Friday, August 30, 2013
Tweet[IWS] DOL: THE HISTORY OF LABOR DAY
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)
THE HISTORY OF LABOR DAY
http://www.dol.gov/laborday/history.htm
Labor Day: How it Came About; What it Means
Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.
Labor Day Legislation
Through the years the nation gave increasing emphasis to Labor Day. The first governmental recognition came through municipal ordinances passed during 1885 and 1886. From these, a movement developed to secure state legislation. The first state bill was introduced into the New York legislature, but the first to become law was passed by Oregon on February 21, 1887. During the year four more states — Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York — created the Labor Day holiday by legislative enactment. By the end of the decade Connecticut, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania had followed suit. By 1894, 23 other states had adopted the holiday in honor of workers, and on June 28 of that year, Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September of each year a legal holiday in the District of Columbia and the territories.
Founder of Labor Day
More than 100 years after the first Labor Day observance, there is still some doubt as to who first proposed the holiday for workers.
Some records show that Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and a cofounder of the American Federation of Labor, was first in suggesting a day to honor those "who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold."
But Peter McGuire's place in Labor Day history has not gone unchallenged. Many believe that Matthew Maguire, a machinist, not Peter McGuire, founded the holiday. Recent research seems to support the contention that Matthew Maguire, later the secretary of Local 344 of the International Association of Machinists in Paterson, N.J., proposed the holiday in 1882 while serving as secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York. What is clear is that the Central Labor Union adopted a Labor Day proposal and appointed a committee to plan a demonstration and picnic.
Learn more about the founder of Labor Day
The First Labor Day
The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday, September 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union. The Central Labor Union held its second Labor Day holiday just a year later, on September 5, 1883.
In 1884 the first Monday in September was selected as the holiday, as originally proposed, and the Central Labor Union urged similar organizations in other cities to follow the example of New York and celebrate a "workingmen's holiday" on that date. The idea spread with the growth of labor organizations, and in 1885 Labor Day was celebrated in many industrial centers of the country.
A Nationwide Holiday
| |
The form that the observance and celebration of Labor Day should take was outlined in the first proposal of the holiday — a street parade to exhibit to the public "the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations" of the community, followed by a festival for the recreation and amusement of the workers and their families. This became the pattern for the celebrations of Labor Day. Speeches by prominent men and women were introduced later, as more emphasis was placed upon the economic and civic significance of the holiday. Still later, by a resolution of the American Federation of Labor convention of 1909, the Sunday preceding Labor Day was adopted as Labor Sunday and dedicated to the spiritual and educational aspects of the labor movement.
The character of the Labor Day celebration has undergone a change in recent years, especially in large industrial centers where mass displays and huge parades have proved a problem. This change, however, is more a shift in emphasis and medium of expression. Labor Day addresses by leading union officials, industrialists, educators, clerics and government officials are given wide coverage in newspapers, radio, and television.
The vital force of labor added materially to the highest standard of living and the greatest production the world has ever known and has brought us closer to the realization of our traditional ideals of economic and political democracy. It is appropriate, therefore, that the nation pay tribute on Labor Day to the creator of so much of the nation's strength, freedom, and leadership — the American worker.
DOL's Historian on the History of Labor Day
Labor Daze — Pride, Chaos and Kegs on Labor's First 'Day'
Rosie: By Any Other Name — The Riveting True Story of the Labor Icon
DOL Celebrates 100 Years
We turned 100! March 2013 marked the Department of Labor's first 100 years of service. We launched a year's worth of educational events outlining the Department's history. When you see our centennial icon, expect to find out some tidbit of history, or about an event or activity celebrating our first century of service to America's workers.
Learn more about DOL Celebrating 100 Years
Take a Virtual Tour of the Department's Historical Timeline
View our Centennial Video — "100 Years of DOL History"
Looking Back at Labor Day in Photos
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
[IWS] GAO: GLOBAL MANUFACTURING: FOREIGN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS DIFFER IN SOME KEY RESPECTS FROM THOSE IN THE UNITED STATES [online 26 August 2013]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Global Manufacturing: Foreign Government Programs Differ in Some Key Respects From Those in the United States
GAO-13-365, Jul 25, 2013 [online 26 August 2013]
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-365
or
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656239.pdf
[full-text, 79 pages]
What GAO Found
The four countries GAO analyzed--Canada, Germany, Japan, and South Korea--offer a varied mix of programs to support their manufacturing sectors. For example, Canada is shifting emphasis from its primary research and development (R&D) tax credit toward direct support to manufacturers to encourage innovation, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Germany has established applied institutes and clusters of researchers and manufacturers to conduct R&D in priority areas, as well as a national dual training system that combines classroom study with workplace training, and develops national vocational skills standards and credentials in 350 occupations. Japan has implemented science and technology programs--with a major focus on alternative energy projects--as part of a comprehensive manufacturing strategy. South Korea has substantially expanded investments in R&D, including the development of a network of technoparks--regional innovation centers that provide R&D facilities, business incubation, and education and production assistance to industry.
