It's Not Complicated: A Smaller Operating Budget For Social Security = Fewer Employees = Poorer Service

      From Tom Margenau's column:

... When I started working for the SSA in the early 1970s, I was one of about 82,000 relatively happy and proud employees working for one of the best-run agencies in all of government. The SSA consistently won awards for public service and administrative responsibility....

Local Social Security offices were well-run, clean and efficient. I worked in several of those offices in small towns and medium-sized cities across the country. They were pleasant places to work and pleasant places to visit. ...

Unfortunately, now it's a different world and a different SSA. Those 82,000 employees I worked with in the '70s and '80s have been trimmed down to about 60,000. ...

With reduced staff and resources, it's all about numbers, efficiency and time management. Walking in off the street to visit a pleasant local Social Security office to ask some questions and possibly file for benefits while having a little chat with a happy employee is a pipe dream. Today, you must call the SSA's toll-free number and wait on hold for a long time (some readers have told me an hour or more) to make an appointment. And then you will probably wait weeks, or even a month or more, for that appointment. Then, when you finally get to the office, it's "take a number, and sit down, and wait until you are called." And sadly, the SSA rep you finally get to talk to has not had the training I had and does not have the time that I had and probably does not have the esprit de corps that I had. ...

Even The Simple Things Are Difficult Now

      Even the seemingly simple things have become so difficult at Social Security. God help you if you need to get the agency to recognize a name change during the pandemic. 

     There will be so much to unwind once field offices reopen.

An Amazing Account

      This woman's account of how she tracked down her husband's claim for spousal benefits and got it back on track is amazing. What's amazing is that she was able to get Social Security to answer her phone calls. That's really difficult. Social Security's payment centers are almost incommunicado. Mostly, you can't even leave a message.

USA Today Does A Fact Check

      From USA Today:

Shortly after the Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump for a second time, a story went viral, claiming that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., diverted billions from Social Security insurance to cover impeachment costs. ...

Our rating: False

The claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi withdrew billions from the Social Security Administration to cover impeachment costs is FALSE, based on our research. The claim originated from an article that is explicitly labeled as satire and impeachment costs are covered through congressional operations. ...

No Looking Good For The Puerto Rico SSI Case At The Supreme Court

    U.S. v. Vaello-Madero,  the case pending at the Supreme Court that concerns whether it is constitutional to deny SSI benefits to U.S. citizens who reside in the territory of Puerto Rico, has been listed for review at the Court's conference this Friday. This is the third time the case has been relisted for review.

     I have little knowledge of Supreme Court practice so I'll quote someone who does: 

If a case has been relisted once, it generally means that the Court is paying close attention to the case, and the chances of a grant [that is, agreeing to schedule oral arguments in the case] are higher than for an average case. But once a case has been relisted more than twice, it is generally no longer a likely candidate for plenary review, and is more likely to result in a summary reversal or a dissent from the denial of cert.

     The decision in the Court of Appeals was that it is unconstitutional to deny SSI benefits to U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico so a summary reversal would mean no SSI for Puerto Rico residents. It seems unlikely that the Count would refuse to hear the case (deny the petition for a writ of certiorari) since it presents a constitutional issue and there is a good deal at stake.

Headcount Changes Little From End Of 2019 To End Of 2020

    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is really trying hard to catch up.  Here is the headcount of Social Security employees are as of December with some earlier headcount numbers for comparison:

• December 61,816
  
• September 2020 61,447
  
• June 2020 60,515
  
• March 2020 60,659
  
• December 2019 61,969
  
• December 2018 62,946
  
• December 2017 62,777
• December 2016 63,364
• December 2015 65,518
• December 2014 65,430
• December 2013 61,957
• December 2012 64,538
• September 2011 67,136
• December 2010 70,270

Take A Look

      I can't figure out how to reproduce it here but this piece on the hearing backlog at Social Security has a nice interactive chart displaying the backlog at each hearing office. It's noticeable that the worst backlogs seem to be West of the Mississippi.

Improve Retirement Income By Increasing The Minimum Wage

     From Market Watch:

...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. ...