If a Social Security Annual Report Vanishes into the Forest–
and nobody notices, did it really disappear?
by Bruce Webb
I started reading the Annual Report of the Trustees of Social Security in 1997 and awaited its typical March 31st release date each year since with eager anticipation. To the point that last year I put up a post that morning called Bestest Day of the Year: SSRR Day where ‘SSRR’ stood for ‘Social Security Report Release’. Well people mocked, and rightfully so, because SSRR Day 2009 didn’t happen until May 1st. The delay, though not quite explained, was explicable, on typical SSRR Day only two of six Trustees was actually confirmed.
Well flash forward to 2010. A year older and perhaps a little wiser, and wary from being pwned the year before I put up the following post on Mar 21 heralding the impending release: Upcoming Attractions in Social Security, putting it in the context of the new Obama Deficits Commission while warning that the 2009 Report had been delayed. Well a helpful informant advised me that the word was that it would be delayed until April, and then on April 5th it was announced widely that Report Release would be June 30th. Oddly none of this was official, the news just got out in typical Beltway fashion.
Come mid June I started referencing the new, new updated release date only to be notified by three different knowledgeable sources that word was out that Report Release would be delayed yet again, perhaps until August. And just like with the 2009 Report the explanations advanced were not unreasonable. But none of them were official, to my knowledge no one has at any point officially announced even the fact that the Report would be delayed (and delayed and delayed) beyond its statutory release date, and still less given an official explanation.
I find this odd in the extreme, particularly since Social Security is front and center in the news with the ongoing meetings of the Catfood Commission with their strong suggestions that cuts to Social Security are definitely on the table. You would think that repeated delays in the release of this key Report would at least require SOME explanation and that someone in the media might be asking questions. But no like the proverbial tree falling in the forest no one was close enough to hear the sound. If any. Well the silence is deafening. The lead press item on the Social Security website is the news that Isabella is the number one name for baby girls this year. http://www.ssa.gov/ Which I guess is fascinating news for fans of the Twilight franchise but not quite satisfying for us data driven types.
When the Report does come out it will appear on the following page: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/index.html (and interestingly the page was updated this weekend to include ‘2010’ as a choice for ‘Publication Year’. As of this moment neither clicking on the Summary or total Report button gets you to anything, but the fact that the page was changed at all is fascinating Certainly I’ll be checking back regularly.) But the delay still remains inexplicable.
I reported on arumor that would lower the minimum retirement age to 60 and raise the income subject to SS tax to $250,000. Have youheard anything about this trial baloon?
Not the 60 year piece, though Prof Galbraith gets close in some of his suggestions for enhancing SS.
As to the $250k, well there are any number of proposals that would take the cap to 90% of income (around $176k), or lift it altogether, or lift if only for people making more than $250k at a 4-6% rate (this being the Obama position), and probably there is one that would just peg it to $250k. Certainly raising the cap is definitely a concept actively in play.
An interesting note: the putative 2010 report will live at a differently-named URL than prevous reports.
For example, 2006’s report is at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/TR06/index.html — but 2010’s will be (if coded right) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/index.html .
Significant? Who can say. Maybe SSA gives out the “We held on to the 2020 report because wanted to launch our re-designed website when we release it” excuse.
And, no, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/TR10/index.html doesn’t work.
Does anyone know the status of the Earnings Suspense File?
That change in file name conventions occurred with the 2009 Report. So I don’t see any significance.
I don’t know what that is. Perhaps Nancy O will come by and fill us in.
Uninformed opinion:
The report has not come out yet because it doesn’t say what those who want to tweak SS (read: give a piece of it to Wall Street to steal, I mean manage) need it to say.
The powers inside the Beltway need to hold off the SS Trustee Report until the warfare welfare budget request settles into the war machine committees who will quietly advance the plundering.
This budget plans to grow procurement of shoddy, late and unnecessary weapons for profits and pay for the increases by cutting back on military personnel and readiness accounts.
Fund the acquisition side of war waste, let the poor eat cat food.
The warfare budget might expose the ridiculous nature of the pet food deficit commission.
Only about 1% per year for 6 years over inflation, now that is good for the cash plan of the war profiteers, and nothing else.
By Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg News Bloomberg.com
July 6, 2010
U.S. spending on weapons through 2016 likely will grow faster than the overall defense budget, which will have annual increases of only about 1 percent above inflation, according to Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale.
“Our goal would be to get forces and modernization to grow by 2 or 3 percent,” Hale said in an interview, while saying that “it’s not a given.”
An increase in weapons spending will include greater purchases of Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 fighter, new ground vehicles, ship construction, satellite systems and unmanned drones, according to the Pentagon’s long- range plan. Northrop Grumman Corp., of Los Angeles, and Chicago-based Boeing Co. also stand to benefit.
Some money may be shifted into equipment and personnel accounts from an effort to cut $100 billion of overhead costs over five years, announced by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 28, Hale said.
“Procurement and research are in the ‘gaining’ portion of the budget,” Hale said. “The goal would be to move money from support-type activities — operations and maintenance, military construction — into acquisition.”
The Earnings Suspense File (ESF) contains all earnings reported for individuals using fictitious SSNs, name and SSN mismatches, sex mismatches, etc. When payroll tax returns come in from employers, IRS passes the employees’ W-2 data on to SSA. All records must pass a series of matches to be posted to a wage earner’s earnings record. Fictious numbers reject as do SSN/name mismatches of various types. A common reason wages go into the ESF is that a newly married woman forgets to change her name with SSA. But, there are many ways data can bounce–but it’s TMI to go into all the possible way the wages end up in the ESF.
In 2003, it contained approximately $57.8 billion dollars. It undoubtedly has grown substantially by now. Anyhow, any worker who has proof of wages earned under a false identity or incorrectly reported for any reason can have his/her earnings posted to his/her record using a non-work number assigned only for that purpose. Information for what to do if you find any missing or incorrectly reported wages on your annual printout of earnings is on Social Security’s website, socialsecurity.gov. Nancy Ortiz
If I could get my hands on it I would leak it faster than you could say “Bob’s your uncle”
Isn’t the report the SS and Medicare Trustees Report? Obama just made a recession appointment to fill the empty slot at the top of the Medicare/Medicaid administration. Perhaps what the administration has been waiting for is this week, so that it can have another Administrator to sign the report.
Well that is a little scary. I just sent an e-mail to a policy list-serv making the same suggestion a few minutes ago, and all before seeing this comment.
It is possible. Last year’s Reports were delayed until May 12th. Was that related to Sebelius’s delayed confirmation that came on April 28th? It was nice to have the Medicare Report signed by the HHS Secretary, which also allowed them to have four Trustees sign the SS Report and five the Medicare one (Both the Social Security and Medicare Commissioners are Trustees of Medicare).
Hi Bruce! Nice blog, great work and writing!
Well no one will ever read this (it now being a month later). But having examined the Report I would have to say that Mr. Bunny was right on target. The 2010 Report turned out to be a huge Fail for the enemies of Social Security.
Congrats dustbunny!
Only those of use who notice….dustbunny44 calls it! http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/07/if-social-security-annual-report.html#comments