The current version of the Build Back Better Act, the major budget reconciliation bill pending in the Senate, contains a major responsibility for the Social Security Administration. If passed , Social Security will be administering Universal Comprehensive Paid Leave. (Begins on page 1065). Claimants will be able to appeal from determinations made under this program but not to federal court. (Page 1081). I am somewhat confused about extra funding. At one point the bill indicates that Social Security will be given an extra $1.591 billion in the first year and an extra $1.5 bill a year thereafter to administer the program. (Page 1090). At another point, it indicates that there will be as much as an extra $2.5 billion. (page 1091). It's not clear to me whether as much as $2 billion of this may be expended for Social Security operations generally. It appears that this will be effective sometime in the current fiscal year -- at least that's when Social Security gets a big appropriation -- but I have been unable to find the exact date.
This will be the first major new responsibility for the Social Security Administration since SSI was adopted in the 1970s. It comes at a time when the agency's staffing is at a low ebb and there are massive backlogs across almost all agency operations. Also, the agency is being directed by an Acting Commissioner.
7 comments:
Actually I think the most recent was when Medicare part D was introduced. While SSA does administer the plans they are responsible for subsidy determinations. I believe there was a major hiring push in the 90s when it was rolled out.
Well, I don't imagine that will ease up the flow of work to an already burdened agency...sweet!
Doesn't read like it's appealable to an ALJ.
Not a good idea. Shouldn't the DOL handle this anyway? Congress should increase SSA's budget significantly and it has not done so. If and when the GOP comes back to power, the whole thing will likely be scrapped (assuming the BBB plan passes in the first place which is a BIG IF right now).
Manchin has already said he doesn't support it and won't vote for it. As a result, this has little or no chance of becoming law.
@2:46
Yeah, from what I can tell it appears to be appealable to another decisionmaker, once. Curious though why the normal language "shall not be subject to further review" isn't included anywhere.
See the section by section:
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/Section_by_Section_BBB_RCP117-18_.pdf#page=101
Post a Comment