The Post and Courier in Charleston, SC has an article on Social Security's decision to shut down some field offices and reduce service at the rest. The interesting thing about the article is that there is no mention whatsoever of Social Security's inadequate operating budget. As far as any reader would know, service is being cut because stupid bureaucrats at Social Security are making stupid decisions because they just don't care about serving the public. Those idiots think that they can force Americans to do all their business with Social Security over the computer! What's wrong with them? They ought to be fired!
This is close to what happened at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Congress gave the agency inadequate funding. When the inevitable happened and service deteriorated to the point that the public was outraged, the blame fell not on Congress but on VA management. Villains had to be found. The main villain was the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki. He was forced to resign but he wasn't the only one. Others have been forced out as well. Yes, there was the added factor of fiddling with the books to try to hide the VA's service delivery problems but that was little more than a pretext and I'm not absolutely sure that's not happening at Social Security.
Carolyn Colvin needs to figure it out. The same thing is going to happen to her. Either she's not going to be confirmed or she'll eventually be forced to resign because she'll be made the scapegoat for her agency's terrible service. The deterioration over the last year cannot continue indefinitely. We are headed towards ridiculous busy rates and absurd wait times once a call is answered. We're headed towards long lines outside the doors of Social Security field offices. It's going to blow up. I can't say when but it's coming.
The only way I can see for Acting Commissioner Colvin to prevent being blamed for the lousy service is to start shouting from the rooftop that she knows her agency is delivering poor service and that it's the fault of the inadequate budget her agency receives. A great case in point is the recent Senate Aging Committee hearing. Why is it that the most important information the Committee received about service at Social Security came not from the agency but from the National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel? Why wasn't Social Security spreading the word? The problem is that Carolyn Colvin and upper Social Security in general want to downplay the agency's service delivery problem and pretend that it's not that bad but that's exactly what happened at VA. Will loudly blaming Congress for poor service at Social Security offend Congressional Republicans? Sure, but does Colvin have any choice?
The only way I can see for Acting Commissioner Colvin to prevent being blamed for the lousy service is to start shouting from the rooftop that she knows her agency is delivering poor service and that it's the fault of the inadequate budget her agency receives. A great case in point is the recent Senate Aging Committee hearing. Why is it that the most important information the Committee received about service at Social Security came not from the agency but from the National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel? Why wasn't Social Security spreading the word? The problem is that Carolyn Colvin and upper Social Security in general want to downplay the agency's service delivery problem and pretend that it's not that bad but that's exactly what happened at VA. Will loudly blaming Congress for poor service at Social Security offend Congressional Republicans? Sure, but does Colvin have any choice?
Colvin needs to go to the Hill with a graph that shows if you appropriate us (x) amount, the average wait time at the FOs will be --, --% of 800 callers will hear a busy signal, wait time for a hearing decision will be --, we will do -- CDRs, etc. Appropriate us (y) amount, and the numbers will be --.
ReplyDeleteAnd then tell them, "It's up to you what those numbers will be. We will do the very best we can with whatever you appropriate to us, but without more funding, service will continue to deteriorate. If you want us to serve our customers better, then show us that you mean it."
But if she were complaining about funding getting appointed and confirmed would have been less likely.
ReplyDeleteAnd, if Ms. Colvin provides the information to Congress that needs to be said, will Rupert Murdock allow the Wall Street Journal to publish that information so the American public gets to read/hear it? Probably not, because the people causing the problem want to "privatize" the sizeable SSA "trust fund" or destroy SSA.
ReplyDeleteShutting these SSA field offices is very tricky. Yes, those probably under 55 or 50 can use the SSA website. But those over? Not so much.
ReplyDeleteAlso SSA field offices are kind of a sense of pride in some of these rural areas (e.g. they just shut down offices here in Southern California near Barstow and Victorville making the closest SSA office 1-2 hours away).
I understand the budget cuts. But these offices will always be needed on some level.
I understand SSA wanting to move services to online but why are they not policing these firms that make people think they are applying for benefits online when in reality they are signing up with a firm to represent them? Someone needs to look in to this!!!!
ReplyDeleteCharles -- As usual, your "it's the Republicans" commentary is off base. It's everybody. That said, your overall point is well taken, and I agree.
ReplyDelete@4:26 -- If you think Rupert Murdoch (with an "h") is the gatekeeper of all information, you're wrong. I'm no lefty, but I hardly ever utilize any of Murdoch's companies. And if you think that something must be published in the Wall Street Journal "so the American public gets to read/hear it," you're confused. I, and millions upon millions of other people, haven't touched a copy of the WSJ in ages.
@11:30 -- That's a disarmingly straightforward and rational approach. If only...
6:57, My comments about the Wall Street Journal and Murdoch were made because WSJ articles appear to be leading the charge that SSDI is going broke and is rampant with fraud, etc. These stories are then picked up by other papers without fact-checking, while the figures put out by the GAO and SSA's actuary are ignored. Now, we have yet another problem being attributed to SSA without alternative explanations (like Congress' budget cuts and inaction).
ReplyDelete@6:57am, July 02, 2014 about your first point directed to Charles:
ReplyDeleteIf you've been reading this blog site long enough, you'll know Charles has serious disability conditions for some time. He suffers from 1) far-left tunnel vision, 2) total blindness in both eyes (he just can't see the big picture but only bits and pieces guided by his liberal seeing-eye dog), and 3) mental impairment that causes him to think lopsided to the left instead of balanced and rational. Personally, I think he should file for Disability online. Or better yet, visit his local field office that's about to close.