XPost: dc.urban-planning, wa.politics   
   From: impeach_obama@yahoo.com   
      
   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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)