The agency also plans to hire about 150 ALJs and some additional hearing office support staff in the spring of 2008 – the only new hiring in FY 2008 as the agency continues to contract through attrition due to many years of congressional budget cuts far below what the President has requested.Why would budget cuts in prior years require that Social Security cut its workforce this year? I can see how budget cuts in prior years would have required staff cuts in those prior years, but now? It is certainly fair to blame a good part of the current backlogs on inadequate budgets in prior years, but staffing levels in fiscal year (FY) 2008, which just began last week, are determined by the FY 2008 budget, not the budgets in prior years.
Since it seems clear that Social Security will get at least as much as what President Bush and Social Security Commissioner Astrue have requested for Social Security for FY 2008, it seems only fair to me to blame President Bush and Michael Astrue for not asking for enough money to properly staff and run the agency. Blaming prior Congresses for today's staffing level seems dishonest to me.
About the only excuse I can come up with for this is that if prior Congresses had given Social Security more funding in prior years, then in preparing the FY 2008 budget the White House and the Congress would have been working from a higher baseline and might have come to a higher number for this year. It would seem to me that it would be Michael Astrue's job to point out the fallacy of adding some small percentage onto last year's inadequate budget and expecting the backlogs to disappear. If he ever pointed out this fallacy, he did so privately. Publicly, he has said that all he wants is the President's recommended budget, even though the President's recommended budget for Social Security will require a near total hiring freeze in an agency that is already badly understaffed.
5 comments:
Mr. Hall quotes:
“[T]he agency continues to contract through attrition due to many years of congressional budget cuts far below what the President has requested.”
He then asks:
“I can see how budget cuts in prior years would have required staff cuts in those prior years, but now?”
Mr. Hall appears to conflate “contract through attrition” with “staff cuts.” The first is the passive process of not replacing those who leave. The second is the active process of discharging employees. SSA’s experience of recent years has been the first, not the second. The phrase “continues to contact” recognizes this history. That’s the connection with budgets for prior years.
If I’m right that this is very easy to see, then we are entitled to wonder what kinds of factors might limit Mr. Hall’s vision.
Prior year budgets have a big impact on SSA in fiscal 2008 - SSA has been under a continuing resolution since 10/01/06 due to the failure of Congress to pass a final budget. This means that despited increasing costs, including the cost of living adjustments to federal salaries, SSA is stuck with the 2006 budget figures. The author mentions that Congress funded at a level lower than that requested by the President and the President's request was too low to fully fund the mission of the agency.
To me it sounds like the same great thinking that says we can continue to fund benefits at current levels when the number of receipients is growing and the number of workers paying into the system is getting smaller. You have to give them credit, they are consistent-consistently unwilling to address the real issues.
it is not just cola's, but step increases and promotions that increase personnel costs, resulting in less money available to retain employees--e.g., promoting service reps to claims reps, leaving fewer service reps at the lower salary to retain x-number of claims reps which are higher salaries.
The sentence is saying the agency is "continuing to contract" (get smaller) because of years of budget cuts and attrition. Basically the process of getting smaller started years ago and is still occurring. It's not blaming this year's lack of hiring on prior year funds.
Post a Comment