When compared to the United States, the countries in GAO's study offer some key distinctions in government programs to support the manufacturing sector in the areas of innovation, trade, and training.
· While the United States and the other four countries all provide support for innovation and R&D, the foreign programs place greater emphasis on commercialization to help manufacturers bridge the gap between innovative ideas and sales. These include programs that support infrastructure as well as hands-on technical and product development services to firms, and that foster collaboration between manufacturers and researchers. In contrast, the United States relies heavily on competitive funding for R&D projects with commercial potential.
· Within trade policy, the United States and the four countries in GAO's study provide similar services, but there are several differences in how they are delivered. For example, the United States is an acknowledged leader in intellectual property protection, but the U.S. government plays a less prominent role than the Japanese government in developing technological standards on industrial products.
· A key difference related to training programs pertains to the sustained role of government in coordinating stakeholder input into a national system of vocational skills training and credentialing, which helps provide a supply of skilled workers for manufacturers. This was particularly evident in Germany. In contrast, the United States largely devolves vocational training to states and localities and does not have a national system to issue industry-recognized credentials. However, the U.S. manufacturing industry, with participation from the federal government, has recently launched an effort to establish nationally portable, industry-recognized credentials for the manufacturing sector.
Overall, GAO's analysis shows the broad extent to which four countries who are U.S. competitors are leveraging the public sector to help their manufacturing industries maintain competitiveness in a rapidly changing global economy.
Why GAO Did This Study
Over the last decade, the United States lost about one-third of its manufacturing jobs, raising concerns about U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. There may be insights to glean from government policies of similarly-situated countries, which are facing some of the same challenges of increased competition in manufacturing from developing countries.
GAO was asked to identify innovative foreign programs that support manufacturing that may help inform U.S. policy. Specifically, GAO examined (1) government strategies and programs other advanced economies have implemented to approach issues similar to those facing U.S. manufacturing, and (2) the key distinctions between government approaches to support manufacturing in other advanced economies and those in the United States. Based on input from experts and federal officials, and an analysis of manufacturing programs in other advanced countries, GAO selected Canada, Germany, Japan, and South Korea for study. In each country, GAO interviewed program officials and reviewed documents describing their programs. To identify distinctions between foreign and U.S. approaches to supporting manufacturing, GAO researched comparable programs in the United States, and interviewed staff administering those programs.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. GAO received only technical comments on this report from federal agencies.
For more information, contact Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-7215 or SherrillA@gao.gov or Lawrance Evans at (202) 512-4802 or EvansL@gao.gov.
