How Crazy Is The Right Wing In America?

     People are starting to ask what will happen to Social Security benefits if Texas secedes.

Improvement In Mail Processing But Some Problems Persist

    From Follow-up: The Social Security Administration’s Implementation of Mail Procedures, a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (footnotes omitted):

...  Mail processing at SSA offices is primarily a manual workload. This requires that managers and employees open each mail item, scan the program-related documents into a workload management system, and assign to staff. SSA’s regional offices are responsible for monitoring the status of mail handling in their region ...

In September 2021, SSA issued a Mail Handling BPD that focused on 10 key issues significant to mail processing. ...

We judgmentally selected and visited 87 SSA offices throughout the continental United States. At each office, we interviewed management and observed the mail handling process. ...

SSA offices had improved mail processing since our July 2021 review. SSA offices we visited generally complied with the requirements in the Agency’s Mail Handling BPD.While most offices were meeting the requirements of 6 of the 10 BPD key issues, some offices did not always meet the requirements ...

Of the 87 offices visited, the following offices complied with the timeliness metrics established:

• 86 (98.9 percent) received mail directly from mail carriers,

• 84  (96.6 percent) opened mail within 1 business day of receipt,

• 81 (93.1 percent) processed all Social Security number applications within 5 business days of receipt, and

• 79 (90.8 percent) returned all original primary evidence documents to customers within 3 business days  of receipt and kept a log of the returned documents.  ...

• 73 (83.9 percent) processed their undeliverable returned mail within 5 business days of receipt, as required. However, the remaining 14 offices had undeliverable returned mail over 30-days-old. Moreover, three of these offices had mail dated back to January 2022, and one with mail dated back to September 2019. ... 
  

• 67 (77 percent) complied with the requirements for remittances and returned unendorsed Treasury checks. Specifically, the offices processed to completion all remittances and returned unendorsed Treasury checks within 1 business day of receipt, 16 recorded receipt in the office’s remittance log, and secured 17 checks that could not be processed to completion the same day. The remaining 20 offices had the following issues:
  

• 17 did not process remittances within the required timeframe. Of these, 15 offices had checks that remained unprocessed 3 to 31 days after the 1-business-day requirement. Additionally, two offices had unprocessed checks that dated back to July 2020 and November 2021. The banks could return these checks as non-negotiable since they were not endorsed within 6 months, as required by banks.,
  

• 5 did not use remittance logs, as required. For example, 1 office had 77 unprocessed checks that were unsecured and accessible to office staff. In fact, 1 office had 58 checks dating back to October 2022 with no record they existed. The new remittance manager was unaware these unprocessed checks were locked in a safe because they were not recorded in the office’s remittance log.
  

• 2 did not properly secure the unprocessed checks. For example, 1 office had 77 unprocessed checks that were unsecured and accessible to office staff.

• 36 (41.4 percent) scanned and profiled mail within 5 business days of receipt, as required. The remaining 51 offices, on average, scanned and profiled mail within 10 business days of receipt. ...

New Allegations Against Social Security Inspector General

     From Federal News Network (emphasis added):

House Democrats are reigniting an investigation into Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari’s use of taxpayer dollars to settle claims of retaliation by his former top deputy.

And lawmakers are also probing whether the Social Security Administration’s inspector general inappropriately referred Cuffari to her former law firm in connection with the retaliation investigation. A spokeswoman for the SSA IG called the assertions “blatantly inaccurate.” ...

DHS OIG spent $1.4 million on a 2020 contract with law firm WilmerHale to conduct an investigation into allegations of misconduct by Costello and other former employees. The investigation ultimately did not substantiate any allegations of illegal misconduct.

[Jamie] Raskin [House Oversight and and Accountability Ranking Member] is now investigating the role SSA Inspector General Gail Ennis may have played in the DHS OIG’s decision to contract with WilmerHale. Ennis was a partner at WilmerHale before becoming SSA IG in January 2019.

In deposition before the Merit Systems Protection Board, Cuffari said he asked Ennis to have her office conduct the investigation. Ennis declined to take it on due to the high workload, Cuffari said.

Raskin is probing whether she had a role in advising Cuffari to select WilmerHale for the investigation.

“If true, this would appear to violate your ethics agreement, which shows that you were a partner at WilmerHale and continue to have an ongoing financial stake in the firm’s profitability,” Raskin wrote in a letter to Ennis today. “As a result, your referral to your former employer WilmerHale potentially represents a financial conflict of interest.”

 A spokeswoman for the SSA OIG told Federal News Network that “Inspector General Ennis looks forward to the opportunity to respond to Ranking Member Raskin to correct the blatantly inaccurate assertions made in the letter.” ...

SSAB Nominations Advance

     The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing for January 31 on four nominations, including these three to the Social Security Advisory Board:

• Andrew G. Biggs, of Oregon
• Kathryn Rose Lang, of Maryland
• Sharon Beth Lewis, of Oregon

Report On AI At Social Security

     Here's a piece by four researchers touting Social Security's progress in Artificial Intelligence. It's somewhat odd. Apparently, it hasn't been published unless you consider releasing it online as publication. It has no date on it. I don't see any source cited from after 2021 so this may be a few years old. I may not the one who should say this but I'm not sure if what they're calling "Artificial Intelligence" would generally be called "Artificial Intelligence" today.

A Tale Of Two Trust Funds

     Social Security has released information showing how its trust funds have done through the end of 2023. Here are summaries for the Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust fund for the last five years. You'll notice that they're heading in opposite directions. I expect that money will eventually be diverted from the Disability Insurance Trust Fund to the Old Age and Survivor's Trust Fund, not that it will be enough to make much difference.

Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
(Amounts in millions)

Calendar year	Total income	Total outgo	Net increase in asset reserves	Asset reserves at end of calendar year
2019	$917,873	$911,423	$6,450	$2,804,322
2020	968,348	960,954	7,394	2,811,716
2021	942,856	1,001,936	-59,080	2,752,636
2022	1,056,718	1,097,455	-40,737	2,711,899
2023	1,166,885	1,237,294	-70,409	2,641,490

Disability Insurance
(Amounts in millions)

Calendar year	Total income	Total outgo	Net increase in asset reserves	Asset reserves at end of calendar year
2019	$143,901	$147,876	$-3,974	$93,083
2020	149,748	146,260	3,488	96,570
2021	145,470	142,646	2,824	99,394
2022	165,063	146,470	18,594	117,988
2023	183,801	154,815	28,985	146,973

What About Occupational Information? Does Scientific Integrity Apply To That?

     From today's Federal Register:

The SSA is soliciting comments and suggestions from the public on the DRAFT Scientific Integrity Policy of the Social Security Administration (DRAFT SSA Scientific Integrity Policy). The DRAFT SSA Scientific Integrity Policy codifies expectations to preserve scientific integrity throughout SSA scientific activities, establishes key roles and responsibilities for those who will lead the agency’s scientific integrity program, and, as appropriate, establishes relevant reporting and evaluation mechanisms.

    Social Security uses occupational information in determining which disability claims to approve. The source it's using now mostly dates back to 1979! Everyone concedes that it's hopelessly out of date but they're still using it. They've been working on a replacement now for well over a decade but almost nothing has been released and the agency is extremely vague on what's going on and when they'll be finished. I'm not the only one who's convinced that they keep delaying releasing anything because the data doesn't jibe with what the agency wants it to say. I think they want to keep massaging the data until it says that they don't have to change who they're approving and who they're denying even a little bit. Am I being unfair to Social Security? They can always make a full release of the data collected to date and give a good explanation for the delay. Does anyone still believe that this remains a good faith effort to collect data?

A Poll

online polls