An anonymous poster responded to something I had written to say that regulations of the Office of Management and Budget prohibit federal agency heads from lobbying for appropriations in excess of what is contained in the President's recommended budget. This is true and an important fact for agencies other than Social Security.
However, the Social Security Administration is in a unique position. The Social Security Independence Act now only allows, but requires Social Security to submit its own budget request directly to Congress, which means that the Commissioner of Social Security is free to lobby Congress for whatever budget he feels that his agency needs. Indeed, if the Commissioner of Social Security is unwilling to do so, there is little point in the Social Security Administration being an independent agency.
In refusing to advocate for his own agency's budget, Michael Astrue is making the case that the "independence" of the Social Security Administration is a sham and that in the next administration Social Security should either be returned to the Department of Health and Human Services or made a cabinet level department. Either of these would put Michael Astrue out of a job, which might not displease a newly elected Democratic president.
However, the Social Security Administration is in a unique position. The Social Security Independence Act now only allows, but requires Social Security to submit its own budget request directly to Congress, which means that the Commissioner of Social Security is free to lobby Congress for whatever budget he feels that his agency needs. Indeed, if the Commissioner of Social Security is unwilling to do so, there is little point in the Social Security Administration being an independent agency.
In refusing to advocate for his own agency's budget, Michael Astrue is making the case that the "independence" of the Social Security Administration is a sham and that in the next administration Social Security should either be returned to the Department of Health and Human Services or made a cabinet level department. Either of these would put Michael Astrue out of a job, which might not displease a newly elected Democratic president.
5 comments:
This item contains very politically naive statements. All agencies in the Executive Branch report to the President. The Commissioner of Social Security, as well as heads of other agencies, serve at the pleasure of the President. Being an "independent agency" doesn't change that.
Maybe now is a good time to re-run the poll as to how effective Asrue is--I've seen enough. Why even take the job if you are going to do nothing but rubber-stamp the administration line? He is wasting everyone's time.
The first commenter here is wrong. The COSS has a fixed term; he does not serve at the pleasure of the President. Once appointed and confirmed, he can only be removed for 'cause.' Now does that totally guarantee complete independence within this or any administration? No. But having helped write this legislation, I can assure you it provides more independence than Mr. Astrue has shown to date.
Have read the legislation referenced by the previous commenter - I would like to point out section 104 of said, as referenced in the President's budget.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/appendix/ssa.pdf
"As directed by Section 104 of P.L. 103–296, the Social Security
Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994,
the Commissioner of Social Security shall prepare an annual
budget for SSA, which shall be submitted by the President
to the Congress without revision, together with the President’s
request for SSA."
The Commissioner submits his budget to the President - not directly to the Congress. Perhaps OMB interprets this to mean that the same prohibitions that apply to other Agency heads apply to the Commissioner of Social Security. Whether or not this is accurate, as a practical matter, does it make sense for the Commissioner to tick off the administration by publicly advocating for more than the President's budget, when the Congress hasn't provided even the President's budget funding level in many years?
The obvious point here is, it is the Commissioner's budget, not the President's budget. The President is evidently cutting the Commissioner's budget then having the Commissioner advocate for the reduced budget, which is the opposite of what should happen per the above reference.
Post a Comment