Job Incidence Numbers Are Unreliable

     From Job Incidence Numbers in Social Security Disability Claims: A Case Study and Analysis by Kevin Liebkemann, 44 J. Nat’l Ass’n Admin. L. Judiciary 15 (2024) .

... The case survey results suggest that the SSA’s current vocational evidence system is broken in ways that can hurt disability claimants. Some variance in VE [Vocational Expert] job incidence number testimony may be reasonable. However, survey results document that VEs frequently gave markedly different national job incidence numbers for the same job around the same time, which indicates that the VE’s methodologies employed were inconsistent and thus unreliable. Further, study of cases involving other frequently cited DOT job titles could help determine how widespread this problem is. Some courts have already taken notice of such discrepancies regarding VE testimony of job incidence for other DOT titles. ...

SSA does not currently have adequate rules or enforcement in place to protect the public from the problem documented in the study data, namely VEs giving extremely disparate job incidence numbers for the same DOT title. The study data and case review found that SSA ALJs accepted those disparate numbers. The SSA’s Office of Inspector General that is charged with searching for and reporting systemic weaknesses in SSA programs has not yet issued any investigation reports on the reliability of VE methodologies for determining job incidence numbers. ...

State Disability Determination Services Processing Times

 

Percentage Of Callers To Social Security 800 Number Who Reach An Agency Employee

From Social Security

 

One Man Thinks That The Third Rail No Longer Exists

     John Tammy has written a piece for Forbes arguing that Social Security is no longer the Third Rail of American politics because people will be working until they're 70 and then relying upon their private savings. Social Security hardly matter to anyone not already on benefits or about to be on them. He just wants taxes lowered for money coming out of retirement accounts.

    Talk about being elite and out of touch! Most people don't wait until full retirement age now to start their Social Security benefits. There's no sign that's changing. Blue collar workers can rarely go on working until they're 70. Their health won't permit it. I think that Mr. Tammy hasn't yet experienced any of the ill effects of the aging process. It's coming for you too, buddy, whether you believe it or not. The odds are high that even highly motivated white collar workers don't make it until 70. Private savings? Does Mr. Tammy know anyone with an annual income below $100,000? Apart from their homes, if they're lucky enough to have them, most Americans near retirement age have only modest savings at best.  

    Right wing "thinkers" keep telling us that the key to all retirement problems in the U.S. is lowering the tax bills paid by wealthy Americans. It's what they're paid to write.

Report On OHO Operations

     A statistical report from Social Security on performance at its Office of Hearings Operations:

Click on image to view full size

There's Enough Damn Problems Without This Crap!

@OMalleySSA [a tweet from the Commissioner]

SSA 800 # was slammed on June 3. Over 463,000 calls -- 140k more calls than a few days earlier. Why? In part because of a bogus news story about a $600 payment increase. This is FALSE: No COLA until January 2025. Big thanks to all SSA staff who helped customers with this rumor.

A Modest Idea On Getting Help To Claimants

     I wrote about the reach, and perhaps overreach, of Social Security's controls on fees for representation  before the agency in 2021. I still think what I suggested at that time would be a good idea:

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 offering contingent fee contracts 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 whomever 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?

Interview With Commissioner

     The AARP has published an interview it conducted with Social Security Commissioner Martin O'Malley. As you would expect from one with a political background,  O'Malley touts his agency's accomplishments. I would certainly agree that the changes in how Social Security deals with overpayments are an accomplishments. However, the accomplishments in providing service to claimants have not been across the board. As a few workloads gets diminished, others increase. It's all you can do when you lack adequate budget resources.

    There's one thing about the interview that I can't figure out. At one point the interviewer mentions that O'Malley is the first Social Security Commissioner who has served in elective office. O'Malley corrects him saying "Second! I’ll show you the wax figure down the hall." Who was that other Social Security Commissioner who had previously served in elective office? Is the "wax figure" business just some odd figure of speech or some sort of reality?