The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE) has released a letter that it sent President-elect Obama. The letter contains this sentence: "In communicating with you and your team at this time, our purpose is to respectfully request that, as a critical component of that support, an additional $960 million in funding be included beyond SSA’s projected budget request for $11.5 billion."
This is the first time that I have heard anything about Social Security's budget request for the 2010 Fiscal Year (FY), that begins on October 1, 2009. I hope that NADE has heard correctly on what Social Security's budget request will be. It would be wonderful to get almost a billion dollars more on top of such a request, but $11.5 billion would be a great start. The problem, even with that amount, may be how much must be spent to update Social Security's computer infrastructure, which has serious problems that raise the possibility of catastrophic failure.
Update: As I suspected, it was too good to be true. The $11.5 billion figure is what NADE and other groups want. There is no word yet on what Social Security is going to ask for.
This is the first time that I have heard anything about Social Security's budget request for the 2010 Fiscal Year (FY), that begins on October 1, 2009. I hope that NADE has heard correctly on what Social Security's budget request will be. It would be wonderful to get almost a billion dollars more on top of such a request, but $11.5 billion would be a great start. The problem, even with that amount, may be how much must be spent to update Social Security's computer infrastructure, which has serious problems that raise the possibility of catastrophic failure.
Update: As I suspected, it was too good to be true. The $11.5 billion figure is what NADE and other groups want. There is no word yet on what Social Security is going to ask for.
Suggestion, by now this source should be taken with a grain of salt. This is a least the third time in the last 12 months their missives et al have been less than cogent. Not to say they do not have valid points, but before citing anything they assert, then providing a caveat, it would be prudent to review more than their tag line(s) or, read the whole thing – (I know), and then posit if indeed there is something there.
ReplyDelete