The Labor-HHS appropriations bill, which includes the Social Security Administration, was set for House Appropriations subcommittee markup on July 26 and for full committee markup on August 2 but that was postponed due to the debt ceiling crisis. No doubt it will be rescheduled for the near future.
Some time ago, the House Appropriations Committee announced subcommittee allocations, that is the total amount of each subcommittee appropriation. The Labor-HHS Subcommittee has been told to cut appropriations by 12% from FY 2011 and by 26% from the President's budget. If I understand correctly, one aspect of the debt ceiling bill that will finally pass later today is that it essentially enacts the budget limits for FY 2012 that had been reported out of the House Budget Committee, the limits that the House Appropriations Committee used in preparing its subcommittee allocations. What is unclear to me is the extent to which the appropriations process is bound by the budget. The top line number for the entire budget will soon be established but how far down does that go? Does that debt ceiling bill enact the allocation to the Labor-HHS appropriation or is it still possible to trade off between the Labor-HHS appropriation and the Defense Department appropriation, for instance? In any case, I am pretty sure that nothing has yet been settled about the allocations within the Labor-HHS budget, so there can be tradeoffs between Social Security and HHS, for instance. If this sounds like an amateurish attempt to explain a complicated situation, it is. Still, it's far more than you're likely to find anywhere else.
Social Security's operating budget is not going to be cut by 12%. If that happened, Social Security might have to do something like shut down one day every week for an entire year. The agency's business just wouldn't get done. However, some cut may be inevitable. Furloughs are a distinct possibility. Increased backlogs are inevitable.
Is there a risk of a government shutdown on October 1? You would think not since we will shortly have a budget cap established for the year. Even if there is still jockeying for position among agencies surely Congress can adopt a continuing resolution to keep everything going until things can be sorted out. Unfortunately, appropriations are also about policy. There are no policy issues of substance affecting Social Security's appropriation but there are major issues affecting appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Social Security has the misfortune of being linked to HHS in the appropriations process. Republicans want to use appropriations to make it impossible to implement what they love to refer to as "Obamacare." This has the possibility of causing a shutdown at least in the parts of the government covered by the Labor-HHS appropriation and again I remind you that this includes Social Security. Will Republicans press things that far? In the wake of the debt ceiling mess, who knows? The Federal Aviation Administration is currently shut down over lesser issues.
10 comments:
There will be another continuing resolution. If they didn't shut things down over the last budget vote or raising the debt limit, they aren't going to shut things down over 2012 budget.
Social Security's operating budget could easily be cut by 12 percent if SSI were given back to the states. It is a huge drag on SSA operations and is a massive waste of money. We don't need to be paying children almost $ 700.00/month because they have a learning disability, ADHD or ODD.
This is a record setting year - three possible government shutdowns? We usually only have one.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Again....
An insider-type info: furloughs are being planned in detail as we speak. Check with unions like NTEU.
Furloughs are planned every year in SSA, but they have never been implemented because every Commissioner does everything possible to avoid it. Expect the same for FY12. Congress does not want to see declines in service at SSA either.
And is anyone else tired of repetitive comments from the anonymous hater of even the smallest measure of support SSI provides for our neediest aged and disabled citizens?
No, I am not tired of those comments. SSI for children should be eliminated.
At the VERY least, it should be changed into a payment system that pays for ONLY for healthcare to help these "disabled" children.
I have to agree with A12:40, and I'm a pretty progressive guy. SSI is completely unworkable in its present state and should be reworked from the ground up. I've seen it morph into this mess over my 30 years at SSA and it's still a mishmash of arcane rules and regs. While giving it back to the states is probably not feasible (remember why it was federalized in the first place?), it needs to be drastically changed. Eliminating cash payments for "disabled" kids is a good start. What they need is Medicaid, not money; they aren't a source of income for a family.
I am completely a progressive, and I, too have come to believe that eliminating SSI for children would not cause as much hardship as it did in the days before the S-Chip programs. I do recall when SSI eligibility was required for Medicaid eligibility, but now, with expanded children's health programs, kids can get on Medicaid without having to be disabled. I get tired of knowing that parents are using the SSI checks to generally enrich the household, and I get really tired of families that fight over custody of the kids who draw that check. Tie the money to specifics: after school programs or other counseling programs for kids with behavioral disabilities, assistive aids for kids with orthopedic disabiities, things that the state Medicaid plan does not already cover.
There are a lot of things that can be done to improve SSI for children, but I never heard of anyone being enriched by SSI. In addition, SSI for children is just a small part of the program and needed changes in that part don't justify eliminating the benefits for other needy recipients.
Post a Comment