Let’s End Junk Science At Social Security

      David Weaver, a former Social Security official, has written a piece for LinkedIn echoing something I had written about recently, the need for Social Security to start using the updated occupational data it has collected in making disability determinations. I thought that Social Security had not released the data. Weaver says they have released the actual data.  They just haven’t released a front end for the data, making it useless as is. However, Weaver says that third party vendors have developed front ends making the data usable. Social Security may want to suppress this data but I don’t think this will be possible. The Courts don’t like “junk science.” Is there any “science” more junky than the Dictionary of Occupational Titles?

In Dubious Achievement News

      From Think Advisor:

The House passed legislation Monday to update the language used by the Social Security Administration to describe when American workers can claim their retirement benefits. …

The Claiming Age Clarity Act, sponsored by Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa., changes the terminology in materials produced by the Social Security Administration. …

The bill, which passed the House Ways and Means Committee in September, states that the agency must use minimum monthly benefit age instead of early eligibility age. …

SSA must also use standard monthly benefit age instead of "full retirement age" and "normal retirement age." …

Some People Just Won’t Get Service

      From Biometric Update.com:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is remaking itself around a digital identity system that tens of millions of its beneficiaries cannot use – while simultaneously dismantling the in-person safety valve that has long allowed people to navigate the system when digital verification fails. …

But that digital system is built on identity-proofing mechanisms that millions of Social Security beneficiaries cannot satisfy. To access many of SSA’s online services – including creating a my Social Security account, resetting credentials, obtaining replacement documents, checking claims, or managing benefits – individuals must authenticate their identity using commercial data sources.

Those identity checks can include credit histories, mobile carrier records, address histories, and financial account data. They generate “soft inquiries” on credit files and hinge on the existence of a stable and verifiable financial footprint.

The problem is straightforward: millions of Social Security beneficiaries do not have the data these systems require. …

Numerous disability claimants operate with inconsistent documentation due to frequent address changes, medical crises, or disruptions tied to long periods out of the workforce. For these beneficiaries, digital identity verification is not simply difficult. It is often impossible.

Under SSA’s new operational model, that impossibility now carries far-reaching consequences. When digital verification fails, the fallback is a field office – but the agency is cutting field office traffic by 50 percent and reducing staffing across local offices. …

This dynamic recasts SSA’s modernization not as a technological upgrade but as the construction of a two-tiered system – one for beneficiaries with strong credit files, stable addresses, broadband access, and technological competence – and another for those without such resources, who will increasingly face longer waits, reduced access, and the escalating possibility of being unable to access benefits at all. …

Really? How Will You Achieve This Result?

      From NEXTGOV/FCW:

… The Social Security Administration wants to halve the number of people that go to its field offices in the 2026 fiscal year. 

More than 31 million people visited SSA field offices over the last fiscal year. Now, the agency aims to have 50% fewer visits — or no more than 15 million total — in fiscal 2026, which began in October, according to internal planning documents viewed by Nextgov/FCW. …

     I’d call this wishful thinking at best. 

Let’s Circle Back To This

      I want to circle back to something that was in the Washington Post article about Social Security’s decision to scrap their plan to reduce or eliminate the consideration of age in making disability determinations. There was this interesting sentence:

… Among the Trump administration’s concerns with using the new [occupational] data is that younger disabled people with cognitive and mental impairments would probably qualify for fewer jobs, potentially leading more of them to be awarded benefits, the former Social Security executive said. …

     OK, so it sounds like they collected data showing that more people with cognitive and mental impairments should be awarded disability benefits but they’re not going to act on that data or even release it to the public. Does that sound like the right thing to do? If the data is subpoenaed for an ALJ hearing shouldn’t it be produced?

     I recall a non-disability case where I asked the ALJ to obtain some information about the case from a field office. The field office sent back a memo literally asking “Don’t you understand that the attorney is only trying to get his client approved?” Would that be the agency’s response to a request for the occupational data that they spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars obtaining?

     You might think that an attorney raising a fuss over this might be endangering their older clients since the plan to reduce or eliminate consideration of age might come back. That sounds too speculative to me to take into consideration but if an attorney has clients with conflicting interests, you don’t solve the conflict by deciding which clients to not represent zealously. You solve it by withdrawing from cases. That’s non-negotiable.

Where’s The $1 Trillion In Savings Musk Promised?

      From Brett Arends writing for Morningstar:

… I'm not surprised that President Donald Trump and the Social Security Administration put out the latest inspector-general report the day before Thanksgiving, when nobody is paying attention. 

It's yet another embarrassment. 

The latest 57-page report to Congress details a variety of Social Security frauds that took place under Trump's first administration, only to be caught, stopped and prosecuted ... er ... under Joe Biden. 

And it confirms what has long been suspected, and which will come as no surprise to MarketWatch readers: namely that Elon Musk and Trump were talking total nonsense for the first six months of this year, when they were claiming that there was a "huge" amount of fraud in Social Security, including hundreds of thousands of dead people claiming benefits. …

Ho Hum

      Some former Social Security public trustees are out with a piece in The Hill arguing that it’s important that the Social Security public trustee positions, which are all vacant, be filled. 

     The problem with their argument is that the trustee positions hardly even qualify as ceremonial. None of the trustees have any power whatsoever. The trust funds are invested in U.S. bonds. The trustees have no discretion in this. Public trustees have put out statements in the past arguing for their favorite way to “save” Social Security and nobody cared. They certainly have no power to bring about any change.

     I wonder how much the public trustees are paid when those positions are filled.

Happy Thanksgiving!