Patel and Dave allegedly facilitated the scheme by collecting and transferring funds received from scam victims nationwide to those running the scam operation. Our investigation found evidence they defrauded at least 24 victims from May 2019 to January 2020, causing financial and emotional harm. ...

All Quiet On The Reopening Front

     From Federal News Network:

As several large departments make plans to reopen their offices to employees and the public during the pandemic, one agency has been relatively quiet.

The Social Security Administration, which made a series of contentious cuts to its telework program in the month leading up to the pandemic, has not called employees back to their offices en masse, nor has the agency indicated when it might do so.

Several agencies have published or distributed multi-phase reopening plans to their workforces in recent months, which describe, in varying levels of detail, how employees will gradually return to their offices and what to expect upon arrival.

Neither employees nor the unions that represent the SSA workforce have seen any kind of “reopening plan” from the agency, though they acknowledged it didn’t mean SSA doesn’t have one. ...

SSA declined to comment on its specific reopening plans, and it didn’t offer any timelines or details on how telework might fit into the agency’s future.

“We are monitoring the COVID-19 situation closely and are evaluating guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management,” an SSA spokesman said in a statement to Federal News Network. “Many of our visitors are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Our goal is to continue to serve the American public while doing what we can to reduce the risk to our employees and visitors.” ...

Status Of Litigation On SSI For Residents Of U.S. Territories

     There are two cases pending on the constitutionality of denying SSI benefits to residents of U.S. territories. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled on April 10 that SSI benefits can’t be denied to residents of Puerto Rico. It appears that the government asked that the entire First Circuit Court of Appeals rehear the Puerto Rico case en banc. The Court apparently denied the request on May 26. A couple of weeks ago a U.S. District Court judge found that it is unconstitutional to deny Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to Guam residents. That one will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

     The government has 90 days beginning with the date that the en banc motion was denied in the Puerto Rico case to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case, which is called filing a petition for a writ of certiorari, often referred to as "cert." As best I can tell, the government hasn't yet done that. They have until August 24 by my count. The Supreme Court doesn't have to grant cert. In fact, they generally don't until there are decisions from different Courts of Appeals that conflict with each other on some issue. However, the Court's rules provide that cert can be granted to settle "an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled" by the Supreme Court. Determining whether hundreds of thousands of people in Puerto Rico can get SSI seems to be an important question of federal law that needs to be settled. What's the Court going to do, wait and see if the Ninth Circuit issues a conflicting ruling on the issue and only then grant cert? What about all the people in Puerto Rico given SSI in the meantime?
     You might think that the Supreme Court, which is widely described as conservative, will uphold the denial of SSI to residents of U.S. territories but don't be so sure. To this point, every judge who has considered the matter, including two District Court judges and three judges of the Court of Appeals, have all found the prohibition to be unconstitutional. That's not the sort of record that would make me feel confident that the Supreme Court is going to find it constitutional. Not that it necessarily matters in this litigation, or should matter in any litigation, but four of the five judges who have considered the matter so far were nominated by Republican Presidents. The reactions of federal judges to Social Security cases don't break down along neat liberal-conservative lines. This isn't the sort of issue that is likely to draw an ideological response from the Federalist Society.

     Once the issue gets to the Supreme Court, who knows what effect the election might have? I expect that the Trump Administration will support the constitutionality of the prohibition of SSI to those living in U.S. territories but if Biden is elected, I'm not so sure. Historically, Solicitor Generals, who are responsible for representing the U.S. government before the Supreme Court, have felt obliged to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes, even when the Administration they represented felt otherwise. However, that policy had started to break down even before Donald Trump took office. The Trump Administration has completely abandoned any pretense of defending the constitutionality of federal statutes with which it has disagreed. Perhaps the parties to the Puerto Rico case could agree to a voluntary dismissal under Rule 46. That is possible even after the case is argued. A voluntary dismissal would leave the First Circuit opinion as the final word on the case.

    Coming up next in this series: What can be done to reduce the tidal wave of claims that could come from a Supreme Court opinion holding the residents of U.S. territories can receive SSI benefits?

Social Security Subcommittee To Hold Hearing!

     A press release:

House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John B. Larson announced today that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on “The Impact of COVID-19 on Social Security and its Beneficiaries” on Friday, July 17, 2020, at 12:00 p.m.

This hearing will take place remotely via Cisco Webex video conferencing. Members of the public may view the hearing via live webcast accessible at the Ways and Means Committee’s website. The webcast will not be available until the hearing begins.

What: Social Security Subcommittee Hearing on Examining the Impact of COVID-19 on Social Security and its Beneficiaries

When: 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 17, 2020

Where: This hearing will take place remotely via Cisco Webex video conferencing.

Watch: Livestream of the hearing can be viewed via live webcast accessible at the Ways and Means Committee’s website. The webcast will not be available until the hearing begins.

Why A Supreme Court Decision Extending SSI To U.S. Territories Matters, Regardless Of Where You Live In The U.S.

     I'll post soon about the status of the litigation on the constitutionality of the prohibition on SSI payments for residents of most U.S. territories, particularly Puerto Rico and Guam, and what may be done about the practical problems this may cause. For now, just take it from me that there's a real chance that by this time next year the Supreme Court will have held that the prohibition on payment of SSI benefits for American citizens residing in U.S. territories is unconstitutional.

     Suddenly extending SSI to all U.S. territories is a big deal even if you live in Boise or Biloxi or Boston. There are estimates that as many as 700,000 Puerto Ricans could qualify for SSI and 24,000 Guamanians could qualify. There would also be some in the smaller Virgin Islands. If this happens as a result of a Supreme Court decision, all of them will become potentially eligible all at once. They won't all file claims the next day but an avalanche of claims won't be long in coming. There are a lot of poor people in these territories.

     Social Security's resources on the ground in these territories isn't ready. The field office employees in the territories probably haven't been trained in taking SSI claims and doing SSI income and resource determinations. They're certainly not experienced. How long do you think it will take to get them up to speed with windfall offsets? The local field offices, Disability Determination Services (DDS) and hearing offices may need to more than double in size just to handle their normal workload after the huge backlog of cases is processed.

     The only way to handle this avalanche of cases will be for mainland employees to help out but how much slack have you noticed at Social Security?

     One particular problem with this possible influx of cases is language. Social Security has plenty of employees who speak Spanish for its normal workload but would there be enough to handle the avalanche of Puerto Rican cases? Guam presents the problem of people who only speak Chamorro or Tagalog.

     Speaking of Guam, they're on the other side of the International Date Line. Their time zone is 10 hours later than Eastern Time, 7 hours later than Pacific Time. I suppose that Guamanians will be encouraged to call in the evening their local time but the time zone difference is significant.

     The strains for the Social Security Administration caused by a sudden extension of SSI to U.S. territories won't just be experienced locally. If this happens, it will cause staffing shortages all over the country and there will be increased backlogs at teleservice centers, field offices, DDS offices and hearing offices all over the country.

     If this happens as a result of a Supreme Court decision the agency will not have two or three years to prepare for the onslaught. Social Security can't just do nothing about these cases until it can get an increased appropriation, rent more office space and hire and train new employees. If these claimants have a constitutional right to benefits, they have a constitutional right to the same treatment as other U.S. citizens -- and, yes, those born in these territories are U.S. citizens.

     Coming tomorrow: What's the status of the litigation over SSI for U.S. territories?