I am going to bump this post up since I think it concerns something important.
The National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel, has posted on its website a summary of meetings that its leadership had at Social Security's central offices on September 10, 2008. One of the meetings was with Linda McMahon, Social Security's Deputy Commissioner for Operations.
There is a casual reference in the summary to a hiring ceiling, also known as a head count cap ,at Social Security. I have seen Social Security's budget legislation. There has been no head count cap in that legislation. Has the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) set a head count cap for Social Security? There was legal authority for such OMB set head count caps for federal agencies during the Clinton Administration, but that authority ended in 1999. I can find a 2005 memorandum from OMB saying that it was not setting hiring ceilings at that time, probably because it had no legal authority to do so. I cannot find a record of legal authority being created for such head count caps at any later time. Can anyone explain to me what has been going on?
The summary says that most of Social Security will only be able to replace one employee for every three who leaves, even though Social Security has been receiving and will receive increases in its budget that are considerably more than the rate of inflation. One might infer that because of a head count cap that Social Security is going to lose employees, no matter how much extra money Congress gives the agency as long as George W. Bush is President, but is this cap a legal reality or, more likely, just something that Michael Astrue voluntarily chooses to observe because he is a loyal player on President Bush's team? Again, can someone explain to me where this head count cap is coming from and why Michael Astrue appears to be abiding by it?
Here is an item from the NCSSMA's summary of their meetings which seems to give at least a partial explanation of where the extra money not spent on personnel is going:
The National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel, has posted on its website a summary of meetings that its leadership had at Social Security's central offices on September 10, 2008. One of the meetings was with Linda McMahon, Social Security's Deputy Commissioner for Operations.
There is a casual reference in the summary to a hiring ceiling, also known as a head count cap ,at Social Security. I have seen Social Security's budget legislation. There has been no head count cap in that legislation. Has the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) set a head count cap for Social Security? There was legal authority for such OMB set head count caps for federal agencies during the Clinton Administration, but that authority ended in 1999. I can find a 2005 memorandum from OMB saying that it was not setting hiring ceilings at that time, probably because it had no legal authority to do so. I cannot find a record of legal authority being created for such head count caps at any later time. Can anyone explain to me what has been going on?
The summary says that most of Social Security will only be able to replace one employee for every three who leaves, even though Social Security has been receiving and will receive increases in its budget that are considerably more than the rate of inflation. One might infer that because of a head count cap that Social Security is going to lose employees, no matter how much extra money Congress gives the agency as long as George W. Bush is President, but is this cap a legal reality or, more likely, just something that Michael Astrue voluntarily chooses to observe because he is a loyal player on President Bush's team? Again, can someone explain to me where this head count cap is coming from and why Michael Astrue appears to be abiding by it?
Here is an item from the NCSSMA's summary of their meetings which seems to give at least a partial explanation of where the extra money not spent on personnel is going:
Linda indicated resources have been shifted to IT [Information Technology]. Systems is moving forward to buy a small number of large-screen TVs for reception areas for a pilot that will broadcast SSA messages while visitors are waiting, and they are also buying touch screens for visitor check in. The move is now to convert from COBOL to web-based systems and to have a common system for DDS [Disability Determination Services]. Another real issue is the need for a new National Computer Center (NCC). The existing one is rapidly proving inadequate for current needs, let alone the projected increases in demand that are anticipated. It will cost a significant amount to upgrade our infrastructure, but 5 years from now it will be too late to get started. The agency needs to start now.
3 comments:
"EAE allows individuals to apply for an original SSN card at the port of entry into the U.S., without entering a field office."
Obviously, this person does not understand the EAE process. No one applies for an SSN at the POE. An individual age 18 or older checks off on the DOS Form DS-230 that they want an SSN or replacement card as part of the immigrant visa application process. Once the person enters the U.S. DHS transmits the info to SSA.
How could this be used for people with non immigrant visa, since with immigrant visas SSA mails the SSN card to the same address as DHS mails the Form I-551 (Green Card) and a lot of people on non immigrants visas aren't sure where they will be living.
K-1 visa holders would be a good choice since they are handled like immigrants visas by embassies and since they are coming into the country to marry a U.S. citizen pretty much know where they are going to be living, Unlike most other non immigrants visa holders, K-1s have an A# that could be entered on the Numident as is done with SSNs now assigned through the EAE process.
This comment is completely off topic but my lay opinion about the ada 2008 act is people under the third prong are excluded from accommodations.Is this correct?.Could you post your interperations of this restored act.
Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications- A covered entity under title I, a public entity under title II, and any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation under title III, need not provide a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable modification to policies, practices, or procedures to an individual who meets the definition of disability in section 3(1) solely under subparagraph (C).’;
It appears that SS has found another way to claim that claimants "should have known" reporting responsibilities...run them on a loop in the SS office. I wouldn't be surprised if this is used in waiver denials in the future.
Post a Comment