I think you are picking nits here Dean. The gist of the article is that they can't keep up with the backlog. Seems to make sense to me. Even if the number of cases decreases, it doesn't mean that the backlog will get better if they keep cutting the administration budget.

This wasn't worthy of your talents. The article lets people know that if they are getting slow service from SSDI, they are not alone. I think that is good reporting, (and I don't say that a lot.)

I enjoy your blog. I have you bookmarked.

lee

vorpal

i haven't read the article so i can't evaluate your criticism of Dean, but I suspect that what he is seeing is more of the ongoing drumbeat against Social Security. they can't win the argument on the facts, but they can create a background of belief that the retirement of the baby boomers is a big problem and the people and the congress will move to enact changes in SS. there needs to be no logic to it. i doubt the average senator is any smarter than the average groupthink at any other committee i have watched.

Vorpal,

the article contained some useful information in that it called attention to the falure of the Social Security Administration to adequately deal with a growing caseload. But, it framed this as a problem that is due to the baby boomers and will continue to grow worse as the baby boomers age.

While the aging of the baby boom cohort into the peak disability years was a factor contributing ot this problem, we basically have seen the peak impact of this aging, as the peak disability years are now already filled by baby boomers. So, the issue going forward is simply whether the SSA will adjust to the problem that already exists, not how it will deal with a problem that is growing worse.

Since this was the paper's lead story for the day, I don't think it's too much to ask that they get this right.

Whatever the service levels for claims the actual balance in the DI Trust Fund is improving at a faster rate than OAS and is running even farther ahead of expectations. Under Intermediate Cost the balance in DI was projected to rise from $204 billion to $209 over the course of 2007, under Low Cost from $204 to $211 billion. Per the Final DI Monthly Report (released July 30) the balance on June 30th was $210.8 billion. Which is to say we have already reached the 'optimistic' projection for the year.
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/dfi/tfmb/dfifd0607.pdf
This is particularly encouraging because between the two DI was projected to hit shortfall in 2013 where OAS was projected not to until some time after 2017 (the date of combined OASDI shortfall).
Even if the numbers reverted back to Intermediate Cost projections for the rest of the year and beyond DI shortfall has been pushed into 2015. And even just another six months of improvement at year to date rates pushes that into 2016.
Table IV.A2
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR07/trLOT.html

On the financial side at least the outlook for DI is far from doom and gloom.

i think what Bruce is saying is that the economy has been returning "low cost" numbers for about ten years. under the low cost projectioni Social Security never runs out of money at all.

but even under the intermediate cost projections, the tax raise needed to balance the books is so tiny that it defies common sense that the people would not pay it, considering what they get: insured income for life.

the whole strategy of the social security killers is they can paint a tax increase as 'huge' as long as you never ask "how much is huge" and they only tell you the total cost for two hundred million people for seventy five years or forever ("infinite horizon") and assume the cost of health care will rise to levels that don't make any sense when you stop to think about it. or that we will have to pay anyway, whether through private insurance or government insurance.

I think it is a very questionable assertion that disability claims will not be increasing because baby boomers are reaching age 62. The critical age is really 66.

When someone files for retirement prior to full retirement age SSA asks if they are disabled and the SSA will always initiate a disability claim if appropriate. Since an approved disability claim would result in about 25% higher payments than receipt of early retirement at age 62, everyone who thinks they can’t work at age 62 files for disability. The fact that a large number of people are now reaching 62 just means that more of them will be contacting SSA and filing claims, often a retirement and a disability claim. The full retirement age for these boomers is 66 so we may have 4 more years of increasing claims before it levels off. Even then, the growth in claims may slow but they will probably still be at very high levels since the majority of the boomers will continue to be in the disability-prone years.

The USA Today article correctly pointed out the crisis-level backlogs in processing disability claims and appeals. Pointing out that the oldest boomers are starting to turn 62 has nothing to do with the point of the USA Today article -- that much of the backlog is attributable to aging boomers. Instead it shows a lack of understanding of the interplay between retirement and disability.

The data about the trustees projections of the costs of the program are not directly related to the number of applications or appeals filed. Putting this information in a criticism of the USA Today article is an inappropriate attempt to add the authority of the SSA Trustees to the argument, but the USA Today article was about claims backlogs, not financing.

In addition, one of the reasons the disability financing is improving in the future is because as disabled beneficiaries reach full retirement age they convert from the DI trust fund to the OAS trust fund. So the older baby boomers getting disability now will be getting retirement before too long.