Some COLA History

Click on image to view full size

 

From the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College

Good Job!

     From the Twitter feed of Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

Social Security OIG

@TheSSAOIG

·

Holly (left, pictured with our agent) noticed a customer trying to buy gift cards and asked a few questions. Holly saved the customer from being scammed out of thousands of dollars. Thank you Holly! #SlamtheScam #SocialSecurity #HollySlammedtheScam #GiftCardsAreForGifts

Relief For Some Disabled People With Student Loans

      From National Public Radio:

The U.S. Education Department announced Thursday that it is discharging the outstanding student loans of more than 323,000 borrowers who have significant, permanent disabilities, and will remove barriers for borrowers who qualify for this relief in the future. The announcement will erase some $5.8 billion in debt and marks a significant step toward fixing a troubled debt relief program meant to help borrowers with disabilities. ...

Now, relief will become automatic for those who are identified through a data match with the Social Security Administration. The next match is in September, and based on those who were identified in June, the department expects more than 323,000 people to receive relief amounting to $5.8 billion. ...

     This won't be for all recipients of Social Security disability benefits -- just those assigned to the MINE (Medical Improvement Not Expected) category. Those who are not in the MINE category may still get relief they must apply and it's not automatic.

Social Security Benefits Suspended Because Of The Pandemic

U.S.-Mexico Border Crossing In Normal Times

      I received a message recently from a woman whose Social Security benefits have been suspended because of the pandemic. (Note the contact form on the right side of this page which allows you to send me a message, anonymously if you wish.) You may wonder how Covid-19 could lead to suspension of benefits but you'll see how this is happening.

     This woman was receiving widows benefits on the account of her late husband who was a U.S. citizen but she's not a U.S. citizen. She's a Mexican national living in Mexico. A somewhat odd provision of the Social Security Act says that she can only receive dependent benefits while living outside the U.S. if she comes to the U.S. on a regular basis, either at least once every 30 days or at least once every six months if she stays in the U.S. at least 30 days. 42 U.S.C. §402(t). Before the pandemic, this wasn't a problem for her. I don't know her circumstances but she probably lives near the border. In normal times, she might have crossed the border frequently to visit family or friends or do some shopping but border crossings are now limited to "essential travel" so she can't visit the U.S. which means her widows benefits are suspended.

     The provision cutting off this woman's benefits doesn't apply if the U.S. has a Social Security treaty with the other country providing an exception. 42 U.S.C. §402(t)(3). The U.S. has a Social Security treaty with seven countries providing an exception but not with Mexico. We might have a Social Security treaty with Mexico covering this issue except that some years ago Republicans got word that the U.S. had negotiated a Social Security treaty with Mexico and went ballistic, spewing ridiculous lies about what a Social Security treaty with Mexico would mean. A Social Security treaty with Mexico would only address boring, uncontroversial issues such as this lady's situation, avoiding double taxation of wages, mutual assistance between social security agencies, totalizing wages for a handful of people who have legally worked on both sides of the border but who couldn't otherwise qualify for benefits in either country, etc. The result of the Republican lies is that the treaty that was negotiated in 2004 has never been officially approved and that for years Social Security's appropriations have included a provision that no money can be used to implement a Social Security agreement with Mexico. 

     I think it is long past time to approve the U.S.-Mexico Social Security agreement and remove the restrictive provision in Social Security's appropriations. Quit appeasing the racists.

     I also wonder about the provision in 42 U.S.C.§402(t)(2) that says that the limitation on paying benefits to non-resident non-U.S. nationals doesn't apply if the "Commissioner of Social Security finds [that the other country] has in effect a social insurance or pension system which is of general application" and meets certain requirements. I know that Mexico has a social security system but I don't know enough about it to say whether it technically meets the requirements of this provision. I can't even find a list of countries who do qualify under this provision. I'd be grateful if somebody could point me to a list.

     By the way, don't waste your time trying to post racist MAGA crap in response to this. I'll never allow it to show up.

