From a recent report from Social Security's Office of Inspector General:
At the end of May 2009, over 750,000 hearings were pending in ODAR [Office of Disability Adjudication and Review], and the average processing time was 494 days. As outlined in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 2013 Strategic Plan, the Social Security Administration (SSA) plans to reduce the number of pending hearings to a desired level of 466,000 and the average processing time to 270 days by FY 2013. ...The key phrase here is "based on the currently projected level of receipts." However, the official projections of receipts are wildly optimistic. New claims for benefits are exploding at a pace that Social Security never anticipated. This report is worthless, as I expect its authors and recipients know. What was the point of writing it?
The Acting Deputy Commissioner of SSA asked that we evaluate the impact of ODAR's current MI and ODAR's proposals on its ability to reduce the backlog to the desired pending level. ...
Regardless of whether the FY 2010 proposals are approved, it appears SSA will achieve the desired pending hearings level by FY 2013 based on the currently projected level of receipts.
7 comments:
Well mr hall,as i stated in my previous comments. There is,in my opinion,too much waste in government. And those writings posted is one example. The alj salaries is another. For example,$75,000 is adquate pay for what they do. This savings could be used to fund other government or ssa programs helpful to claimants.
The following could be paranoid speculation. It's my belief social security deny so much,to fund these big salaries etc.
This report allows SSA to state that it would have achieved its goals, but for the unanticipated increase in CLAIMS. "The OIG agreed that our plans were sound. It was just the recession that kept us from meeting our goals".
Business as usual. Make up the plan, then make up the facts to meet the plan. Only difference now is that they have made up the excuse before the plan completely crashes.
Anonomous (above) writes "The alj salaries is another. For example,$75,000 is adquate pay for what they do. This savings could be used to fund other government or ssa programs helpful to claimants."
I agree. I follow the ALJ application and hiring process and am aware of the demand for these jobs. I know so many long-standing hearing office attorneys who would be highly qualified to perform those jobs but who do not get them because the high salaries draw applications from outside attorneys who wouldn't even consider the job if it paid $75,000 a year. Take Social Security administrative law judges out from under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and change the job title to "hearing officer." You will get more qualified applicants, hearing officers will be more accountable and productive and the taxpayer will save lots of money. Win-Win-Win.
$75,000 for ALJ?
A writer (attorney or non-attorney) with 7 to 9 years experience makes more than that. Outside of government service the median salary range for an attorney with comporable experience is $69,000 to $114,000.
The last hire-up came with a bad economy and people scrambling for the sidelines, but anyone thinking you will get great applicants paying ALJ's well below market is a nut.
Then I'll be the first to admit that I'm a nut. There are senior attorney advisers, attorney group supervisors and attorney hearing office directors in the hearing offices who would be qualified for the job and would take a salary cut to be selected as an administrative law judge in a hearing office. Maybe $75,000 is unrealistic but you could get as many hearing officers as you wanted for a lot less than they are paying these current ALJs. Just my opinion.
I posted the first comment. I'm of the opinion,law school graduates,with proper experience,would be happy with an alj position,at $75,000-80,000 a year.
The problem with some ssa employees is the entitlement factor. This in my opinion,interfere with proper decisions.
I hope congress reduce the current alj salary to an appropriate amount.
Post a Comment