The President has decided to seek a three year freeze on domestic discretionary spending. The freeze would allow increases in spending only to match increases in the cost of living. This freeze includes the Social Security Administration's operating budget. This is potentially devastating for Social Security. The agency was dramatically underfunded during the Bush Administration and now faces rapidly increasing workloads due to the aging of the baby boom population.
Update: I am getting messages from people telling me in effect "What's the problem? The President is exempting Social Security." Sure, he is exempting Social Security benefit payments. Unfortunately, there is no sign that the President is exempting Social Security's operating budget from this planned budget freeze. The operating budget is a separate matter from the benefit payments.
Update: I am getting messages from people telling me in effect "What's the problem? The President is exempting Social Security." Sure, he is exempting Social Security benefit payments. Unfortunately, there is no sign that the President is exempting Social Security's operating budget from this planned budget freeze. The operating budget is a separate matter from the benefit payments.
We spend more than the rest of the world on the military and have more troops outside the U.S. than in the U.S., so I'm sure the military can go cut back some as well.
ReplyDeleteThe knucklehead wants to exempt foreign aid, so he's going to freeze programs that assist U.S. citizens to send money to foreign countries.
Then he proposes new spending on some programs.
If you are going to freeze spending, then freeze everything.
He better work on that resume, since come 2012 he's going to be looking for a new job.
"But it would exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security."
ReplyDeleteUm?
Yeah, good old SSA takes it in the chin again. But, cheer up! We're going to build a new building for IT we can't afford. Bleh. I think I'll go make applesauce. It's cheery-making and we all need it. NO
ReplyDeleteIndependants and republicans wanted conservative values,now you got.No need complaining especially when ssa funding disappear.
ReplyDeleteA liberal,president wasn't right for conservatives.And i suspect a biracial president in the middle isn't either.
What exactly does this mean for fools like myself? Does this mean that the understaffed offices will likely not be able to fill any spots?
ReplyDeleteWell, I never understood why SSA got any "stimulus" money. What jobs were created other than government positions? How does hiring more federal employees help the economy?
ReplyDeleteThe handwriting has been on the wall for a while here. There was no way SSA was going to get the kind of budget it has over the last two FYs. With the deficits running out of the galaxy, I fully expected cutbacks.
As for understaffed offices, the lack of assigning positions can be laid squarely at the door of your Area and Regional officials. We were awash in new hires over the last two years and there were plenty to go around. Sadly, everyone will be in the same boat again now.
"As for understaffed offices, the lack of assigning positions can be laid squarely at the door of your Area and Regional officials."
ReplyDeleteI totally agree! The Atlanta Regional Officials has done nothing for my area!
"How does hiring more federal employees help the economy?"
ReplyDeleteMaybe this will help: SSA employees primarily assist applicants and determine eligibility for Social Security benefits. The faster you do this job, especially in light of the increase number of applicants caused by the recession, the quicker cash flows into the economy in the form of benefits.
So, in SSA's case, one gov't job actually means millions of dollars in American hands, ready to spend.
1) Politicans rarely think of the ramifications of the policies they propose and/or enact.
ReplyDelete2) When I worked at NEPSC, there were 3 managers for every module of 40 or fewer people. Where do you see that ratio in private industry? Not only that, but 90% of all the work they did was clerical. They could save a ton of money by hiring a grade 3 clerk and firing 2 out of every 3 module managers. But it'll never happen; management protects its own. I'm sure we could all tell stories about how SSA wastes money, so let's not hear any more wailing about SSA's budget freeze.
"The faster you do this job, especially in light of the increase number of applicants caused by the recession, the quicker cash flows into the economy in the form of benefits."
ReplyDeleteThis is just money that was taking out of a person's pocket or business and paid to another person, so it is not creating anything. If the person that earned it had spent it in the first place it would have the same affect or if a business wouldn't of had to pay it they might have been able to create a real job and actually produces a product.
SSA DIB program is rife with fraud. Too many dishonest claimants aided and abetted by dishonest lawyers and doctors.
ReplyDeleteCountry is going broke; SSA DIB rate is unsustainable.
"The faster you do this job, especially in light of the increase number of applicants caused by the recession, the quicker cash flows into the economy in the form of benefits."
ReplyDelete...and the faster the Trust Funds approach the day when outflows outpace annual inflows.... Rising tide lifts all boats, but when the tide goes out, those with their pants down are exposed. Think Madoff. Think SS.
Social SEcurity is supposed to pay benefits--that's what it's for. If you don't want SSA to pay benefits, just say so, cancel all of it, stop taking out FICA taxes, and it can be all Dickensian, which apparently is some folks' fondest dream.
ReplyDelete