AARP Concerned About Idea Of SSA Administering Paid Leave Plan

     From the AARP:

...  Lawmakers are considering a paid leave benefit that is funded by taxpayers.  Such paid leave benefits would be administered through an existing federal agency.  Currently, the Social Security Administration is being considered to manage the paid leave benefit.

AARP sought to understand the views of voters 50-plus on the topic.  While there is broad support for such a program, older voters are concerned that administering this benefit through the SSA would negatively impact the administration of Social Security benefits to retirees. ...

     This is the first I've heard that Social Security might be involved in administering a paid leave plan. If that's to happen, the agency certainly needs a lot more resources. It would be a throwback to the 1960s when Social Security was running Medicare and to the 1930s and early 1940s when Social Security was running a number of other programs. Social Security's administrative funding was vastly better in those days.

Candidates For Commissioner Position

     From HuffPost:

An aide to President Joe Biden on labor issues is among the top contenders to lead the Social Security Administration, though he faces competition from a longtime expert on the agency and a high-profile former member of Congress. 

Seth Harris, a former deputy labor secretary who is now a member of the National Economic Council, is one of the leading contenders for the post, according to multiple sources, alongside former Rep. Donna Shalala (D-Fla.), who was secretary of health and human services in the Clinton administration; and Social Security Works President Nancy Altman. All three have engaged in a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to win support from members of Congress and unions.  ... 

Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who chairs a key subcommittee overseeing Social Security in the House, has also quietly weighed in with a letter to Biden backing Altman.  ...

Andrew Saul Sounds Bitter

      From a piece by former Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul for Townhall.com, a right wing website:

Even though my time as the Social Security Administration (SSA) commissioner has ended, the partisan attacks on the agency and my record have not. Just this week, U.S. Reps. John Larson (D-CT) and Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) continued to repeat false claims about my tenure as SSA commissioner. ...

On April 21, 2021, I sent a letter to Rep. Larson outlining the need for additional  funding to make up for the budgetary and workforce challenges SSA was facing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rep. Larson and the House of Representatives ignored this request and as a result, SSA was forced to operate on a budget that was $900 million less than I requested.  ...

The only solution to addressing the backlogs of unprocessed mail and other SSA services was to bring SSA workers back to the office. SSA informed Larson and his staff in August of 2020 we needed to start bringing union employees back to the offices involuntarily, but safely, to address workloads that couldn’t be done virtually, such as mail. Despite our warnings, on February 11, 2021, Rep. Larson and his staff objected to our putting a handful of employees in an office in Houston, Texas, to address problems similar to those noted in the recent SSA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report. Rep. Larson insisted I call him, despite the fact he refused to take my calls when I was seeking assistance in funding. ...

It is hypocritical that Rep. Larson now faults me for backlogged workloads when he and his union bosses at SSA stymied my efforts to address these challenges.  ...

My office briefed Larson’s staff multiple times a week throughout the pandemic. If he had concerns with our response to the pandemic, he should have raised these issues to my attention or even offered to work with me to solve problems. His response then, as it is now, was to engage in political grandstanding and take his direction from the unions. Rep. Larson was the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Social Security the entire time I served as SSA commissioner. If he was so concerned about my management, why didn’t he hold an oversight hearing to address his concerns? He failed to hold a single hearing on the service challenges facing SSA. One might think he was negligent in his duties as Chairman and should resign, but I know he was afraid to allow real facts to come forward. For instance, he avoided my calls when I sought his support for funding and to get cooperation from unions. Rather than conduct meaningful oversight, Rep. Larson prefers to hide behind union talking points and issue uncontested press releases full of lies.

     Blaming Larson for Social Security's operating budget is mostly ridiculous. Larson isn't even a member of the Appropriations Committee that has jurisdiction over the agency's operating budget. The real problem was primarily in the Senate which was then controlled by Republicans. However, it is possible that if Larson had held hearings about Social Security's service delivery problems that the agency's appropriation might have been increased.

     By the way, why is Saul only now admitting that his agency was unable to provide adequate service and that the agency's operating budget was the main reason? I know that insulting people you need to work with isn't a good plan but being completely quiet in public about a severely inadequate agency budget isn't such a good plan either.

     Also, by the way, I'm glad that Saul is no longer making any effort to obscure the obvious -- he's a highly partisan Republican. That's how he ran the agency. That's why he had to be fired. He never should have tried to hang on after Inauguration Day.

My Take On Encouraging Representation

     I had posted a link earlier to Social Security's request for opinions about how to increase equity in Social Security's programs and services. One question they asked specifically is "Are there incentives or other changes you suggest for encouraging attorney and non-attorney representation for claimants of color and other underserved communities?" I addressed myself primarily to this issue since it's the one I know best. Below is a somewhat edited version of what I posted. Post your own opinions on Social Security's website.

I represent Social Security claimants so I have some knowledge of this subject as well as a self-interest which I acknowledge.

I suggest that the agency admit it lacks manpower to provide effective assistance to claimants. Since that is the case, it should enable third parties to make money providing those services. This may be a bitter pill for the agency to swallow but it is time to be honest about the situation.

The Social Security Act says that fees for representing claimants must be approved by the agency. 42 U.S.C. §406(a)(1). The agency has interpreted this provision broadly. Its position is that charging a fee just to help a claimant file a claim or an appeal must be approved by the agency. As a result no one is providing these services for a fee apart from those seeking contingent fees for much broader representation. This leaves a large number of people to seek services that the Social Security Administration is unable to supply. Social Security should announce that that merely helping a claimant file a claim or an appeal is not the sort of representation for which fee approval is required. This would allow attorneys and H.&R. Block and whoever else to provide these services for modest fees. As an alternative, if the agency still wants to control these fees, the Social Security Act provides authority for the Commissioner to simply approve a maximum fee. ("The Commissioner of Social Security may, by rule and regulation, prescribe the maximum fees which may be charged for services performed in connection with any claim ...) The Commissioner could announce that the maximum fee to help file a claim is, let's say, $250 and the maximum fee for helping to file an appeal is $100. Those providing these services would not have to submit a fee petition. I will concede that this suggestion helps those with some money more than it helps the destitute but one would hope that even the poor could come up with the modest fees I'm talking about. It would also free up agency personnel to provide more help for poor claimants. If Social Security cannot itself provide these services to all who need them, why stand in the way of others providing these services for modest fees?

We also need to have more disability claimants represented throughout the process.

When it's hard to make a living as a Social Security attorney, as it is now, the first thing you do is to be more careful about the cases you take on. This leaves more claimants with marginal cases without representation. This has the effect of discouraging them from pursuing claims. I'm sure that hearing offices notice that a significant percent of claimants never appear for their hearings. Do they notice that almost all of the no shows are unrepresented? Probably the biggest reason for the no shows is that the claimants have tried to find an attorney but became discouraged when they were turned down several times. Less obviously, potential claimants never file a claim to begin with because they couldn't find an attorney. However, cases that may appear weak when an attorney makes a quick decision on whether to take on a client may actually be much stronger than they appear.

How do we encourage attorneys to take on more cases? The incentives must be economic so, yes, my recommendations will be self-serving. Raising the fee cap and indexing it for inflation is the obvious start but that only gets us so far. Notice that SSI claimants are represented at a lower rate than Title II claimants. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that SSI claimants have less access to medical care, but the lower benefit rate for SSI claimants is a major factor, since that means a lower average fee. It would take legislation but the attorney fee in SSI cases could be changed to 1/3 of back benefits or there could be a minimum fee for SSI cases. 

 If you really want to encourage representation, extend the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) to Social Security. EAJA shifts the fee burden to the agency when it loses. EAJA covers most adjudication at other agencies. Why except Social Security?

It would also be great if Legal Services had much higher funding so that its affiliates could once again represent claimants in a big way. That hasn't happened since the 1980s!