Some Republicans Want To Make Social Security Voluntary

 From TPMDC:

Republican leaders left Social Security untouched in their House budget this year, but a group of GOP lawmakers are looking to fill the gap themselves with legislation that would create a voluntary privatized version of the program.

Introduced by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who also chairs the House's campaign efforts at the NRCC, the "Savings Account For Every American Act" would allow people to immediately opt out of Social Security in favor of a private "S.A.F.E." account. Eventually the program would expand to let employers send their matching contribution to workers' Social Security to a "S.A.F.E." account as well.

"Our nation's Social Security Trust Fund is depleting at an alarming rate, and failure to implement immediate reforms endangers the ability of Americans to plan for their retirement with the options and certainty they deserve," ...

 From from ending the "depletion" of the Social Security trust funds, this plan would completely deplete them quickly, probably in less than ten years because it would quickly become obvious that there would not be enough money available to pay Social Security benefits for more than a few years. Continuing to pay FICA taxes would be pointless because there would be no chance of future benefit payments. This plan could only work if Social Security were already fully funded but the authors of this plan are claiming that Social Security cannot be trusted because it is not fully funded!

I have a modest plan of my own for those who want to opt out of Social Security. Everything stays the same as now until a person reaches full retirement age. Once an individual reaches that age they could take back all of the FICA taxes they ever paid plus a generous imputed interest rate as a lump sum. In return, they and all others who might be eligible on their Social Security number would be permanently ineligible for benefits under both Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Yes, I know, it's unworkable because few other than those who expect to die soon would take the deal. Also, it wouldn't be fair to allow a man to deprive a despised former wife of benefits on his account, for instance. However, it 's conceivable that one could come up with ways of dealing with these and other related issues. My "plan" comes a lot closer to working than the plan put forward by these few Republicans. I wonder how many people would take this deal and how quickly most of them would become destitute and homeless.

Republicans Want Investigation But ALJs Approwing Fewer Claims

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

Rejected for federal disability benefits, unemployed workers who appealed to Judge David B. Daugherty in West Virginia last year had a change of luck: He approved every request he saw.

That record has spurred Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee, to seek an investigation into whether unemployed Americans are cheating the system.

Lenient administrative judges may be viewing Social Security Disability Insurance payments “as an extension of unemployment benefits, rather than as a program to assist the truly disabled,” they told Social Security Inspector General Patrick O’Carroll Jr.

Allowing the unemployed to “exploit SSDI,” they wrote, would pass “enormous and crippling costs to taxpayers.” ...

[C]ontrary to the concerns raised by Hatch and Coburn, Social Security’s 1,500 administrative judges are approving fewer payments — the overall “allowance rates” are declining, [a Social Security spokesman] said.

Nationwide, judges approved 67 percent of cases they heard in fiscal 2010, according to a Salt Lake Tribune analysis of data posted on the Social Security website. So far in fiscal 2011, it has reached 64 percent.

We've Already Cut Benefits

From a press release:

Changes enacted by Congress in the 1980s to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security will cut retirement benefits by 19 percent for workers born in 1960 and later, and more cuts could undermine the basic economic security of future retirees, a new report said today.

The report, released by the National Academy of Social Insurance, said modest benefit improvements and revenue increases are affordable, have broad public support and can close Social Security's long-term financing shortfall without more benefit cuts.

"Social Security benefits are already being cut more than many people realize," said Virginia Reno, NASI's vice president for income security and a co-author of the report. "Cutting benefits further is not necessary to preserve Social Security for future generations. Other alternatives merit consideration by policymakers."

NASI is a nonpartisan organization made up of the nation's leading experts on social insurance. 

As policymakers consider calls for further retirement benefit cuts, the NASI report said it is important to remember that the Social Security amendments passed by Congress in 1983 relied far more on benefit cuts than new revenue to balance the system's long-term finances. Those amendments changed Social Security by:

• Gradually raising the full-benefit retirement age from 65 to 67, a change that results in a 13.3 percent reduction in benefits.
• Taxing part of benefit income, which results in a 5.1 percent benefit cut.
• Delaying the cost-of-living adjustment by six months, resulting in a permanent 1.4 percent cut.

Social Security Laborforce Declines Rapidly

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted  updated figures for the number of employees at Social Security. Here they are with earlier numbers for comparison purposes.

