The Oregonian Editorial On Backlog

The Oregonian followed its stories on the terrible backlogs at Social Security with an editorial. Here are a few excerpts:

Hundreds of thousands of disabled workers in America have become Hurricane Katrina-style victims of a failing federal bureaucracy. ...

This is yet another stain on the legacy of President Bush. A backlog in claims existed before he took office, but it had been shrinking under the Clinton administration. Under Bush it has nearly doubled. ...

Underfunding is part of the problem. ...

But White House ideology plays a role in this disgrace, too. Bush plucked Jo Anne Barnhart from the Republican political trenches to serve six years as his Social Security administrator, and she appeared to share her boss's lack of enthusiasm for the entitlement program. ...

It's fair to question the competence of the Social Security bureaucracy under Barnhart, too. In just one example cited by Denson and Walth, the agency mistakenly overpaid more than $4 billion in disability payments in 2006, and now it's adding grief to the lives of millions of recipients by billing them for reimbursement.

I think the cracks about "a failed federal bureaucracy" and the "[in]competence of the Social Security bureaucracy" are unfair. Any government agency will fail if it lacks the basic resources to get the job done. Blaming the "bureaucracy" is part of what got us where we are. If the incompetence of the "bureaucracy" is the problem, the solution is not to give the bureaucracy more money but to demand that the bureaucracy become competent. That is what has been done since 1994 when Republicans took control of Congress, with disastrous results. The ideology that incompetent federal bureaucrats were to blame for any problem in the federal government led to the fiascoes of "Reinventing Government," "Hearing Process Improvement" and "Disability Service Improvement," three efforts at "reforming" the bureaucracy that made things dramatically worse, while providing the crucial justification for cutting Social Security's operating budget.

The truth is that, on the whole, the Social Security Administration runs a pretty tight ship. Squeezing out further efficiencies is difficult. Only small incremental improvements can be achieved. Most of what is currently being presented as evidence of increased efficiency at Social Security is misleading. Employees and managers try to meet statistical goals -- for that which is being measured -- while that which is not being measured, primarily quality, goes to hell. As I have said before, it is reminiscent of Soviet five year plans.

What is needed at Social Security is not so much competence as honesty and modesty. We need upper management to be honest with itself and with Congress and the Office of Management and Budget about what is possible given current funding. We need upper management to be modest about the agency can do with the resources they have been given and more modest in talking about Social Security's productivity "gains."