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
[IWS] Census: 2011 LANGUAGE MAPPER & LANGUAGE USE IN THE UNITED STATES: 2011 [6 August 2013]
http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/language_map.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education/cb13-143.html
[IWS] Dublin Foundation: MOBILITY AND MIGRATION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE [22 July 2013]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation)
MOBILITY AND MIGRATION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE [22 July 2013]
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1335.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2013/35/en/1/EF1335EN.pdf
[full-text, 46 pages]
| Author: | Fóti, Klára |
| Summary: | This report highlights the key challenges facing the EU10 as a result of the high number of health professionals leaving to work abroad, focusing on specific problems and identifying topics for further research. A thorough analysis of the consequences is critical, since it appears the inflow of third-country nationals or return migration would not make up the shortfall caused by the outflow. However, as this is not equally true for all the countries, the report presents a differentiated picture between the countries concerned. The study draws on the results of two European research projects: Mobility of Health Professionals (MoHProf) and the Health Professional Mobility in the European Union Study (PROMeTHEUS). An executive summary is also available. |
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
[IWS] Dublin Foundation: SOCIAL INNOVATION IN SERVICE DELIVERY: NEW PARTNERS AND APPROACHES [19 August 2013]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation)
SOCIAL INNOVATION IN SERVICE DELIVERY: NEW PARTNERS AND APPROACHES [19 August 2013]
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1354.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2013/54/en/1/EF1354EN.pdf
[full-text, 60 pages]
| Author: | Ludwinek, Anna; Sandor, Eszter; Ecker, Berenike; Scoppetta, Anette |
| Summary: | This report presents the findings of a research project exploring the involvement of new partners – in particular, the social partners, civil society and people in vulnerable situations – in social innovation. The research was carried out at EU level – focusing especially on the role of the European Social Fund (ESF) in social innovation – and in six Member States: Austria, Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Sweden. It examined the innovation and social partnership culture in each country, and analysed to what extent national-level policies have been triggered by EU policy. An executive summary is also available. |
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
[IWS] NSF: REGIONAL CONCENTRATIONS OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS IN THE UNITED STATES [19 August 2013]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
National Science Foundation (NSF)
NSF 13-330 | August 2013 |
Regional Concentrations of Scientists and Engineers in the United States [19 August 2013]
by Beethika Khan and Jaquelina C. Falkenheim
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13330/
or
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13330/nsf13330.pdf
[full-text, 6 pages]
[excerpt]
Science and engineering (S&E) employment in the United States is geographically concentrated in a small number of states and several major metropolitan areas within those states, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011 American Community Survey (ACS). The three most populous states—California, Texas, and New York—together accounted for more than one-fourth of all S&E employment in the United States. Several major metropolitan areas in those states, for example, areas around Santa Clara, Los Angeles, and San Diego, all in California, and areas around New York City and Houston, together accounted for approximately 1 in 10 S&E workers nationwide.
The availability of a skilled workforce is an important predictor of a region's population, productivity, and technological growth.[3] Workers with S&E expertise are an integral part of a region's innovative capacity because of their high levels of skill, creative ideas, and contributions to scientific knowledge and R&D.
AND MUCH MORE…including TABLES….
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
[IWS] BEA: PERSONAL INCOME AND OUTLAYS, JULY 2013 [30 August 2013]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
PERSONAL INCOME AND OUTLAYS, JULY 2013 [30 August 2013]
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2013/pi0713.htm
or
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2013/pdf/pi0713.pdf
[full-text, 11 pages]
or
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2013/xls/pi0713.xls
[spreadsheet]
and
Highlights
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2013/pdf/pi0713_fax.pdf
Personal income increased $14.1 billion, or 0.1 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) increased $21.7 billion,
or 0.2 percent, in July, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE)
increased $16.3 billion, or 0.1 percent. In June, personal income increased $38.2 billion, or 0.3 percent, DPI
increased $27.3 billion, or 0.2 percent, and PCE increased $64.0 billion, or 0.6 percent, based on revised estimates.
Real disposable income increased 0.1 percent in July, in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent in June. Real PCE
increased less than 0.1 percent, compared with an increase of 0.2 percent.
AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
[IWS] CRS: PRIMER ON DISABILITY BENEFITS: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (11 June 2013]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Primer on Disability Benefits: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Umar Moulta-Ali, Analyst in Disability Policy
June 11, 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32279.pdf
[full-text, 12 pages]
Summary
In general, the goal of disability insurance is to replace a portion of a worker’s income should
illness or disability prevent him or her from working. Individuals may receive disability benefits
from either federal or state governments, or from private insurers. This report presents
information on two components of federal disability benefits, those provided through the Social
Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. The
SSDI program is an insurance program that provides benefits to individuals who have paid into
the system and meet certain minimum work requirements. In contrast, the SSI program is a
means-tested program that does not have work or contribution requirements, but restricts benefits
to those who meet asset and resource limitations.
The SSDI program was enacted in 1956 and provides benefits to insured disabled workers under
the full retirement age (and to their spouses, surviving disabled spouses, and children) in amounts
related to the disabled worker’s former earnings in covered employment. The SSI program, which
went into effect in 1974, is a needs-based program that provides a flat cash benefit assuring a
minimum cash income to aged, blind, and disabled individuals who have very limited income and
assets.
