6% Increase In SSA Appropriation, Less Than Rate Of Inflation
The Omnibus Appropriations bill likely to be passed by Friday includes $14.1 billion, an increase of $785 million or 6 percent, for Social Security’s administrative expenses. This is less than the rate of inflation this past 12 months.
Congress does not care about social security. This is bipartisan malfeasance. The poor and disabled will be adversely hurt by this decision. We all pay 12.4% of our income to fund the program. How dare they!!
Meanwhile, here is a bunch of new Medicare enrollment laws that will be a cluster**** come January 1st. Expect the OIG audit that SSA is not doing enough outreach. An ACOSS that is going to put on a social worker hat and carve out pieces of the budget to do outreach and non-vital activities.
So much for doing anything that may lessen the workload burden on employees or help beneficiaries in getting payments in a timely manner.
Production standards can be adjusted regardless of funding. And if leadership has any good sense, they’ll make well-justified adjustments to production expectations (and take other appropriate measures) to stem the staffing hemorrhage. Or they can can use the funding shortfall as an excuse to continue telling staff to do more with less, in which this death-spiral will go even deeper and take even longer to recover from. My guess, based on past experience, is that the old bozos in HQ will once again forge ahead with option #1. Really hope I turn out to be wrong.
Wow this is a pathetic result. I do not understand why the democrats are ignoring SSA. Do they think there will be no political consequences to deteriorating service? They are the ones with an interest in proving the government can function and provide quality services to citizens--SSA is one of the few public facing agencies that almost every American interacts with at some point. Why do they think this is acceptable? Even if there is no discernible political advantage in fighting for more SSA funding, many citizens will be harmed by deteriorating service. Does that matter to them?
Politicians are rich and cater to the desires of themselves and their rich friends. Rich people don't need Social Security. Thus, the program is ignored.
8:11 you meant option #2, right? Also they’ll just say well the standards are made before the budget so we can’t change them now lol! Absolutely they will say, do more with less. Especially with a delusional ACOSS who actually thinks we can. She literally just keeps AdDING things to us. Increase SSI applications. Do outreach. And then you know in March they’re gonna take away/ reduce telework and we’re gonna lose even more people.
Yeah, OHO is about to lose a huge chunk of its already-decimated decision writing staff if/when the agency decides they need to start returning to the office (despite having done the job fully on telework for nearly 3 years). And it will come just in time for the incoming flood of aged backlogged claims from DDS.
The agency will continue to underperform and spiral
ReplyDeleteAnd less than the 14.8 Ask which itself was insufficient.
ReplyDeleteThis is a bipartisan abject failure to take the needs of Social Security Claimants seriously.
Shame!
Congress does not care about social security. This is bipartisan malfeasance.
ReplyDeleteThe poor and disabled will be adversely hurt by this decision. We all pay 12.4% of our income to fund the program. How dare they!!
Congress thinks it's ok since Fed employees are only getting a 4.6% raise.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, here is a bunch of new Medicare enrollment laws that will be a cluster**** come January 1st. Expect the OIG audit that SSA is not doing enough outreach. An ACOSS that is going to put on a social worker hat and carve out pieces of the budget to do outreach and non-vital activities.
ReplyDeleteSo much for doing anything that may lessen the workload burden on employees or help beneficiaries in getting payments in a timely manner.
Production standards can be adjusted regardless of funding. And if leadership has any good sense, they’ll make well-justified adjustments to production expectations (and take other appropriate measures) to stem the staffing hemorrhage. Or they can can use the funding shortfall as an excuse to continue telling staff to do more with less, in which this death-spiral will go even deeper and take even longer to recover from. My guess, based on past experience, is that the old bozos in HQ will once again forge ahead with option #1. Really hope I turn out to be wrong.
DeleteWow this is a pathetic result. I do not understand why the democrats are ignoring SSA. Do they think there will be no political consequences to deteriorating service? They are the ones with an interest in proving the government can function and provide quality services to citizens--SSA is one of the few public facing agencies that almost every American interacts with at some point. Why do they think this is acceptable? Even if there is no discernible political advantage in fighting for more SSA funding, many citizens will be harmed by deteriorating service. Does that matter to them?
ReplyDeletePoliticians are rich and cater to the desires of themselves and their rich friends. Rich people don't need Social Security. Thus, the program is ignored.
Delete8:11 you meant option #2, right? Also they’ll just say well the standards are made before the budget so we can’t change them now lol! Absolutely they will say, do more with less. Especially with a delusional ACOSS who actually thinks we can. She literally just keeps AdDING things to us. Increase SSI applications. Do outreach. And then you know in March they’re gonna take away/ reduce telework and we’re gonna lose even more people.
ReplyDeleteYeah, OHO is about to lose a huge chunk of its already-decimated decision writing staff if/when the agency decides they need to start returning to the office (despite having done the job fully on telework for nearly 3 years). And it will come just in time for the incoming flood of aged backlogged claims from DDS.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete