What Clued You In That There Might Be A Problem?

     From the Herald-News:

A Klamath Falls man is facing federal charges for cashing more than $458,000 worth of social security checks issued in the name of his deceased aunt.

George Doumar, 76, has been charged with theft of public funds and mail theft.

According to court documents, in February 2020 the Social Security Administration identified a 114-year-old supercentenarian who appeared to be the second-oldest living person in the U.S. receiving Social Security retirement benefits.

SSA systems indicated that no updates had been made to the person’s benefit record in more than 30 years, leading staff to believe that the person may be deceased. ...

     The might also want to take a look at the oldest supposedly living person receiving Social Security benefits; maybe the top 10 or even 100.

 

Happy 85th Birthday!

OHO Receipts Down 17% From 1st Quarter to 2d Quarter Of 2020

      This was obtained from Social Security by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) and published in its newsletter, which is not available online to non-members. It is basic operating statistics for Social Security's Office of Hearings Operations. Click on the image to view full size.

More Tension Between SSA Management And ALJ Union

      From Government Executive:

The Association of Administrative Law Judges accused the Social Security Administration of breaking federal labor law when it implemented a partial union contract on Monday.

Union representatives said that the agency’s move flies in the face of the ground rules the parties reached earlier in the negotiation process, and that a decision by management to unilaterally rewrite one provision to implement a new rule on how it will withhold union dues is flatly illegal.

Negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement between Social Security and the administrative law judges date back over a year. During discussions last year, the parties reached agreement on 20 of 29 proposed contract articles, but went to impasse over the final nine. The Federal Service Impasses Panel issued a largely pro-management decision in April, prompting the union to sue the panel, arguing that the manner in which members were appointed violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

In April, the agency indicated that it would implement a partial contract, arguing that provisions decided by the impasses panel are not subject to ratification. But it relented and indicated it would delay implementation pending the lawsuit after the Federal Labor Relations Authority took the rare step to stay the panel’s order. ...

But not even the impasses panel agrees with Social Security’s claim that panel orders are not subject to ratification. Last year, the panel removed language from a contract proposal offered by the Defense Department Education Activity in its dispute with the Federal Education Association seeking to exempt panel-imposed articles from the ratification process. ...

     This happened on Monday. Note that also on Monday, Social Security requested OMB approval for proposed final regulations to substitute Appeals Council Judges for ALJs. These two events might be connected.

Regs On AAJ Hearings Advance

      Yesterday, the Social Security Administration sent over to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed final regulations on Hearings Held by Administrative Appeals Judges of the Appeals Council. If approved by OMB, these will be published in the Federal Register and go into effect.

     Under the Congressional Review Act, the incoming Congress could overturn these regulations by a simple majority vote in each House of Congress. In the alternative, should Joe Biden become President, his Administration could refuse to implement the regulations and go through the longer process to undo them administratively.

Work Is Changing -- More Cognitive Demands For Low-Skill Jobs Which Remain Just As Physically Demanding

     From The Changing Nature of Work by Italo Lopez-Garcia (RAND Corporation),Nicole Maestas (Harvard Medical School and NBER), and Kathleen Mullen (RAND Corporation):

... [F]rom 2003-2018, cognitive job demands increased from an average level of 2.63 to 2.90 (+9.3 percent), psychomotor demands decreased from 1.75 to 1.59 (-9.1 percent), physical demands decreased from 1.37 to 1.18 (-13.8 percent) and sensory demands increased from 1.72 to 1.88 (+8.5 percent). .

The increase in cognitive job demands ... is mostly concentrated among low-skill jobs, or those prevalent among individuals with less than a college degree. In contrast, the decrease in physical job demands is concentrated among high-skill jobs, or those prevalent among individuals with at least a college degree. These results suggest low-education workers have been penalized as their jobs have become more cognitively demanding without any alleviation of the physical burden of performing these jobs. ...

     Like I've been saying, it's nuts to talk about increasing the age categories in the grid regulations. It's become harder for individuals with low educational levels who have exertional limitations to find jobs they can do. What had been low skill jobs have remained just as strenuous while becoming more skilled. It's the high skill jobs that have become physically easier, not low skill jobs.

     In all likelihood, this is why Social Security keeps delaying introduction of a new occupational information system. They can't find a way to massage the data to come up with unskilled sedentary jobs. Their should be an Inspector General investigation of why Social Security's occupational information system keeps getting delayed.

Biden Attacks Trump's Attempt To Defer F.I.C.A.

      From the Tampa Bay Times:

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has a new message for Florida seniors: President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to fix the economic crisis could put their retirement at risk.

In a new ad that will air exclusively in the Sunshine State, Biden’s campaign accuses Trump of stealing from Social Security to pay for a new round of coronavirus relief. ...

The Biden ad equated Trump’s proposal [to defer F.I.C.A. for three months] to “slashing hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund every year.” ...

What Would You Prefer?

      The President announced that he would defer collection of the F.I.C.A. tax that supports Social Security between September and December of this year.  Note that the President only announced that the tax would be deferred. It would all still be due in January. It is not within a President’s power to cancel it. In fact, it’s not really within his power to defer it. 

     The employee’s part of that tax is 7.65% of gross payroll. If the President’s plan goes forward, employees will find themselves owing 30.6% of their gross paycheck in payroll taxes in January in addition to income tax withholding.

     So, let me ask you. Would you rather pay your F.I.C.A. month by month or would you rather have no F.I.C.A. tax for three months followed by a large balloon payment that eats up a huge portion of your salary, after the election, in January?

     And it's not just employees who may find this tax deferral of questionable utility. The vice president for government affairs of ADP says that deferring the F.I.C.A. tax requires "a little bit of a leap of faith on an employer’s part." You may well ask who is ADP? It's a corporation. They process payroll for 40 million workers and 800,000 businesses. If ADP doesn't defer F.I.C.A., there probably will be little deferring of F.I.C.A.