Really On Top Of This One

      From a notice that the Social Security Administration posted in the Federal Register: 

We published notices in the Federal Register on October 28, 2019, March 2, 2020, and August 27, 2020, which announced the addresses for service of process. These documents contained the incorrect suite number in the address for the Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Region VI, Social Security Administration. We are correcting the suite number in this notice. ...

[C]orrect the address for the Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Region VI, Social Security Administration to 1301 Young Street, Ste. 350, Mailroom 104, Dallas, TX 75202–5433. ...

     To explain a little, if you sue someone you have to notify them that they've been sued. That's called "service of process." Social Security insists that you serve process on them to differing addresses depending upon where the complaint is filed.

     They published the same incorrect address three separate times over the course of ten months before somebody noticed.

Update On Trust Funds

      Normally, Social Security's Office of Chief Actuary (OCA) updates its projections of the financial health of the Social Security Trust Funds once a year in an annual Trustees Report that comes out sometime in the first half of the year.  Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the OCA has issued a special update. If I am reading this correctly -- and I don't find it to be a model of clarity -- the date upon which the combined Trust Funds will run out of money goes from 2035 to 2034. I don't see separate projections for the Retirement and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund.

     Always remember two things when considering the future of the Trust Funds. First, it's extremely unlikely that any future Congress will allow the Trust Funds to run out of money. Second, even if they do run out of money, partial benefits could still be paid out of then current revenues, perhaps something like 80% of what's supposed to be paid.

Does Social Security Need A Beneficiary Advocate Office?

     From David Weaver writing for The Hill:

Each November, the Social Security Administration (SSA) releases its Agency Financial Report. In the last several years, tucked away in the back of the report, is a discussion of “potential entitlements.” This is language the agency uses to describe situations where individuals should be receiving benefits but are not because of agency errors or because individuals are unaware of their eligibility for benefits.

An important example will illustrate.

In 2016, the agency discovered that, due to computer errors, more than 20,000 children per application year were not receiving Social Security benefits they were due (children are eligible for Social Security in the event that a parent dies or becomes disabled). Since this error was long-standing, it means, as an illustration, nearly 200,000 children in a 10-year period missed out on benefits they were legally due.

To date, SSA has still not contacted any of these families to help them receive their benefits. ...

The case of children missing out on benefits is just one example. How many other groups are out there? Quite a few. 

In its 2016 Agency Financial Report, the agency reported there were 80 categories of individuals missing out on Social Security benefits. These groups included certain widows, retirees, spouses, and children, as well as groups affected by special Social Security provisions such as some military veterans. SSA has made very little progress in helping these groups receive their benefits. ...

SSA officials need to elevate these projects to a priority level. ...

Another systemic problem is the lack of congressional oversight. ...

In addition to oversight, Congress may want to make structural changes to the Social Security Administration. One possibility is to create, within the organization, a Beneficiary Advocate office, just as the IRS has a Taxpayer Advocate. ...

Reduction In SSA Workforce During Trump Administration

 

From Government Executive

Andrew Saul's Political Contributions

      I thought I would check Andrew Saul's political contributions this year. Here's what I found (sorry about the formatting but tables are almost impossible to get right in Blogger):

THE HAWKEYE PAC

08/12/2020              $5,000.00

HAWKEYE FUND			08/12/2020	$5,000.00
CORY GARDNER FOR SENATE			02/19/2020	$550.00
CORY GARDNER FOR SENATE			02/19/2020	$2,250.00
NRSC			02/10/2020	$35,500.00

     I would caution that Saul may also have made contributions late in this political cycle that haven't yet shown up online. More important, he may have made dark money contributions that don't show up on this or any other list available to the public. 

     What's shown above is chump change for someone of Saul's wealth. Still, I would have expected a contribution directly to Trump's re-election campaign. 

     By the way, the Hawkeye PAC is associated with Senator Charles Grassley and the NRSC is the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Cory Gardner failed in his bid to be re-elected to the Senate from Colorado.

Please Stay Safe This Thanksgiving

 

Union Leader Seems To Be Expecting New Commissioner Soon

      From a piece for Federal News Network by Ralph de Juliis, President of the union that represents most Social Security employees:

... As representatives of 26,000 employees in field offices, workload support units, and teleservice centers, we are ready for a new day of leadership at the Social Security Administration. The appointment of the next Social Security Administration Commissioner will not only set the tone for the next four years of workplace management at SSA, but have lasting implications for the millions of Americans who rely on the services we provide.    

 First, the next commissioner must fundamentally respect the dignity of work: that all labor has value, and all SSA employees are worthy of respect from their peers in management. ...

 Finally, the next commissioner must commit to open and honest dialogue with the union to ensure that our concerns are heard and respected. ...

At SSA under Andrew Saul and Deputy Commissioner David Black, the rot runs deep. It’s time we finally see the commitment to agency-employee relations that has been sorely missed.

     In theory Saul could try to hang on but the recent Supreme Court decision in Seila Law would make that problematic, especially if the new Attorney General or Solicitor General announces that it is the new Administration's position that Seila Law applies to the Social Security Commissioner position. Anybody want to dust off the old writ of quo warranto? If Saul does try to hang on, I expect the union and the new Administration will use him as a piñata.

     David Black, by the way, is no problem. The Social Security Act provides that the Deputy Commissioner becomes the Acting Commissioner but that the President can order that someone else become Acting Commissioner. I would certainly expect that Biden would so order.

I Guess They Gave SSA Free Copies

      Social Security funds research aimed at encouraging disability benefits recipients return to work. The Journal of Rehabilitation has published what appears to be an entire issue showing the results of some of this Social Security funded research. Here are the titles:

• Who’s at risk of entering Social Security Disability Insurance? A comparison of application and allowance rates for groups of at-risk individuals 
• Phase I development of the SGA Model: Use of administrative data and expert opinion to identify key components of the SGA Model  
• Phase II of the SGA Project: Development of the coordinated team approach intervention  
• Implementation and impacts of the Substantial Gainful Activity Project demonstration in Minnesota  
• Launching and supporting the SGA Project in Kentucky and Minnesota: Experiences and perspectives of the Senior Technical Assistance Team 
• Implementation and impacts of the Substantial Gainful Activity Project demonstration in Kentucky  
• Vocational rehabilitation on the road to Social Security Disability  
• “It makes me feel part of the society”: Return-to-work decisions of SSDI beneficiaries 
  

      You can read abstracts of each of these online. However, if you want to read the whole thing though, it's going to cost you 27.50 Euros or about $32.61. I'm not sure if that is per article or whether it gets you the whole issue because I didn't payup.

     Is it appropriate for research funded by the federal government to be behind a pay wall?