To receive disability benefits under either program, individuals must meet strict medical
requirements. For both SSDI and SSI disability benefits, “disability” is defined as the inability to
engage in substantial gainful activity (SGA) by reason of a medically determinable physical or
mental impairment expected to result in death or last at least 12 months. Generally, the worker
must be unable to do any kind of work that exists in the national economy, taking into account
age, education, and work experience.
Both programs are administered through the Social Security Administration (SSA) and therefore
have similar application and disability determination processes. Although SSDI and SSI are
federal programs, both federal and state offices are used to determine eligibility for disability
benefits. SSA determines whether someone is disabled according to a five-step process, called the
sequential evaluation process, where SSA is required to look at all of the pertinent facts of a
particular case. Current work activity, severity of impairment, and vocational factors are assessed
in that order. An applicant may be denied benefits at any step in the sequential process even if the
applicant may meet a later criterion.
The SSDI program is primarily funded through Social Security payroll tax revenue, portions of
which are credited to a Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund. In contrast, the SSI program is funded
through appropriations from general revenues.
Contents
Social Security Disability Insurance ................................................................................................ 1
Supplemental Security Income ........................................................................................................ 1
Type of Benefits and Average Benefit Levels .................................................................................. 2
SSDI .......................................................................................................................................... 2
SSI ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Eligibility Requirements .................................................................................................................. 3
Definition of Disability .............................................................................................................. 3
SSDI .......................................................................................................................................... 3
SSI ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Disability Determination Process .................................................................................................... 6
Program Financing Information ....................................................................................................... 7
SSDI .......................................................................................................................................... 8
SSI ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Tables
Table 1. Reasons for SSDI Worker Benefit Termination, 2011 ....................................................... 4
Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 9
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... 9
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
[IWS] SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM: LEGAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT ISSUES [7 June 2013]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Social Security Reform: Legal Analysis of Social Security Benefit Entitlement Issues
Kathleen S. Swendiman, Legislative Attorney
Thomas J. Nicola, Legislative Attorney
June 7, 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32822.pdf
[full-text, 15 pages]
Summary
Calculations indicating that in the long run the Social Security program will not be financially
sustainable under the present statutory scheme have fueled the current debate regarding Social
Security reform. This report addresses selected legal issues which may be raised regarding
entitlement to Social Security benefits as Congress considers possible changes to the Social
Security program, and in view of projected long-range shortfalls in the Social Security Trust
Funds.
Social Security is a statutory entitlement program. Beneficiaries have a legal entitlement to
receive Social Security benefits as set forth under the Social Security Act. The fact that Social
Security benefits are financed by taxes on an employee’s wages, however, does not limit
Congress’s power to fix the levels of benefits under the Social Security Act or the conditions upon
which they may be paid. Congress’s authority to modify provisions of the Social Security
program was affirmed in the 1960 Supreme Court decision in Flemming v. Nestor, wherein the
Court held that an individual does not have an accrued “property right” in his or her Social
Security benefits. The Court has made clear in subsequent court decisions that the payment of
Social Security taxes conveys no contractual rights to Social Security benefits.
Congress has the power to legislatively promise to pay individuals a certain level of Social
Security benefits, and to provide legal evidence of Congress’s “guarantee” of the obligation of the
federal government to provide for the payment of such benefits in the future. While Congress
may decide to take whatever measures necessary to fulfill such an obligation, courts would be
unlikely to find that Congress’s unilateral promise constitutes a contract which could not be
modified in the future. In addition, a congressional promise not to reduce a specific level of
Social Security benefits payable to certain eligible individuals would likely not overcome the
constitutional principle, subject to due process considerations, that one Congress may not bind a
subsequent Congress to legislative action or inaction.
The calculations concerning the possible future insolvency of the Social Security Trust Funds
raise a question whether that result would affect the legal right of beneficiaries to receive full
Social Security benefits. While an entitlement by definition legally obligates the United States to
make payments to any person who meets the eligibility requirements established in the statute
that creates the entitlement, a provision of the Antideficiency Act prevents an agency from paying
more in benefits than the amount in the source of funds available to pay the benefits. The Social
Security Act states that Social Security benefits shall be paid only from the Social Security Trust
Funds, and the act appropriates all payroll taxes to pay benefits. Although the legal right of
beneficiaries to receive full benefits would not be extinguished by an insufficient amount of funds
in the Social Security Trust Funds, it appears that beneficiaries would have to wait until the Trust
Funds receive an amount sufficient to pay full benefits in the case of a shortfall, unless Congress
amends applicable laws.