•  March 2011 68,700
• December 2010 70,270
• June 2010 69,600
• March 2010 66,863
• December 2009 67,486
• September 2009 67,632
• June 2009 66,614
• March 2009 63,229
• December 2008 63,733
• September 2008 63,990
• September 2007 62,407
• September 2006 63,647
• September 2005 66,147
• September 2004 65,258
• September 2003 64,903
• September 2002 64,648
• September 2001 65,377
• September 2000 64,521
• September 1999 63,957
• September 1998 65,629

Notice the rapid decline since the beginning of the fiscal year. Republican foot-dragging in the last Congress and the election results have more than a little to do with this.

Where Are You?

Google Analytics gives me all sorts of interesting statistics on this website. Here is a list of the top states (and D.C.) from which people visited this blog in the last month and the number of visits:

1. Maryland 9,113
2. Illinois 7,613
3. California 1,979
4. Pennsylvania 1,749
5. Ohio 1,381
6. New York 1,255
7. District of Columbia 1,174
8. Texas 962
9. North Carolina 751
10. Florida 729

The one that surprises me is Illinois. I looked back and a year earlier Illinois was in 7th place with only 781 visits. I will take a guess that the change has to do with the routing of some visits from the Social Security domain, as does the number of visits from Maryland.

You Don't Need A Lawyer To Appeal

From the Asbury Park Press:

Q: I was turned down for disability. Do I need a lawyer to appeal?A: You are fully entitled to hire an attorney if you wish to, but it is not necessary. In fact, you can file a Social Security appeal online without a lawyer. Our online appeal process is convenient and secure. Just go to www.socialsecurity.gov/disability/appeal. If you prefer, call us at 1-800-772-1213 (TTY 1-800-325-0778) to schedule an appointment to visit your local Social Security office to appeal. ...

“Social Security” appears Sundays. Joanne Crane is district manager of the Social Security office at 3310 Route 66, Neptune, NJ 07753. Call 800-772-1213 for information.

This was almost certainly prepared not by Ms. Crane but by a public relations employee at Social Security.

Astrue's Opponents On Children's Benefits Are "Old-Line Left Wingers" With "60s Mentality"

I missed this earlier. From the Boston Globe:

The era that launched a generation determined to change the world is now being blamed for resisting change — especially the kind that saves taxpayer money.

That’s the lens through which Michael J. Astrue, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration, views some critics. During a recent visit to The Globe to discuss flaws with the $10 billion children’s disability program, he addressed advocates who oppose what he considers necessary changes to an admirable, but flawed, program.

He described them, generally, as people “older’’ than he and went on to label such reform-resisters as “old-line left-wingers’’ with “a ’60s mentality.’’ Their opposition to change, he said, is “ideological and philosophical:’’ They believe in shifting economic and income distribution, he explained. As a result, some of those he sees as aging flower children look at people who might be abusing the system, and conclude, “These people are poor … it doesn’t really matter how they get the money,’’ he said.

I don't think you have to be an "old-line left-winger" (not that that's a bad thing) to think that the criticism of the SSI child's disability program is greatly overblown. Determining disability in anyone is inherently difficult and especially so in children. It's easy to take shots at the SSI children's program. It's vastly more difficult to propose improvements. I doubt that Astrue comprehends just how long and how  hard the folks he blithely characterizes as having a "60s mentality" worked to get us to the SSI children's system we have. The system we have now isn't perfect but it's a lot better than what preceded it. People such as Richard Weishaupt don't deserve to be dismissed like this any more than Michael Astrue deserves to be dismissed as a right-wing nutjob.

Are You Kidding Me?

Data Center Knowledge asks whether Social Security new data center will be strong enough to withstand a tornado. The answer is clearly NO but the scarier thing is that it may not be strong enough to stand up to even a minimal hurricane either. It's only designed for 90 mile per hour winds!  I don't think you are allowed to construct even an ordinary home that close to the coast in North Carolina, where I live, without building it to stand up to much more than 90 mile per hour winds.

Think that hurricanes don't hit as far North as Maryland? Tell that to the hundreds of people killed by the hurricane that hit New England in 1938 with winds of 160 miles per hour. Since 1980 Maryland has been hit by 55 cyclonic storms, including hurricanes! Hurricane Hazel, which is still vividly remembered in many places, including Toronto, Canada, pummeled Maryland with hurricane force winds in 1954.

Japan has just demonstrated the chaos that can happen when you don't plan for uncommon events hitting major infrastructure locations. What is Social Security thinking?