From a New York Times op ed by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders:
... For millions of others, Social Security is a lifeline in retirement. But many older people and Americans with disabilities are now struggling to get their benefits because budget cuts have forced the agency running Social Security to cut thousands of jobs and close 64 field offices since 2010. Congress should restore funding to the agency and help fill the gaps in service so that people can get the benefits they have earned. ...
3 comments:
Aren't there more than 1,400 Social Security ALJs? Doesn't that mean the in-house legal system for SSA is larger than the entire regular federal court system — district and appeals courts and the Supreme Court put together? So how many more do we need? Can we just hire some till the backlog is handled and RIF them when it falls by 20%, 30%, 50%? Is there a control to remove them when we don't need them?
@3:03
I'm not certain of the precise number of ALJs. Your 1,400 figure sounds about right. There are approximately 3,500 or so federal judges (District Judges, Appellate Judges, and Supreme Court Justices). I'm not certain if that figure includes magistrates. So no, there are not more social security ALJs than the federal judiciary.
In regard to whether we can basically hire temporary ALJs, not really. There are a great deal of protections for public employees and while I'm not certain if ALJs have lifetime tenure, they effectively do since terminating an ALJ is exceptionally difficult.
While ALJ is a nice paying job, most people who become ALJs do so by either leaving a secure public or private sector job (been an uptick in people from state agencies).
So they apply for this job. Relocate on their own dime (unless already Federal) and maybe are on the job just long enough to move again closer to home on their own dime and then get RIF'd.
Remember they are making below the median for lawyers of that experience level and generally are attracted by the job security. So remove the bait for many to apply, that means the quality of the applicant pool goes down which is not a good thing.
But worse, you have now created an incentive for them to insure the backlog is not cured.
Post a Comment