Here is a list of recent Social Security Field office closures I know about with the names and party affiliation of the representatives of those cities in Congress:
- Auburn, NY -- Senators Schumer (D) and Clinton (D), Representative Arcuri (D)
- Bristol, CT -- Senators Dodd (D) and Lieberman (I, but caucuses with Democrats), Reprentatives Larson (D) and Murphy (D)
- Carbondale, PA -- Senators Spector (R, but increasingly acting in an independent manner) and Casey (D), Representative Carney (D)
- Dickinson, ND -- probable closure, but nothing definite -- Senators Conrad (D) and Dorgan (D), Representative Pomeroy (D -- member of Social Security Subcommittee who talked about how he had been lied to by former Commissioner Barnhart and how the ALJ hiring situation at Social Security was a "god-damned outrage")
- San Pedro, CA -- Senators Feinstein (D) and Boxer (D), Representatives Harman (D) and Rohrabacher (R)
- Slidell, LA -- Senators Landrieu (D) and Vitter (R), Representative Jindal (R) (This office closure was probably inevitable due to the population loss in the area following the hurricane.)
I do not want to seem paranoid, but I think I see a pattern here.
Some caveats are in order. I am only reporting the office closures that resulted in newspaper articles that I can access online. It is certainly possible that some office closures have not been covered by local newspapers. Many of these newspaper articles have been generated by a Congressman's office calling a local newspaper to get coverage of the Congressman's efforts to keep a Social Security field office open. Republican Congressmen may be less likely to make the effort to keep a Social Security field office open or to publicize that effort, leading to fewer stories. Also, not all newspapers are accessible online.
Still, if I were a Democratic Congressman whose local Social Security field office were threatened with closure, I would really like to see a list of all the offices that have been or will be closed. I would also like to know the criteria used in making these decisions. I would also like to know whether the the Social Security Commissioner's liaison to the White House has been involved in these decisions.
Some caveats are in order. I am only reporting the office closures that resulted in newspaper articles that I can access online. It is certainly possible that some office closures have not been covered by local newspapers. Many of these newspaper articles have been generated by a Congressman's office calling a local newspaper to get coverage of the Congressman's efforts to keep a Social Security field office open. Republican Congressmen may be less likely to make the effort to keep a Social Security field office open or to publicize that effort, leading to fewer stories. Also, not all newspapers are accessible online.
Still, if I were a Democratic Congressman whose local Social Security field office were threatened with closure, I would really like to see a list of all the offices that have been or will be closed. I would also like to know the criteria used in making these decisions. I would also like to know whether the the Social Security Commissioner's liaison to the White House has been involved in these decisions.
4 comments:
If Bush is trying to smack his political foes, I suspect Bristol would not be the only New England office slated for closure.
But it is interesting.
Since Congress refuses to provide the money to staff field offices, what is the point in having the offices stay open? SSA must consolidate the staff into larger offices in order to have some type of back up capability for those on leave.
This new Congress has not been asked for much of an increase so I don't know how it can be blamed. The executive branch should have been aware of the staffing problems all along and when you are spending $2 billion dollars a week in Iraq, there isn't much left over.
That's like blaming your spouse when you run out of gas because they didn't tell you to get gas, when all you have to do is look at the fuel gauge--in other words, it is so blatantly obvious, that to argue otherwise is disingenuous and constitutes blame-shifting.
Post a Comment