More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Scott Hochberg

GET UPDATES FROM Scott Hochberg
 

Making E-Verify Mandatory: The Perfect Storm for Crippling the Social Security Administration and Jeopardizing the Social Safety Net

Posted: 07/01/11 03:11 PM ET

There has been much recent buzzing about AARP's ambiguous, half-denied statements about their (new?) willingness to cut Social Security benefits, and rightly so. As the largest membership organization of seniors in the country, AARP's tactical gamble could be an unfortunate game-changer in any deficit deal negotiated behind closed doors in Washington.

But believe it or not, one of the biggest threats to Social Security this summer could come from an entirely different direction, from an initiative whose main target is not even related to social program spending. I'm talking about E-Verify, a proposed system for curbing the legal employment of every single undocumented worker in America. While seemingly immigration-related, a mandatory E-Verify program could cripple the Social Security Administration (SSA) by concurrently draining already-limited funding while imposing heavy burdens on one of the most efficient government programs in existence. Oh yes, and it would threaten the timely distribution of all new Social Security benefits.

For those not familiar with it, E-Verify is a tool designed to prevent the employment of undocumented workers in the United States. Employers run the personal information of new hires though the E-Verify electronic system, which is connected to the SSA master database of Americans with Social Security numbers. In its developmental stages, the program has been optional for employers, but new legislation proposed by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) would make it mandatory. This would be dubious policy for a number of reasons, and many diverse groups, from the pro-immigrant community to businesses and agricultural companies, have come out against it.

One key message of these groups that is often overlooked is that E-Verify would add significant responsibilities and workload to an agency that is already overworked and underfunded. The Social Security Administration is one of the most efficient government agencies, operating at less than 1 percent overhead costs. Forcing SSA to handle the administrative nightmare of E-Verify is worse than the usual conservative position of "starving the beast" -- it is more like starving the beast and making it run a marathon while carrying a 50 lb. backpack. That's because in addition to drastically increasing the responsibilities SSA would be faced with, the agency is already dealing with massive budget cuts that limit its administrative capacity. There are three compelling lines of argument against mandatory E-Verify:

1. Mandatory E-Verify would cost American workers their jobs and create confusion at SSA.

When E-Verify finds an inconsistency between a name and that person's work authorization, it issues a "tentative nonconfirmation" (TNC), after which an employee has several days to contact SSA or DHS to correct the error or risk losing their job. Unfortunately, a significant number of these TNCs are issued in error. (Errors are usually due to clerical mistakes from inputting data, especially with hard-to-spell names or ones that have been hyphenated or changed, as well as errors by the workers themselves when filling out government forms.) In 2010, of the 16 million E-verify queries by employers, 128,000 (0.8 percent of the total) required the employee to go to SSA or call DHS to fix the problem. Of those 0.8 percent errors, 0.3 percent were discovered to be in error and were later corrected. But 0.5 percent -- over half of all errors -- were falsely issued "final nonconfirmations," essentially forcing their employer to wrongly fire them. 0.3 percent may not sound like very many, but with a total American workforce of 154 million, that translates to over 770,000 jobs lost. (Tyler Moran, Policy Director of the National Immigration Law Center, has a thorough explanation of how many workers would be affected, and why it is so hard for workers to challenge the system.)

So what does this mean for SSA? It translates to an already overburdened staff that now has to deal with hundreds of thousands of extra calls and office visits, sometimes entailing a lengthy review process for individual cases. In 2008, when there were only 7 million E-Verify queries, 88,000 people called the 1-800 number or visited SSA due to E-Verify errors. If the program were mandatory, SSA would have to review 154 million records in the initial implementation period: if the rate of people calling SSA was the same as 2008, that would be nearly 2 million more calls into the agency during that period alone.

2. SSA is already underfunded and overburdened, and cannot afford to take on the consuming and perpetual E-Verify project.

SSA has long been underfunded. Agency administrative expenses alone have been shorted 8 of the last 10 years (compared with the amount it requested of Congress to operate at full capacity). There was a particularly huge cut in 2011, almost a billion dollars below the required level, that was part of the last-minute compromise between Speaker Boehner and the Democrats a few months ago.

