The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee can do little directly about the Social Security Administration's staff shortages and huge backlogs. This problem can be addressed directly only by increased appropriations and those committees do not control appropriations. These committees could report out legislation that demands that the Social Security Administration meet certain service delivery criteria, but any legislation they report out of committee must comply with Congressional "pay-go" rules which require that any legislation that would cost money must also provide a means to pay for those costs. If the Social Security Administration is ordered by legislation to provide better service, Congress has to cut something else or raise taxes to pay for it and that is much harder to do.
Let me suggest something that would not cost a dime. Require the Commissioner of Social Security to file with Congress every year a budget request that sets forth the amounts of money the agency needs to meet certain specified service delivery criteria. This does not cost a thing because it does not require that any monies be appropriated. It merely allows the Congress and the American people to know how much it would cost to run the Social Security Administration as it should be run. Social Security Commissioners would no longer be able to get away with piously declaring their commitment to good service while proposing budgets that make service ever worse at the Social Security Administration. The Congress and the White House could then decide how much to actually appropriate, without illusions about the effects of their appropriations.
At the moment, no one knows how much it would cost to achieve satisfactory service at Social Security. The White House's budget for Social Security in recent years would not have come close to achieving this goal (despite what Michael Astrue has been repeating at every turn) and the Congress under Republican leadership appropriated far less than the White House asked for. The current Commissioner of Social Security seems unwilling to ask for anything more than the White House is willing to recommend for his agency and the White House is uninterested in providing enough money to address the problem. The Democratically controlled Congress does not even know what the agency needs.
Let me suggest a few service criteria that should be assured in any budget proposal that the Commissioner of Social Security presents to Congress, but this is just for starters. There should be other criteria.
Let me suggest something that would not cost a dime. Require the Commissioner of Social Security to file with Congress every year a budget request that sets forth the amounts of money the agency needs to meet certain specified service delivery criteria. This does not cost a thing because it does not require that any monies be appropriated. It merely allows the Congress and the American people to know how much it would cost to run the Social Security Administration as it should be run. Social Security Commissioners would no longer be able to get away with piously declaring their commitment to good service while proposing budgets that make service ever worse at the Social Security Administration. The Congress and the White House could then decide how much to actually appropriate, without illusions about the effects of their appropriations.
At the moment, no one knows how much it would cost to achieve satisfactory service at Social Security. The White House's budget for Social Security in recent years would not have come close to achieving this goal (despite what Michael Astrue has been repeating at every turn) and the Congress under Republican leadership appropriated far less than the White House asked for. The current Commissioner of Social Security seems unwilling to ask for anything more than the White House is willing to recommend for his agency and the White House is uninterested in providing enough money to address the problem. The Democratically controlled Congress does not even know what the agency needs.
Let me suggest a few service criteria that should be assured in any budget proposal that the Commissioner of Social Security presents to Congress, but this is just for starters. There should be other criteria.
- Have sufficient telephone lines for both Social Security's 800 number and field offices that less than 5% of callers to either receive a busy signal.
- Have a human answer 90% of telephone calls to Social Security's 800 number within four rings.
- Have a human answer 60% of all telephone calls to Social Security's field offices within four rings by the end of the first fiscal year for which a budget proposal is prepared after this legislation is enacted and then increase this by 10% a year until it reaches 90%. [Why only 60%? Because they currently can only answer about 50% and many of those are only after dozens of rings.]
- Retain at least the same number of Social Security field offices as currently (although some individual offices will need to be closed and some new offices opened because of population shifts) but increase the number of field offices in proportion to the rise of the population of the United States.
- Hold all Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings within 800 days after a request for hearing and then reduce this time limit by 100 days per year until it is 200 days.
In an ideal world ALJ hearings should be held within 90 days of the filing of a request for hearing, but often pre-hearing development of the record delays the scheduling of the hearing. This ALWAYS inures to the benefit of the claimant because when you develop the record you secure evidence that favors the claimant. Time limits are not the answer. The answer is giving the ALJ's sufficient AND COMPETENT staff to do the job. In 2001 a failed attempt to relieve the backlog by revising the way work was assigned resulted in wholesale promotions of employees who were not competent to do the jobs to which they were promoted. ALJ's are now stuck with these employees as the support staff. They can't be removed because they have tenure. These employees are dead weight and cause more problems then doing good work. If we could start from scratch with performance standards that were reasonable, with the ability to evaluate new employees based on criteria that are relevant to the ability to do the job, we would be able to get the backlog down in short order. At present the ALJ's are flying the seat of their pants, often doing the ALJ job and a substantial portion of the clerical job as well. That just doesn't work. The ALJ needs to be free to hear and decide cases so the case load can move. He/She shouldn't be tied to the computer doing inputs into the data base because the clerical staff is incompetent! Hire competent staff to support us and we'll get the job done!!!
ReplyDelete