Interview With The Commissioner

    From things said by Social Security Commissioner Martin O'Malley during an interview conducted by reporter Lisa Rein of the Washington Post:

... I wasn’t asked to come here because everything was going great, right? We’re in a customer service crisis; that cannot be denied. ...

There is a theme running through this stuff [I've done]: It’s small.

[W]e executed on a bunch of little short-term, quick wins. Our new general counsel has probably said yes in 60 days more than any [Office of General Counsel] leader has said in 10 years. ...

I have been unpleasantly surprised by how dire the staffing situation is. ...

[W]e’ll be rolling out an action plan for the remainder of the year that will better organize over 150 actions under 21 initiatives, all of which are intended to take a bite out of these processing times [at Disability Determination Services]. ...

Clearly we need a more modern assessment of the widely available occupations out there [used in disability determination]. And we are taking a fresh look at this project [to create a new occupational data system], and at what we forecasted we might have to spend. ... Many members of Congress expressed their concern about the amount of money that we have put into this and the amount of time that it has taken. There’s still a systems component, and that also has a price tag. I would say it’s a big policy issue. There will be some winners, some losers. ...

Unhappy Employees

     From the Partnership For Public Service report on Best Places to Work ranking for the Social Security Administration. (The rankings are of agencies with large workforces):

Click on image to view full size

    Parts of the agency are also ranked against all federal agencies. The personnel under the Deputy Commissioner for Hearings Operations ranked 429 of 459 agencies. The personnel of Social Security's Office of Inspector General ranked 430 of 459 agencies. The personnel under the Deputy Commissioner for Operations ranked 456 of 459 agencies.

Top Baby Names In Each State

 

Click on image to view full size

A New Funding Mechanism For Agency Operations?

     The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has an unusual funding mechanism. The law says it can draw funds “reasonably necessary to carry out” its operations without an annual appropriation. This has been challenged on the grounds that it violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution which provides that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” To the great surprise of many the Supreme Court has just upheld the CFPB funding mechanism. 

    This decision suggests that it would be constitutional if there were a similar funding mechanism in the Social Security Act for agency operations, such as a certain small percentage of benefits paid. If I remember correctly, the National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of agency management personnel, has called for this in the past.

    Would such a thing ever come to Social Security? Only if Democrats control the White House, House of Representatives and Senate and want to do it and can get past the filibuster in the Senate. This could not be done at the moment. Maybe it will never be possible. However, my guess is that this will be proposed. What we've got at the moment is seriously dysfunctional. 

    By the way, if CFPB had lost this case, doubt would have been thrown on the funding mechanism for Social Security benefits themselves. Annual appropriations might have been required for benefit payments, so this CFPB case was a big win for Social Security.

Surprise!

     From Yahoo Finance:

He lived a complete life in the U.S. He went to school, worked in law enforcement, got married, raised a family, paid his taxes and voted in elections.

But in 2020 — when Klass [oddly the article never mentions Klass' first name] was gearing down to live out his retirement in Clearwater, Florida — one of the benefits of a post-working life he thought that he earned was suddenly ripped away from him.

 Klass received a shocking letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) stating he would not be sent the $1,649.90 monthly retirement benefits he’d previously been approved for because he’s not actually a U.S. citizen. ...

Klass was born in Canada. His mom was Canadian and his father was American, born and raised in New York. The family moved to the U.S. in 1959, and Klass has lived in the country ever since — believing he was a dual citizen.

He told the news station his roots were never questioned when he secured critical pieces of ID, including his Social Security card, driver’s license and voter registration card. He was approved to serve as a marine in the U.S. military and later worked for the New Jersey state police. He says his citizenship status was never questioned.

“I’ve been voting for over 40 years,” he chuckled, adding: “I guess I’m in a lot of trouble.”  ...

    I've had a client who was in a similar situation -- born in France to a woman who then married a U.S. citizen. The family moved to the U.S. when the child was stil quite young. The parents were supposed to file some paperwork so the child would officially be a U.S. citizen but they never got around to it. The child was unaware of the problem until Social Security discovered it and denied benefits.

    By the way, should this foreigner be locked up for voting all those times in the U.S.?

The Only Real Fix For Social Security Is More Babies?

What about more people like these taking the citizenship oath?

     Megan McArdle writes for the Washington Post that "The only real fix to Social Security’s [long term funding] problems? More babies."

    More babies would certainly help but only in the long run. It may be literally impossible for the government to get women to have more babies, anyway. Fertility is a deep cultural thing which may be beyond any incentives the government can provide. Even if you can figure out a way to increase fertility it would be at least a couple of decades before it would help.

    In any case, more babies isn't the only solution. The other solution is increased immigration. That gives an immediate increase in the working age population. Also, for literally centuries, the U.S. economy has been invigorated by the contributions of immigrants. They're good for the U.S. The problem with increased immigration is that those who most want to immigrate to the U.S. tend to be black or brown which enrages a significant portion of the existing population.

Op Ed On The SSI Marriage Penalty But It's More Complicated Than Presented

    There's an op ed in the New York Times on the marriage penalty in the SSI program which is preventing a couple who each have Down Syndrome from marrying. 

    The author completely misses or at least doesn't write about the strong possibility that the couple will soon be eligible for Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits, if they're not already. Marriage won't be a problem for DAC as long as both are eligible for DAC, which is itself crazy! DAC pays benefits on the Social Security account of a parent but the parent must be deceased or on benefits on their own account. Since the man with Down Syndrome is 44 and the woman is 40, their parents are at or near retirement age. Usually marriage ends DAC but not if you marry someone who is also eligible for DAC.

    I hate, hate, hate counseling someone newly entitled to DAC that they probably don't want to get married because it will probably end their DAC but it's my job. This may be the worst provision in the Social Security Act.

Overpayment Administrative Tolerance Changing From $1,000 To $2,000 Today

     From Emergency Message EM-24019:

... Effective May 13, 2024, we are updating the administrative waiver tolerance policy to improve customer service, reduce the burden to overpaid individuals, and increase front-line staff efficiency. We are implementing the following changes: ...

· Increased the administrative waiver tolerance amount from $1,000 to $2,000 for Title II and Title XVI. ...

    What does this mean? It means that if you have an overpayment below $2,000 it will now be waived pretty much automatically -- as long as you ask for waiver.