"An Air Of Surprising Passivity" In The Face Of Harsh Budget Cuts?
From
R.J. Eskow:
Despite the fact that a Democratic president is running the Executive
Branch, the Social Security Administration appears to be accepting the
harsh budget cuts imposed upon it by Congress with an air of surprising
passivity. This is puzzling. Social Security is an enormously
successful and popular program. Historically only conservative
Republicans have urged cuts to its administrative budget. Those cuts are
already frustrating the public and undermining public confidence in the
program. ...
And yet, these needless and harmful cuts are being accepted as a fait accompli by both the NAPA panel and the Social Security Administration itself. The SSA's "Agency Strategic Plan for 2014-2018,"
which is published where the "strategic vision" document might
logically be found, glosses over current and impending staffing
reductions with language like this: "In the coming years, as we prepare
for more employee retirements and continued budget constraints, we will
develop and implement a strong succession plan to prepare for the new
skills, competencies and work styles of a leaner, modern Federal
workforce."
English translation: We are downsizing for budget reasons but would rather not say too much about it. ...
The fact that neither the SSA, the Administration, nor the President
himself are publicly fighting these brutal cuts is a betrayal of Social
Security's promise. ...
15 comments:
I'm always fascinated by the attitude that, when bureaucrats try to plan to be more efficient, the public* gets outraged. If SSA can figure out how to run their programs with fewer people, fewer buildings, and lower administrative costs, they should.
If you lament anything that leads to a decline in SSA's workforce, advocate for a ban on the use of the computer. Give each CR a clerical support person, make the corresponding increases in back-office staffing, and go back to the staffing model of the late 1970s. Of course, that would double the cost of processing a claim, and timeliness and quality of service would decline substantially, but hey - moar werkers.
*Note: not 'liberals' or 'Democrats' - the public. The complaints about changes in service model seem to come from across the entire political spectrum.
Few people are outraged about increases in efficiency. They are outraged about cuts in services, which is one way for SSA to cut its costs. I wouldn't call this an increase in efficiency - it's just a transfer of some of the costs onto the public.
7:32 Considering that the complete operation of the Agency is financed by the taxes of the public, I fail to see how this will transfer some of the costs onto the public. Teh public bares teh total costs of this program always. Do you really think the government has any money of it's own?? Kool Aide time??
8:24 To make you happy, 7:32 might have said that SSA is cutting its expenditures. But you knew the point s/he was making.
Besides, there are direct costs to the public (e.g., taxes) and indirect costs to the public (e.g., income lost from needing to take time off work to travel to a consolidated field office or the cost of using public transportation). When SSA reduces its expenditures, many people (rightly or wrongly) argue it increases these indirect costs.
From comments made by SSA employees on this blog, it appears that SSA hopes to achieve vast savings and increased efficiencies by use of online communications. If this is to work, SSA has to get the bugs out. When I applied for my retirement benefits, I tried for over 2 months to do it online, but it never worked. I had to go to the local FO.
Also, I was one of the first attorneys in my ODAR to sign up for electronic access to files so we could submit records to Electronic Records Express (ERE), which we love--when it works. I've converted most of my office files to electronic form, but my assistant, who is very proficient in computer matters, has problems at least once a week trying to submit records by ERE or get access to files.
If online services is the future, SSA is not yet ready for it!
There is no Commissioner, only an Acting Commissioner and there appears little prospect of one being nominated. Not having a Commissioner diminishes SSA in battles with OMB and the Congress. it is taken as a signal that the President doesn't care.
@10:00 AM -- Please see Charles' post on June 20th - the President has nominated Ms. Colvin as Commissioner. This rather negated the rant/complaint/whining in your post.
10:00 AM. where have you been? Obama has already nominated Colvin for the position..
ODAR just ordered laptops for EVERY employee. The laptops will replace the current desktops and will allow EVERY EMPLOYEE to work from home at least 3 days per week.
This will greatly reduce office space requirements and will save the agency BILLIONS.
To 8:24 (I am 7:32) - I did mean "costs onto the public" in the broad sense, as mentioned by 8:34. And as you state, costs in the narrow sense are borne by the public, so if we're willing to pay a little more to prevent service from being degraded, what's wrong with that?
There are writing backlogs in ODAR of at least 8 months, and wait times for a phone call to be answered or to see someone face-to-face at a field office are increasing, so efficiency is not improving as measured by output.
Now the output per dollar spent probably is increasing but that is a hollow efficiency when the people who have paid into the system aren't getting served in an acceptable amount of time.
In 30 years with SSA, I never saw a COSS who truly fought for the agency. Astrue came close, testifying frankly before Congress and having the guts to stare down hysterical union officials. But that's about it.
Here's an idea: Instead of the usual dog and pony show when SSA testifies at some Congressional hearing, why not bring in actual citizens to talk about service delivery? Forget the normal upper management drones like the IG, associate commissioner for paper clips, etc., but real people with real stories to tell? As far as I'm concerned, most of these hearings are just an excuse for Congressmen to pontificate and SSA officials to offer up mealy-mouthed excuses. Won't happen, of course, but it's worth a shot.
4:19 - That may be true in some offices, but an eight-month writing backlog in either of the ODARs I've worked in would get some people tossed. All of the cases in my current workload were assigned within the past week, and I'm not exceptionally fast (as I refuse to write crap decisions). Just saying...
Agree with the comments regarding the evolution of technology to replace employees. It's the trend. It saves money. Get used to it.
If not providing "numi lites" and SS statements in a FO are an example of drastically cutting back SSA services, then some people's priorities are seriously out of whack. Give me a break.
Post a Comment