Reportedly, Congressional leaders are close to agreement on an appropriations bill that will cover most federal agencies, including Social Security. The House Appropriations Committee has released a summary of the bill which says that "The bill funds SSA at $10.6 billion to administer SSA [Social Security Administration] activities, which is $74 million above FY [Fiscal Year] 2011 and $865 million below the President’s request." This is less than what had been in prior versions of the bill. The summary does not address the question of how much money will be earmarked to program integrity activities.
Update: I have now found a copy of the bill (the information important to Social Security begins at page 146 of the PDF).The actual base amount for Social Security is $10,555,494,000. On top of this, the agency gets $274 million for continuing disability reviews, which is down from $756 million as originally planned. The bill includes this larguage, which I do not understand:
Update: I have now found a copy of the bill (the information important to Social Security begins at page 146 of the PDF).The actual base amount for Social Security is $10,555,494,000. On top of this, the agency gets $274 million for continuing disability reviews, which is down from $756 million as originally planned. The bill includes this larguage, which I do not understand:
That reimbursement to the trust funds under this heading for expenditures for official time for employees of the Social Security Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7131, and for facilities or support services for labor organizations pursuant to policies, regulations, or procedures referred to in section 7135(b) of such title shall be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, with interest, from amounts in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, as soon as possible after such expenditures are made.
15 comments:
If you want to see the bill, look here: http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/HR3671-IH-P6.pdf
Since it's a scan of the committee mark-up, you can see what they changed.
In the light of the debt situation, how is $74 million above FY [Fiscal Year] 2011 bad news? If anything, it should be something less than 2011.
There is more to this story - You've got to look at
H. Con. Res. 94 — Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 3672.
and
H.R. 3672 — Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012
The language you copied in just means that the actual cash flows from the general fund since the general fund has "borrowed" all of the past surplus money from the trust funds. The money transferred comes first from the interest that has accumulated; any amounts over that reduce the "principal" obligation of the general fund to the trust funds. Which essentially means the SSA's governement bond holdings are reduced since the SSA doesn't hold it's built up surplus in cash; it holds government securities instead (like 2.5 trillion of the national debt is actually money owed to the SSA trust funds).
Anon 10:55: SSA's fixed costs (rent, guard service, etc) go up something like $150 million each year. An increase of $74 million above last year's budget won't cover this. Thus it's a de facto cut.
I'm pretty sure that the language you quoted refers to reimbursing the trust funds from the general fund for the salaries (and other costs) paid to union reps while on "official time" representing members of their bargaining unit(s). SSA also provides office space (including utilities), telephones, computers, email, etc. to union reps as part of their contracts with SSA. Those costs are also reimbursed under this provision.
The provision of office space, computers, phones, etc is not extra, over and above the employees-as-union-reps assigned equipment. They/we are just allowed to use our computers, email, phones, etc for union work. We don't get an extra computer, phone or any other item. It is just a way of accounting for the projected usage of already-in-place items.
Anon 10:55: SSA's fixed costs (rent, guard service, etc) go up something like $150 million each year. An increase of $74 million above last year's budget won't cover this. Thus it's a de facto cut.
I was saying in light of the current debt of the U.S., budgets should be cut, not just the increase reduced. When is it going to happen. We just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. It's the saying "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
Yeah damn union reps. If only they worked off the clock the way that their managerial counterparts do when in negotiations.
Oh wait...
Anonymous at 4:57 on Dec. 15 wrote:
The SSA doesn't hold its built up surplus in cash; it holds government securities instead (like $2.5 trillion of the national debt is actually money owed to the SSA trust funds).
Absolutely correct. And, to liquidate the interest, first, and then, the principal, takes new general revenues AS IF THE TRUST FUND DID NOT EXIST!
The financial dynamics are the same as paying for battleships, although battleships need an explicit appropriation. As long as the trust fund balance is positive, The SSA has a "draw" on the Treasury.
Don Levit
The $ 274 mil for cdr's that you mentioned is actually for cdr's and SSI redeterminations both, per the language in the bill. This is a huge cut and totally inadequate. One or the other or both will have to be curtailed long before the end of the fiscal year and the folks who would have done them can do claims instead. So, more benes and less program control.
So will this amount of appropriation allow SSA to hire needed workers to handle our growing caseload? Will it be enough to fund needed overtime for our experienced and skilled workers?
Congress cannot treat SSA as it does other agencies. Funding SSA adequately is pretty close to a life and death matter for many people. Beneficiaries cannot afford to wait months for their cases to be heard or processed, months while their case sits in some backlog.
And the SSA workers have their pay frozen and are constantly insulted by those in Congress as lazy and overpaid. How many of those people have visited an SSA district office and seen how hard people are working, how difficult the jobs are, and how many beneficiaries depend on us?
Shame on Congress for what they have done to SSA in 2011.
I work for the agency and happen to be in a position to personally observe field office operations in multiple offices. Yes, there are some very hard working employees, but there are many more slackers. The constant use of cell phones for personal calls (even taking calls while in an interview) and texting, and the excessive surfing of the internet is incredible. I have pretty much lost sympathy for the agency. I don't think a furlough of many of the employees would be noticeable, that is how little they produce. The early closings of offices is a joke as now many employees see it as an opportunity to leave early, not to work. The hours of 7:00 to 9:00 in the morning are woefully wasted unless there is training. Most days it is just used for excessive chatting and visiting. And this is just in the field. I know several employees who were detailed to CO where they saw employees there routinely take 2 hour lunches on SSA time. As for most field office managers, well, they are vastly overpaid as they do not spend most of their time managing, but "networking" on the phone and politicking.
10:11, there are a few bad employees in every agency or private industry company.
But to say that SSA employees take 2 hour lunches has the effect of painting all employees with a broad brush.
It makes us all look bad and most SSA workers are hard working especially in the field offices.
I've worked for SSA for over 30 years and my lunch breaks have always been 30 or 45 minutes, I've never taken a 2 hour lunch. Also sometimes I've worked through lunch.
Post a Comment