Contents
Congressional Authority To Modify Entitlements ........................................................................... 1
Congressional Guarantee of Social Security Benefit Payments ...................................................... 5
Congressional Power To Modify Its Own Contracts ................................................................. 5
Congressional Power To Promise Future Deference ................................................................. 7
Payment of Social Security Benefits From the Trust Fund in Case of Exhaustion.......................... 8
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 12
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
[IWS] CRS: SOCIAL SECURITY: THE TRUST FUND [4 June 2013]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Social Security: The Trust Fund
Dawn Nuschler, Specialist in Income Security
Gary Sidor, Information Research Specialist
June 4, 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33028.pdf
[full-text, 20 pages]
Summary
The Social Security program pays benefits to retired or disabled workers and their family
members, and to family members of deceased workers. Program income and outgo are accounted
for in two separate trust funds authorized under Title II of the Social Security Act: the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund and the Federal Disability Insurance (DI)
trust fund. This report refers to the two trust funds as an aggregate Social Security trust fund and
discusses the operations of the OASI and DI trust funds on a combined basis.
Social Security is financed by payroll taxes paid by covered workers and their employers, federal
income taxes paid by some beneficiaries on a portion of their benefits, and interest income from
the Social Security trust fund investments. Social Security tax revenues are invested in federal
government securities (special issues) held by the trust fund, and these federal government
securities earn interest. The revenues exchanged for the federal government securities are
deposited into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury and are indistinguishable from revenues in
the general fund that come from other sources. Because the assets held by the trust fund are
federal government securities, the trust fund balance represents the amount of money owed to the
Social Security trust fund by the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. Funds needed to pay Social
Security benefits and administrative expenses come from the redemption or sale of federal
government securities held by the trust fund.
The Social Security trust fund represents funds dedicated to pay current and future Social
Security benefits. However, it is useful to view the trust fund in two ways: (1) as an internal
federal accounting concept and (2) as the accumulated holdings of the Social Security program.
For internal accounting purposes, certain accounts within the U.S. Treasury are designated by law
as trust funds to track revenues (and expenditures) dedicated for specific purposes. There are a
number of trust funds in the U.S. Treasury, including those for Social Security, Medicare,
unemployment compensation, and federal employee retirement.
By law, Social Security tax revenues must be invested in U.S. government obligations (debt
instruments of the U.S. government). The accumulated holdings of U.S. government obligations
are often viewed as being similar to assets held by any other trust on behalf of the beneficiaries.
However, the holdings of the Social Security trust fund differ from those of private trusts because
(1) the types of investments the trust fund may hold are limited and (2) the U.S. government is
both the buyer and seller of the investments.
This report covers the basics of how the Social Security program is financed and how the Social
Security trust fund works. It will be updated annually to reflect current projections of the financial
status of the Social Security trust fund.
CONTENTS
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
How the Social Security Program Is Financed ................................................................................ 1
Temporary Payroll Tax Reduction for Workers in 2011 and 2012 ............................................ 2
The Social Security Trust Fund as a Designated Account ............................................................... 3
Social Security Trust Fund Revenues ........................................................................................ 3
Social Security Trust Fund Costs............................................................................................... 3
Social Security Trust Fund Operations ...................................................................................... 4
Investment of the Social Security Trust Fund ......................................................................... 10
The Social Security Trust Fund and the Federal Budget ......................................................... 10
On-Budget Versus Off-Budget ................................................................................................ 11
The Social Security Trust Fund as Accumulated Holdings ........................................................... 11
The Social Security Trust Fund and the Level of Federal Debt............................................... 16
The Social Security Trust Fund and Benefit Payments ........................................................... 16
Figures
Figure 1. Ratio of Current (Annual) Revenues to Costs for the Social Security Trust Fund, 1957-2032 ....................................................... 9
Tables
Table 1. Annual Revenues, Costs, and Cash Flow Surpluses or Deficits for the Social Security Trust Fund, 1957-2012 ................................ 5
Table 2.Projected Annual Revenues, Costs, and Cash Flow Deficits for the Social Security Trust Fund, 2013-2032 ....................................... 7
Table 3.Accumulated Holdings of the Social Security Trust Fund, 1957-2012 ............................. 13
Table 4.Projected Accumulated Holdings of the Social Security Trust Fund, 2013-2032 ............. 15
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 17
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 17
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
