Ms. Kathy Ruffing of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently published a report finding that Social Security’s current costs and caseloads “are generally in step with past projections.” This report indicates that demographic changes in the U.S. workforce explain most of the growth in disability insurance (“DI”) beneficiaries in the past decade. Most interestingly, it demonstrates that although applications rise during bad economic times, the number of awards does not correlate to economic factors. For example, fewer than half of the applications between 2004 and 2007 were ultimately allowed. Angry about the backlog? This report indicates that the culprit is Congress: “SSA’s administrative funding has been frozen since 2010, despite growing caseloads in all three of its programs (OASI, DI, and SSI).” Richard Kogan indicates that expected cuts from the Budget Control Act of 2011 are only likely to make things worse, as the Administration’s case load grows by an anticipated 30 percent by 2021.
Ms. Ruffing’s statistical break down of the disability insurance program disproves many conservative arguments that too many people are somehow using Social Security’s resources. Conservative talking points would have us believe that Social Security recipients are not worthy of their payments, or that there is a budget doomsday upon us. The numbers crunched by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities contradict this hype over Social Security’s budget.
The report also reminds us that no one should be surprised at the Social Security trustees’ projection that the DI trust fund will be insolvent in 2016; in 1994, when law makers last funded Social Security, the plan included an expectation for the DI fund to be exhausted in 2016. “DI’s trust-fund exhaustion thus comes as no surprise and should not be considered evidence that the program is out of control,” the report concludes. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recommends addressing the 2016 issue “in the context of overall Social Security solvency,” by reallocating taxes between the retirement and disability funds. This, after all, is what bipartisan law makers have done in the past.
