🚀 go-pugleaf

Outgoing Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue has some 
parting shots for Congress, the White House and advocates for 
seniors. They have all "really walked away from Social 
Security," he says, leaving the program "fraying because of 
inattention to its problems."

Instead of making the hard choices to fix Social Security's 
financial problems, policymakers "use it as a tool of political 
rhetoric," Astrue said.

Astrue, 56, has headed the federal government's largest program 
since 2006 -- he was nominated by former President George W. 
Bush. By law, Social Security commissioners serve six-year 
terms, so President Obama will now have the opportunity to 
choose his own nominee, who must be approved by the Senate. 
Astrue's last day on the job was Wednesday.

The trustees who oversee Social Security say the program's trust 
funds will run dry in 2033, leaving Social Security with only 
enough revenue to pay about 75 percent of benefits. Already the 
program is paying out more in benefits than it collects in 
payroll taxes.

As commissioner, Astrue served as a trustee. He regularly urged 
Congress to address Social Security's long-term financial 
problems but refrained from publicly weighing in on various 
options to cut benefits or raise taxes -- until now.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Astrue said benefit 
cuts and tax increases are inevitable -- despite fierce 
opposition to both. Yet he questions whether Congress is up to 
the task.

Q: The president and Republican leaders in Congress have both 
embraced changes to Social Security as part of negotiations to 
reduce government borrowing. Should Social Security be part of 
the deficit and debt discussions?

A: My general perspective is that Washington broadly, and I 
include the Congress, both parties, the executive branch, the 
major interest groups, have really walked away from Social 
Security. ... I think that Social Security is a gem. I think it 
is the most successful domestic program in the history of the 
United States government and it is fraying because of 
inattention to its problems. And I think it's a shame that 
Washington cannot get its act together to look at Social 
Security in detail in isolation and say, What do we need to do?

Q: There are some in Congress who say only benefit cuts should 
be considered -- no tax increases. Others say benefit cuts 
should be off the table. Where do you come down?

A: Nothing is going to happen if you establish preconditions for 
the conversation. I do think that for the people who simply want 
to tax more, you need to be very mindful of the fact that that 
tax will fall disproportionately on the younger generation and 
that if you're not careful, that could be a huge economic drag.

Q: One of the few issues that the president and Republicans in 
Congress agree on is changing the way the government measures 
inflation. As you know, this would reduce the annual cost-of-
living adjustment, or COLA, for Social Security recipients. 
Advocates for seniors hate the idea. They want bigger COLAs, not 
smaller ones. What do you think?

A: As a general matter I do think that the president and the 
Congress are right that before you start talking about increases 
in the retirement age and things like that it's appropriate to 
try to have a conversation about what we might be able to do in 
terms of COLA adjustments.

Q: The age when retirees can receive full benefits is gradually 
increasing from 66 to 67. There are proposals to increase it 
gradually even more, perhaps as high as 70. What do you think of 
those proposals?

A: I think there's some historical inevitability that we will 
move in that direction. How far, I don't think is historically 
inevitable. Part of this we need to remember is not that the 
system is flawed or that there are evil people around here. I 
mean, we should celebrate a little bit of good news. Most of the 
pressure on the system comes from the fact that we've had great 
medical advances and people are living a lot longer than before.

Q: Social Security payroll taxes only apply to the first 
$113,700 of a worker's wages. There have been proposals to 
increase this threshold or even eliminate it, applying the tax 
to all wages. What do you think of those ideas?

A: I think there's some historic inevitability on at least some 
lifting of the (payroll tax) cap. I think that most politicians 
and I think most economists I've talked to generally think that 
that would have less of a negative impact on the economy than 
raising the rate itself.

Q: Applications for disability benefits increased dramatically 
when the economy went bad. Why did that happen?

A: I think a lot of people applied out of economic desperation. 
Very few of those people actually ended up getting benefits. If 
you look at the numbers, it's one of the reasons why our 
approval rates have dropped dramatically in the last few years.

Q: Aren't most disability claims initially denied?

A: Yes.

Q: Why?

A: Because the statutory standard is so stringent. In terms of 
the percentage who get on, both in the beginning and at the end 
of the process, it's somewhere usually in most years in the 35 
to 40 percent range. Sometimes people talk like nobody gets 
approved initially, and that's not true. Some people say, Oh, 
everybody gets on, and that's not true, either. But the 
statutory standard is you have to be unable to do work that 
exists in the national economy for 12 months or more.

Q: If your claim is denied, you can appeal to an administrative 
law judge, but the process can take a year or more. Tell me 
about your efforts to reduce these backlogs.

A: We've done, I think, some yeoman's work in reducing the 
backlogs. ... If you look at time to a hearing, what we call 
average processing time, it peaked very shortly after I started 
at 542 days and it got down to about 340 (days) and then drifted 
up a little bit with all the budget cuts in the last couple of 
years. But it's still about a year on average, and that's a big 
improvement.

Q: Are you getting enough resources from Congress to address 
these backlogs?

A: No.

Q: The Association of Administrative Law Judges says that in 
order to reduce backlogs some judges are deciding more than 500 
cases a year. Is that too many cases to do a thorough job on 
each one?

A: No, not at all. We set for the first time productivity 
standards in 2007. It was actually done by the chief judge, and 
it was done looking at best demonstrated practices of existing 
judges. At that point in time about 40 percent of the judges 
were doing 500 to 700 cases a year. And so that's what we set as 
our goal, and that's what it is, it's a goal to shoot for. ... 
Now, about 80 percent of the judges hit that goal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/social-security-head-
says-officials-have-walked-away-from-fraying-
program/?intcmp=obinsite

--
Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed 
liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the 
outlaw Obama administration?

No.  Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in 
the back while you are defending yourself, then return a 
controlled rate of aimed fire.  ��

��