The Social Security Administration's "Update" contains this sentence: "The number of employees we have determines the amount of work we can complete."
Does that sound innocuous? Self-obvious? The last Commissioner of Social Security, Jo Anne Barnhart, would never have allowed such a sentence in a Social Security document. She promised that the magic fairy dust of her "plan" would make everything all better at Social Security regardless of the number of employees her agency had. She promised wonders from her "plan" but delayed and delayed announcing what her plan was. The delay was almost certainly because she had no more than vague ideas about a "plan." She probably also had an increasing realization that no "plan" would work without additional employees. She finally announced her "plan" shortly before she was to leave office, leaving it to her successor to make her "plan" work. Of course, her "plan" was unworkable and quickly abandoned. The whole thing deceived the naive, of which there are many.
This week is an opportunity to fully bury the Barnhart approach. We have a Congressional hearing coming up that will focus on the question of why Social Security keeps overpaying people. Undoubtedly, Social Security will be criticized. Social Security can respond by saying, in effect, "Thank you, Congress, for pointing out our errors. We will do better." Or Social Security can respond by saying, in effect, "Yes, we've known about these issues for years. We'd love to address them but we don't have enough personnel. We've been telling you this for years. We got a bigger budget in 2009 and 2010 but never enough to get these problems resolved. Now, our budget has gotten tighter. Get us a bigger budget and we'll take care of these problems. Otherwise, nothing's going to happen and it's not because we don't care." Which would be a more honest answer to the criticism? Which will Social Security give? I understand the need for diplomacy in dealing with Republican Congressmen who remain all too eager to believe that the amount of work which may be accomplished by a federal agency is independent of the number of employees that agency has but honesty is needed as well.
This week is an opportunity to fully bury the Barnhart approach. We have a Congressional hearing coming up that will focus on the question of why Social Security keeps overpaying people. Undoubtedly, Social Security will be criticized. Social Security can respond by saying, in effect, "Thank you, Congress, for pointing out our errors. We will do better." Or Social Security can respond by saying, in effect, "Yes, we've known about these issues for years. We'd love to address them but we don't have enough personnel. We've been telling you this for years. We got a bigger budget in 2009 and 2010 but never enough to get these problems resolved. Now, our budget has gotten tighter. Get us a bigger budget and we'll take care of these problems. Otherwise, nothing's going to happen and it's not because we don't care." Which would be a more honest answer to the criticism? Which will Social Security give? I understand the need for diplomacy in dealing with Republican Congressmen who remain all too eager to believe that the amount of work which may be accomplished by a federal agency is independent of the number of employees that agency has but honesty is needed as well.
8 comments:
One overlooked answer would be program simplifications.It would start with elimination of installment payments and dedicated accounts in the SSI program. Then move on to rep payee accountings for parents with custody in the title II program. This is just the tip of the iceberg of items that could save countless man-hours at no cost to the taxpayer.
I agree with Anon 7:41. Installments to the SSI are just a waste of money and the dedicated accounts too. By the time a CR checks into a dedicated account the money is all gone, and the answer is always (I DIDN'T KNOW). How many times does a CR go over the rules and the parents (caregiver) still doesn't know.
There is only one reason for the change in attitude about funding for SSA. Ms. Barnhart's boss told her she had to live with the cuts (and like it). Mr. Astrue's boss is not happy with the cuts. The explanation is not any more complicated than that. The COSS is going to take whatever policy position that the President tells the COSS to take.
This is an area where union and management could get together and actually get something done for a change. There are probably at least a hundred unnecessary and/or overemphasized workloads performed by SSA that could be reduced or eliminated. A@7:41 has it right--and I'll bet if you got the folks on the ground involved, you'd have a flood of suggestions.
Not to mention the consolidation or closure of small, unproductive contact and resident stations.
Once, just once, I'd love to see a COSS lay it out in no uncertain terms what work can no longer be performed without adequate funding. They always sugarcoat everything (whether it be GOP or Dems in charge)in hopes of not ruffling feathers. While I think Astrue is a big improvement over many of his predecessors (which is damning by faint praise), he's no different from the rest of them. He doesn't really have anything to lose; he's out at the end of his term anyway. He can use this and other hearings to speak on behalf of his agency rather than make excuses when we don't have the resources to get the jobs done.
Astrue and Barnhart had the same boss for a couple of years anyway. W appointed both. When first appointed, Astrue actually contended he could make do with fewer employees, When Congress increased his budget in 2008, he found his plan to "reduce the backlog and prevent its recurrence" began to work, with increased staffing. To his credit, he then recognized the need for additional staffing and still does. Unfortunately, the House has a lot of new members who never dealt with constituent complaints about delays. Some may not care if they are really sincere in their rhetoric. I believe we will see continued cuts in staffing with inevitable increases in backlogs. As voters, if we don't elect people with enough foresight to recognize the predictable results of actions [or inactions], we have no right to complain.
In the PSC's, the people who complete the cases are technicians, not their managers, who are nothing more than overpaid, glorified clerks. Will we therefore see reduction by attrition in the number of managers? Don't hold your breath; management protects its own.
Post a Comment