Because of those negotiations, SSA has already had to take several measures to limit its regular operations because it simply can't afford them -- many of which (ironically, although perhaps not unintentionally) will increase costs further. For one, last month the agency stopped sending out annual earnings statements to all workers under 65. (Leave aside the fact that they only cost SSA $30 million in 2011, and help millions of Americans with their retirement planning while double-checking that SSA has the correct data for them.) The agency still expects that it will experience increased call volume from confused people wondering why they didn't get their statements and hoping to confirm their information either in person or on the phone.

E-Verify proponents often claim, in response, that SSA would be funded to keep up with its new responsibilities. While that's theoretically possible, it's unlikely, given the Republicans' current impulse to cut every government program in sight. It's easy to imagine a scenario whereby SSA is forced to cut even more of its regular operations in order to accommodate the new E-Verify agenda. Critical goals of the agency, such as reducing the unacceptably long backlog for pending claims, would have to be ignored further into the future. Or maybe it was the point all along to cripple the administration of Social Security benefits themselves and attack this extremely popular program through the back door.

3. E-verify would remove millions of taxpayers from the pool that pays into Social Security, thus weakening the solvency of the Trust Fund.

As we've seen, the point of E-Verify is to remove illegal workers from legal employment, likely ending their tax contributions to Social Security and other federal revenue streams. This is a wasted opportunity, as any undocumented worker that pays taxes provides a net gain to the system (since they don't collect benefits). As we all should know by now, undocumented workers are not going to leave the country when E-Verify comes knocking. They fill an important niche in our economy and are here to stay -- the only difference is that more of them will be funneled into the underground economy, or miscategorized as (partially tax-exempt) independent contractors. One 2008 bill that would have made E-Verify mandatory without a pathway to legalization would have decreased federal revenue by $22 billion over 10 years.

Of the approximately 8 million undocumented workers, it is estimated that about two-thirds of them pay payroll taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund, accounting for $12 billion in 2007. (The Trust Fund is the total pot of surplus money paid into Social Security that is not immediately sent out as benefits, now totaling $2.7 trillion.) In sum, undocumented workers have contributed somewhere between $120 and $240 billion to the Trust Fund, accounting for 5.4 to 10.7 percent of its total assets. In addition, these workers tend to be younger than the average American, so the impact of their tax contributions will grow as the Baby Boomers retire and the percentage of seniors in America rises from 12 percent to 18 percent. According to the chief actuary of SSA, without the contributions of undocumented workers, the Trust Fund would run out of assets six years earlier than estimated in the 2010 Trustees Report. That's staggering.

According to most experts, mandatory E-Verify wouldn't affect those who already receive Social Security benefits, because current beneficiaries receive their checks through a mostly automatic process. But this much is sure: nearly everyone else would be affected. It is anyone's guess how SSA would respond to being buried with new caseloads at a time when, even pre-E-Verify, "unprecedented workloads combined with declining budgets [have] damaged [the agency's] service delivery," according to the SSA Commissioner himself. I'll leave it to the immigration experts to suggest how E-Verify needs to be improved before making it mandatory -- but for now at least, mandatory E-Verify is the surest way to threaten the social safety net with paralysis. Let's hope that if E-Verify makes it through the Senate without comprehensive reform attached, Obama will roll out the veto on this one.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 22
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:51 AM on 07/21/2011
Love the daily dose of fear mongering
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:22 AM on 07/06/2011
Am I the only person who remembers all the money "borrowed" from Social Security 20 or so years ago? The politicians PROMISED to repay the LOAN but now they seem to have forgotten the debt and instead, the people they stole from they are now having to sacrifice because our leaders having been lying thieves for decades.

