Think about this, though. I'm told that, at least in the field offices, they're only being allowed to hire one employee for two employees who leave. I would appreciate news about what's going on at Social Security's teleservice centers and payment centers. I suspect they're getting much the same treatment.
The field offices are getting lots of overtime authorized but overtime only takes you so far. Even with lots of overtime you're going to get less work done as your workforce dwindles.
How is it that field office staffs are being cut even though the appropriation has gone up? First, that appropriation didn't go up that much. It came on the heels of several years where appropriations failed to keep up with inflation. Second, Congress directed that the vast majority of the increase in funding go to information technology. This sort of thing goes back at least to former Social Security Commissioner Barnhart during the George W. Bush administration. Republicans in Congress and in the Executive Branch have wanted to make sure that any increase in administrative funding for Social Security goes not to hiring employees but to contractors.
I believe that the Republican preference for contractors over employees has several bases. I think that, at best, Republicans in Congress and in the Executive Branch are indifferent to service at Social Security. Consciously or unconsciously they seem to be of the "cut it until it bleeds and then complain about the bloodstains" mentality. Bad service helps undermine public support for what they regard as the original sin of the New Deal. In general, they're hostile to government employees who are perceived as Democrats and partial to contractors who are perceived as Republicans. They're also naive about service at Social Security. They think that field office and 800 number service is unnecessary, that people will just switch to doing their business with Social Security over the internet if we quit babying them. This comes from visualizing Social Security as just processing people onto retirement benefits. They don't get that helping people file retirement claims is only a part of the workload at the field offices. Most of what they do is work on disability, survivor and Supplemental Security Income claims, which are vastly more complicated than retirement claims and many of the claimants they're working with are seriously impaired. There's no practical way to reduce much less eliminate the need for field office service or 800 number service at any foreseeable time in the future.
I'd like to find out who made that one for two decision. Was it made at Social Security? At the Office of Management and Budget (my guess)? In the White House?
I'd like to find out who made that one for two decision. Was it made at Social Security? At the Office of Management and Budget (my guess)? In the White House?
10 comments:
Their strategy is to purposely strangle the department and starve it. They have done the same with the State Dept, EP, etc. America First really is wealthy America. To hell with the poor, sick and Latin American immigrants. They see them as a nuisance.
Well they just sent another e-mail to everyone yesterday offering early retirement so..
I guess $21 trillion in debt is no reason to cut back on government expenditures?
It's all good we can still pointlessly lob 200M in cruise missiles whenever
$21T in debt largely due to perpetual warfare and two rounds of needless, destructive tax cuts in back to bacj decades under kleptocrat far-right Presidents. But yes, by all means, rural white SSI recipients plied with years' worth of Big Pharma's most dangerous opioids are clearly the problem.
“I guess $21 trillion in debt...” You are betraying your fundamental misunderstanding of the SSA budgetary process.
@5:31
I'm glad we agree! Let's start with cutting corporate welfare, wasteful defense spending, Trump's golf trips and tax breaks for the rich.
Politics aside - What I don't get is all of the money throw at the Agency for Demonstration work from OMB and Congress for years which hasn't shown any outcomes on improving work outcomes on beneficiaries. We're talking significant money when we have lines down the street to get into a field office and it takes 30 - 45 minutes to get someone to talk to on a phone. There is a serious disconnect here.
Despite the wishes of SSA management, online services are NOT worth what they're putting into it. I reached full retirement age in 2014. As recommended, I tried for several months before the retirement date to get access to online services to "easily" file. Despite trying several times each week, I could never get access. Finally, I went to the local field office--forget trying to reach them by telephone. After a 45 minute wait, a pleasant young lady entered my information, and in 10 minutes, I had finally been enrolled. In my work, I've regularly used various generations of computers since 1978, so I'm not computer-illiterate. It's just that SSA's online services don't work as planned.
I use SSA online services many times per week, I assist with Enrollment to Medicare, the Medicare Plan Finder, Filing Retirements and more. In the last 7 or 8 years I have only had a handful of problems. The main problems seem to fall on the Claimant side where they have a record issue with a name. There is the occasional Numident flip but those are rare. I have had an individual that had identity theft and benefits had already been applied for, so that is now going to be something to watch for, but I usually have little to no problem filing a retirement, Medicare Only, or a Medicare A refusing B app. Your mileage may vary.
Post a Comment