My understanding is that the Bipartisan Budget Agreement recently passed by Congress and signed into law by the President will allow total domestic discretionary spending, which includes Social Security's administrative budget, that will be almost identical to the total provided for by the President's proposed budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, which began on October 1, 2015.
The Bipartisan Budget Agreement just sets the total amount for all domestic agencies. The amount each agency gets must be determined by individual appropriations acts. Those are still to come. Social Security and other agencies are currently operating on a continuing funding resolution which runs for about another month.
The President's budget proposal can only be a rough guide for what to expect when an appropriation is finally passed but Social Security's administrative budget isn't a contentious matter so the President's budget may not be too far off what is to come. The President's proposal was for about a 5% increase in Social Security's operating budget, taking it to $12.8 billion. This contrasts with $11.8 billion in the House appropriations bill and $11.6 billion in the Senate appropriations bill that were under consideration prior to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement.
My hope is that the Social Security Administration will use as much of the extra money as possible to hire new employees. I know that it takes time to hire and train new employees. Every time the agency hires new people I wince because I know they're going to make mistakes which will take time to correct. Using overtime would reduce, or perhaps I should say, stabilize backlogs more quickly. However, the agency needs more employees for the long haul. We keep going through a boom and bust cycle every year. Part of the year there's little or no overtime. Backlogs go up. Part of the year there's money for overtime and backlogs go down or at least hold steady. On the whole, backlogs keep rising. This can't keep going on. I know that agency management worries about having to furlough new employees but how likely is that? Appropriators seem to try hard to avoid furloughs. Really, which politician wants to be responsible for furloughs at Social Security? The agency would function so much better with several thousand more employees.
The happiest day of the last decade was the day I left SSA as a journeyman T-II and T-XVI CR. ODAR cushy job, yeah sure, plenty of time to screw around. CR, I wouldn't wish it on my enemies. 60% of my graduating CR class left in less than 8 years.
ReplyDeleteNew hires do have a shelf life. Got to admit, I started as T16 only hire and 3 years in got T2 certified but at the 5 year mark, the CR job was becoming emotionally draining. Esp as a T16 only, 40+ hours of redets, overpayments, handoff interviews from the T2 CRs 15 minutes before closing and supervisors who felt driven to manage by numbers got tired. Getting out of the field, even for a transfer was hard, so getting a job in Baltimore was career saving. I think given the tenor of conversations too many long term CRs have about their jobs, too many hit their own expiry date but stayed in the job. No one wins in that situation.
ReplyDeleteThe 11:34 and 1:50 comments are disturbing. Difficult and demanding work is tough, so I would suggest going to your local McDonalds for a less stressful job.
ReplyDelete18+ years in the field.
Wow 2:58; not sure if the idea about having an expiry date rang home requiring a passive aggressive attack or if you are humble bragging about how long you've been in the field. "Tough and demanding work, done by me for 18+ years". Not clear if that's 18 years a CR or simply 18+ years field work. There is a difference. Can you honestly say that the CR job is as rewarding now as it was when you started? And even if so, can you say your cohorts all feel the same? How many T16 CRs must hate, if not their jobs, at least the clientele? Because their comments on those various in house web sites for suggestions on how to improve things reek of too many people who seemingly detest the public they serve. If that's how they treat people in their offices, they really do need to be doing something else. The work done in the field is the most important work the agency has, but we are not the same agency of the 60s, 70,s and 80s. The work is harder, the systems more complicated, the political environment more rigid, the public more demanding and the pressures are greater both internally and externally, upward and downward. That's why the job may not be for everyone and may not be a good long term one for many folks who can do it for years but not decades. That's why new hires are good to not just have more hands but allow those already here who need to do something else the ability to do so.
ReplyDeleteI vote for OT. ASAP
ReplyDelete