Things are not going well on getting the Social Security Administration an adequate budegt for the next fiscal year (FY), which begins on October 1. See the attached letter signed by the Chairmen and Ranking Minority members of both the entire House Ways and Means Committee and its Social Security Subcommittee. This letter was sent to their counterparts on the House Appropriations Committee.
So what is the problem? At first glance, this just looks like a nice letter to help get a good budget for Social Security. Let us go back. The FY 2007 Social Security budget is $9.3 billion. The President's proposed FY 2008 budget is only $9.6 billion. Social Security's requested budget for FY 2008 is $10.4 billion. A few weeks ago, the House and Senate Budget Committees seemed to be agreeing on approximately $10.1 billion for Social Security. There is no final agreement on a budget resolution and the budget resolution provides only rough guidelines on what the actual appropriations will be, but things were looking fairly good just a short time ago.
It is the Appropriations Committees which reports out the actual hard numbers which determine how much money each agency gets. Judging by this letter and particularly by its next to last paragraph, it looks as if we are at the President's number of $9.6 billion and merely hoping to get to $10 billion, instead of at $10.1 billion and trying to go up. The Appropriations Committees seem less inclined to give Social Security additional money than the Budget Committees.
What happened? Commissioner Astrue has been meeting with Appropriations Committee members. I am told that he is asking only for the President's budget proposal of $9.6 billion, even though his own agency asked for $10.4 billion. Astrue seems to be discouraging additional money for his agency, even though his agency had earlier asked for the money. Everyone else is advocating for $10 billion and up, except for the Office of Management and Budget and the Commissioner of Social Security.
I begin to understand why the House Social Security Subcommittee was so hard on Commissioner Astrue at the May 1 hearing. Dealing with Social Security's backlogs and staffing shortages appears less important to Commissioner Astrue than fealty to the White House. There have been rumblings for some time that Social Security as an independent agency has been a failure. This is more proof that Social Security Commissioners are not independent. Commissioner Astrue may need to worry about being reorganized out of a job if there is a Democrat in the White House after the 2008 election.
So what is the problem? At first glance, this just looks like a nice letter to help get a good budget for Social Security. Let us go back. The FY 2007 Social Security budget is $9.3 billion. The President's proposed FY 2008 budget is only $9.6 billion. Social Security's requested budget for FY 2008 is $10.4 billion. A few weeks ago, the House and Senate Budget Committees seemed to be agreeing on approximately $10.1 billion for Social Security. There is no final agreement on a budget resolution and the budget resolution provides only rough guidelines on what the actual appropriations will be, but things were looking fairly good just a short time ago.
It is the Appropriations Committees which reports out the actual hard numbers which determine how much money each agency gets. Judging by this letter and particularly by its next to last paragraph, it looks as if we are at the President's number of $9.6 billion and merely hoping to get to $10 billion, instead of at $10.1 billion and trying to go up. The Appropriations Committees seem less inclined to give Social Security additional money than the Budget Committees.
What happened? Commissioner Astrue has been meeting with Appropriations Committee members. I am told that he is asking only for the President's budget proposal of $9.6 billion, even though his own agency asked for $10.4 billion. Astrue seems to be discouraging additional money for his agency, even though his agency had earlier asked for the money. Everyone else is advocating for $10 billion and up, except for the Office of Management and Budget and the Commissioner of Social Security.
I begin to understand why the House Social Security Subcommittee was so hard on Commissioner Astrue at the May 1 hearing. Dealing with Social Security's backlogs and staffing shortages appears less important to Commissioner Astrue than fealty to the White House. There have been rumblings for some time that Social Security as an independent agency has been a failure. This is more proof that Social Security Commissioners are not independent. Commissioner Astrue may need to worry about being reorganized out of a job if there is a Democrat in the White House after the 2008 election.
3 comments:
at least we now know the reason for not hiring more than 160-170 ALJ this fiscal year. Astrue isn't pushing for the funds to do it.
Once again the sky is falling, employees will be furlough and offices will be closed.
The likelihood is that the democrats will do no more than the republicans to correct the situation, so that they can blame the looming disaster on the republicans in next year's elections.
Post a Comment