| The Office
provides many publications and notices in
Spanish |
| Government
answers FAQ on Social Security |
 Toronto
/ UPI
The Social Security Administration
has published this questionaire for those who
have questions about their Social Security benefits.
Q: I plan to work part
time for about three years before I retire.
Because you use
my last three
years to figure my Social Security benefits,
will those lower, part-time earnings reduce
my eventual retirement benefit?
A: We actually base all
Social Security retirement computations on
the highest 35 years of earnings
(adjusted for inflation) _ not just the last
three or five years. So the fact that you
will have three years of reduced earnings
near the
end of your working life will have a negligible
effect on your Social Security benefits.
You can use our online calculators at
www.socialsecurity.gov
to get a better idea of how your part-time
earnings will affect your Social Security.
Q: When I divorced my
husband 20 years ago, I was not even thinking
about Social Security.
But now that I am nearing 60 years of age
and beginning to think about retiring,
I want to
know about all of my Social Security options.
Can I get Social Security spouse's benefits
based
on my ex-husband's work? We were married
for 15 years, and I never remarried. He
is 63 and
I think he has remarried.
A: A few months before
you are ready to retire, you should file for
your Social
Security
retirement benefits. At that time, we
will check your
ex-husband's record to find out if you
are due any additional
benefits based on his earnings record.
And it does not matter if he has remarried.
If
his current
wife is also due benefits, you both will
get the full benefits due. For fast answers
to specific Social Security questions, contact
Social Security toll-free
at 800-772-1213.
 Back
to to
| Many urban-music
consultants receive initial lump sums |
| Record
Labels Said to Be Next on Spitzer List for
Scrutiny |
By Jeff Leads
Liot Spitzer, the New
York State attorney general, has recently taken
on a procession of corporate powers from Wall
Street analysts to mutual funds to insurance
brokers. Now he is casting his eyes on the music
industry, particularly its practices for influencing
what songs are heard on the public airwaves.
According to several
people involved, investigators in Mr. Spitzer's
office have served subpoenas
on the four major record corporations - the
Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music
Entertainment, the
EMI Group and the Warner Music Group - seeking
copies of contracts, billing records and other
information detailing their ties to independent
middlemen who pitch new songs to radio programmers
in New York State.
The inquiry encompasses
all the major radio formats and is not aiming
at any individual
record promoter,
these people said. Mr. Spitzer and representatives
for the record companies declined to comment.
The major record labels have paid middlemen
for decades, though the practice has long
been derided
as a way to skirt a federal statute - known
as the payola law - outlawing bribes to radio
broadcasters.
Broadcasters are prohibited
from taking cash or anything of value in exchange
for playing
a specific song, unless they disclose the
transaction to listeners. But in a practice
that is common
in the industry, independent promoters
pay radio stations annual fees - often
exceeding
$100,000
- not, they say, to play specific songs,
but to obtain advance copies of the stations'
playlists.
The promoters then bill record labels for
each new song that is played; the total
tab costs
the record industry tens of millions of
dollars each year.
The new scrutiny comes
at an inconvenient time for the major record
companies,
which have
been pressing federal and state law enforcement
officials
to shut pirate CD manufacturers and the
unimpeded flow of copyrighted music online.
The statute involved
is a federal one and the case would not seem
to fit
neatly into
Mr.
Spitzer's jurisdiction, but state attorneys
general typically
have wide latitude to investigate issues
involving consumers and businesses
in their states.
In this instance, Mr.
Spitzer might proceed on the ground that broadcasters'
dealings
with middlemen
severely limit the opportunities
available to those artists who cannot
afford
to hire them.
These promoters flourished
throughout the 1980's and most of the 1990's,
but their
influence
began to weaken after Congress
deregulated the radio
industry in 1996, allowing for
an extensive consolidation that tilted
the balance
of power to a handful
of newly created broadcasting mammoths.
With their newfound
power, some big chains, including Clear Channel
Communications,
at first tried
to tap a bigger share of the
labels' promotional dollars, and designated
specific
independent
promoters to be the exclusive
representatives
for particular stations. Promotion
prices continued to rise, but at the same
time the
consultants
had
less influence
over airplay, record executives
say.
In 2002, the industry's
lobbying organization, the Recording
Industry Association
of America, called on the government
to
strengthen
anti-payola laws and examine
questionable practices,
including independent promotion.
(Association officials
are considering whether to
provide new comments and information
to the Federal
Communications
Commission as part of that
agency's
review of radio promotion,
people in the music
industry have said.)
Back
to to
|
