Mark J. Warshawsky, who was a Trump policy appointee at Social Security but who got forced out when the Biden Administration came in, writes for the Baltimore Sun about SSA's odd "independent agency" status. Surprisingly, I don’t fully disagree with him. The Social Security Administration can never be truly independent. It's too restrained by the budget process and the Office of Management and Budget's veto power over regulations. I think that cabinet status is long overdue for the agency. By a wide measure it's the largest and most consequential of the independent agencies. However, unlike Mr. Warshawsky I believe the Commissioner should serve at the pleasure of the President. A highly partisan figure like Andrew Saul (or Mark Warshawsky) should never be serving at Social Security, much less during an Administration he's at odds with. Let's end this "independent agency" farce. It hasn't worked.
Apr 30, 2021
Independent Agency?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I agree with this completely. SSA is larger and arguably "more important" than a number of other cabinet-level agencies. SSA gets forgotten all the time by politicos precisely because it is not cabinet level. With a seat on the cabinet, a Secretary of Social Security would be able to advocate for the resources that are desperately needed. I think it would also allow the WH to recruit better leadership into the secretary position instead of some of the wahoos the agency has gotten over the years.
Yes, absolutely! SSA should be a cabinet level department. and it's mission should be expanded to address issues of social inequities and justice that are not related to criminal justice matters. i think of all the issues that come up with senior citizens, the seriously mentally impaired, and other at risk populations.
The Department of Social Equity and Security
Mr. Warshawsky keeps turning up like a bad penny. In this article he continues to advocate for two of the outrageous SSA disability policy proposals which were withdrawn in January. He describes the CDR proposal as "sensible"; that's the one which would have re-classified most beneficiaries whose disabling conditions are currently considered by the SSA to be "Medical Improvement Not Expected" as "Medical Improvement Likely" -with absolutely NO change in their medical condition. It was/is a completely ideological proposal which would have exposed beneficiaries in that group to a 350% increase in their frequency of reviews (changing from once every 7 years to once every two years). Why would anyone who would describe a policy so blatantly ill-conceived as "sensible" have ANY credibility on ANY disability policy...ever???
How would having a cabinet secretary promoting the agency's interest help. Did you get that - promoting THE AGENCY'S interest. Any person in that position would not promoting the interest of claimants. They would be pushing agency positions (for example - changing regs like they did in doing away with the treating physician's rule). How would that help?
The biggest problem is the random nature of when someone gets to nominate a head of a part of the government.
It's kind of like just roulette and luck when an opening comes up under what President's watch kind of like the Supreme Court. There should be a mechanism of an independent committee charged with nominating the head of big Cabinet organization like the SSA or CIA.
It should be some neutral as possible committee maybe comprised of Congress members from both parties who get to nominate. The problem is that would be unfair as a check of the system of balance.
But this committee should only be able to nominate not determine whether this person gets the position. Congress decides this as it should.
SSA was originally a quasi independent agency until it was made part of the new Department of Health Education and Welfare in 1954. It stayed there, even after HEW became Health and Human Services when Education was made its own Department. In 1994, it was severed from HHS. This was passed unanimously by Congress but, frankly, it is not entirely clear why this was done.
In any event, today, it is at least as important as several other Cabinet Department in terms of budget and in terms of expenditure, bigger than all of them except for Health and Human Services which administers Medicare and Medicaid. It expends 6 times as much as the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Education or the Department of Agriculture.
It should be a cabinet level position and, given Seila Law, a portion that has a Department Head that serves, as do all other Department Heads, at the pleasure of the President. Yes, this means that the President could direct policy, but that is exactly what the President does with all other cabinet positions, subject of course to the Department operating pursuant to law.
The time has come to make SSA a cabinet position.
First of all, if anything out of Warshawsky's mouth actually makes sense, it's just by accident. Hint #1 - He says "President Biden" then names "President Donald Trump". Gotta get his fealty to the orange one in to keep his bona fides.
He does describe why agencies are given longer "leashes" i.e., independence. But then he calls that the problem, as they don't knuckle under the President. What he wants is an ideological head of the agency dependent upon the President. There are no independent agencies at Cabinet level, just Departments.
SSA was freed from HHS, making it independent, but not making it a Department. But name an organization of government that doesn't have a connection to OMB? There are no truly "independent" agencies, even the so called government corporations entities have to deal with OMB. The idea that an agency of the Executive branch could go off alone making up rules absolutely independently and without any oversight of the President? Lawyers ought to know better. Warshawsky's done a classic "look over here" while hiding the fact he wants someone in power that will jump and effectuate political decisions better than the existing setup allows.
His last paragraph again colors his loathsome regs approach as "modern" regulations.
He's a biased ideologue with political motives and frankly is not a person with teh agency's best interest at heart, even if onece in a while, it appears so.
The idea of a Cabinet Secretary, or any Agency head for that matter, representing the Agency in its efforts is a bit simplistic.
There is an old joke that any Cabinet appointment spends their first year as an Ambassador to their department of the President that appointed them to the position and the time after that being the Ambassador of the department to the President.
The idea is that whatever ideas they may have had when appointed, eventually they rely on the only voices they hear, the long term staff of the agency or department they are in, and unless they are very strong, knowledgeable, and committed, they become a part of that agency and reflect only its long standing biases and positions.
For long term civil servants in all agencies, the attitude often is that I was here before you and I will be here after you so don't tell me how to do my job. It takes a remarkable Secretary or Agency head to really change that narrative.
It would be great if SSA would some day be run based on what's best for the public as opposed to what suits a given political ideology. Perhaps then the agency won't be so poorly run.
I can completely eliminate the agency. Medicare for All and Guaranteed Income.
No need for SSA if you do those.
@9:26 am That would mean that folks actually care about the well-being of all. So, it won't happen.
Post a Comment