I was not expecting there to be news about Social Security on New Year's Day, but there is. State budget problems have become a major headache for Social Security. States are furloughing employees and imposing hiring freezes. These actions usually affect the state disability determination agencies that make determinations on Social Security disability cases at the initial and reconsideration levels. This is happening even though the furloughs and hiring freezes do nothing to help state budgets since all salaries and costs associated with the disability determination agencies are picked up by the federal government. State governors seem to believe that the fair thing is to treat all their employees the same.
The state that has the worst budget problems is California. It was had the worst furloughs of state employees, including disability determination emploees. This has had a dramatic effect upon disability determination in that most populous of all states.
One response to this mess has been litigation. Social Security did not start this litigation but has filed a "Statement of Interest" with the California court. It is extremely unusual for any federal agency to take an official position in a case pending in a state court other than to file papers to remove a case to federal court or to assert that a state court lacks authority to compel the federal agency to do anything. The Los Angeles Times reports on what happened yesterday in that litigation:
The state that has the worst budget problems is California. It was had the worst furloughs of state employees, including disability determination emploees. This has had a dramatic effect upon disability determination in that most populous of all states.
One response to this mess has been litigation. Social Security did not start this litigation but has filed a "Statement of Interest" with the California court. It is extremely unusual for any federal agency to take an official position in a case pending in a state court other than to file papers to remove a case to federal court or to assert that a state court lacks authority to compel the federal agency to do anything. The Los Angeles Times reports on what happened yesterday in that litigation:
An Alameda County Superior Court judge Thursday ordered Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to halt thrice-monthly furloughs for tens of thousands of state workers, saying the administration overstepped its authority in approving the unpaid days off. ...
He said that the governor's use of furloughs was an "abuse of discretion" and that he "violated a mandatory duty to take into account the agencies' varying needs before reducing workplace hours."
The governor plans to appeal Roesch's decision and noted that the order blocking the furloughs would be stayed until the appeal is ruled on, said Aaron McLear, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger.
7 comments:
Movie star governor furlough poor sate workers...millionare tax base exist...no logic at all.
Of course this opinion is based on my current understanding.
Don't governors know that dictatorships do not exist in the Western world? Oh wait, this governor is not originally from the Western world.
I'm no fan of the Governator, but he heads the executive branch of the state government. Seems like he would have the discretion to order layoffs of State employees. I agree with the SSA budget angle here, but how does he exempt some workers but not others? I think he'd be in deeper doodoo if he exempted them, national implications aside. Just a layman's opinion.
Governors and Presidents routinely exempt "essential employees", such as members of management, fire and law enforcement officers from furloughs. In SSA, only minimal services were provided back in 1995 (our only experience with furloughs) but humanitarian considerations required emergency payments to be available.
So, the Arnold can include some or all, reduce or eliminate OT, and so on within the scope of his executive authority. By this reasoning, he should allow some DDS employees to work to provide for those SSA claimants who are in dire need of DIB benefits and otherwise immediately eligible; i.e., terminally ill individuals. We'll see what the Alameda County judge says. It'll probably go to the Ninth Circuit on appeal. Nancy Ortiz
#2: Europe is considered part of the west, fool.
I'm really wondering why the Feds have not come down harder on these states. The DDS's exist solely to perform a federal function, as agents of the federal government, funded by the federal government. Astrue and a legion of federal attorneys should have stormed into these governors' offices and set them straight from the get-go. Oh, wait, that would have meant Astrue acting in a firm, clear and decisive manner to obtain a clear and concise goal. My bad.
A5: By the same token, the Federal government could dictate how Federal highway funds were used, e.g., which road projects were to be completed. Funding does not mean total control. This is a states rights issue, IMHO.
Post a Comment