NO I do not feel patriotic and NO I do not feel any respect for the public servants that have got their box lined and cushioned. They ain't going down, we are. There is something offensive about that imo.
photo
Gestas
Mountain Man
11:12 AM on 07/02/2011
It's a fact....Republicans don't want to fix Social Securiity, they want to get rid of it..
11:06 AM on 07/02/2011
How many of you are familar with the non-negotiable bonds issued by the Treasury to the S.S. Trust Fund? Since the Johnson Admin the SSTF has loaned its money to the feds. Now they are considering the repayments as TAXES. They are not mentioned as LOAN REPAYMENTS with very little interest. By the way, those certificates are stored in a warehouse in PA.
10:56 AM on 07/02/2011
The IRS and SSA need to immediately "tie-in" names and SSNs to correct ALL mismatches next tax season. A person should learn his own name and fix it with DMV, FTB, IRS, SSA, DOS a TSA. How can anyone get a Real ID, passport, SS card or even file taxes without a single name. Get married or change your name? No problem: bring the act or order to ALL government agencies. Any government agency witha an error? FIX IT! There are too many AKAs and we need to clean it up!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TexasBahr
act as you would like to be treated
09:02 AM on 07/02/2011
“Oh what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceiveâ€
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
charleyvldm9
He thinks outside the box.
08:40 AM on 07/02/2011
You want to help Social Security,then raise the age to 70 for new applicants as Americans cant afford to retire earlier,cant say I did'nt tell you.
Javalation
Laughing in a Daydream
11:43 PM on 07/01/2011
It sounds like another evil Republican scheme to destroy America, while wearing a flag pin and painting selected words from the Constitution on their vehicles.
05:48 PM on 07/01/2011
All false.

Social Security is going upside down, soon there will be two payers for every one receiver (by 2020 at the earliest by some accounts) thanks to lower birth rates and the retirement of the baby boom. This means taking Illegal Immigrants out of employment will benefit the solvency of the program, not hurt it.
Ensuring that low-cost no-benefit no-tax illegal labor is not an attractive option for businessowners means more revenue, means more people paying their FICA tax and means lower unemployment and fewer people drawing on other social programs like UIC and welfare.
03:34 PM on 07/01/2011
"the point of E-Verify is to remove illegal workers from legal employment"

The point of e-verify is to remove illegal immigrants from being illegally employed. it is against the law to hire illegal immigrants. Where you might feel it is okay to allow businesses to use illegal labor for the betterment of SS and other federal revenue streams, we need to make sure these illegal foreign nationals are protected and returned to their homeland ASAP.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Edward Standley
opinionated jerk
05:24 PM on 07/01/2011
Your care and concern are heartening. Soon other states will be tilling unpicked crops under like Georgia. What a plan!
05:53 PM on 07/01/2011
THATS WHAT CO-OPS ARE FOR.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Captain Ron
Sí, se puede!
02:50 PM on 07/01/2011
Unfounded fear-mongering by the left. There is no difference between the extreme right, who pander to corporatists, and the extreme left, who pander to corporatists' slave base.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jstrate
02:45 PM on 07/01/2011
The argument appears to argue that its better for SS if employers fill positions with undocumented workers who contribute to but do not draw benefits from SS. Perhaps this is true. For the benefit of SS, perhaps we should encourage even more illegal immigration and employers to hire even more undocumented workers. The author does not appear to be concerned with the millions of citizens in this country who are unemployed because employers (illegally) prefer to fill positions with undocumented workers. They are not establishing an earnings record and as a result will receive lower SS benefits when they retire. Does the rule of law mean anything to anybody anymore?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave F
Former Republican. Liberal means FREE.
02:29 PM on 07/01/2011
So let me get this straight: Lamar Smith wants to 1) Increase "Big Government" and 2) implement a program that is guaranteed to increase unemployment?

Please tell me elected Democrats can easily out-message this.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:10 PM on 07/01/2011
Sure, just argue "make Mexico's problem OUR problem"--or, "return to slavery--but this time, in Spanish".

Good golly, Dave, have you NO shame?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave F
Former Republican. Liberal means FREE.
07:01 PM on 07/01/2011
What part of "Obama has deported more people back to Mexico than George W. Bush did" is so hard to understand? How is that making "Mexico [your] problem" exactly? Please explain. Thanks.