The House Appropriations Committee has voted along party lines for Subcommittee allocations, that is the amount that each Subcommittee will have to allocate among the agencies within its purview. This is for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 appropriations bills. As the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities (CCD) points out, the allocation for the Labor-HHS Subcommittee which has responsibility for the Social Security Administration's Limitation on Administrative Expenditures (LAE), the equivalent of an appropriation for an agency that takes its money from a trust fund, is 25% below the current FY. The Subcommittee can then allocate the pain among the agencies covered by the Labor-HHS appropriation bill.
As you may recall, the President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives earlier agreed to overall budget limits that were only a little below the current fiscal year. So why is the Labor-HHS allocation so low? The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives decided that they weren't bound by their agreement with the President.
A 25% reduction in Social Security's operating budget would mean massive RIFS at Social Security and an almost completely non-functional agency -- an unmanageable situation.
It is far from clear that the House of Representatives could pass an FY 2024 Labor-HHS appropriation bill that is 25% lower than the current fiscal year. It certainly couldn't pass the Senate or receive the President's signature. So they would negotiate, right? The President has little incentive to negotiate with leaders who refuse to be bound by agreements they have made.
We may be heading towards a year long Continuing Resolution (CR), which means that Social Security could spend money at the same rate as in FY 2023. There are worse things that could happen.
23 comments:
We should propose a 25% pay cut for the freedom caucus.
To all of you who constantly deny that Republicans don't want to kill SSA, what do you think about this?
Why do you think individual members are bound by an agreement the Speaker made? The Republicans who voted against the agreement certainly aren't bound by it. Why do we think they are required to fall in line instead of voting their conscience. Where in the Constitution, the law, or the rules of the House does it say that individual members must vote the way their party leader tells them? I expect my representative to vote his conscience, not simply do as he is told. If they didn't vote for the agreement, they didn't make any agreement. Why do you expect the Speaker to be able to force members who voted against the agreement to simply turn around and support things they opposed? Perhaps the president and the other party should have negotiated with all of Congress, not just the Speaker.
I have long assumed that cutting budgets of Government Agencies to the point where they can't function was the core Republican policy.
"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Grover Norquist
Based on what I witnessed during the past two presidential elections, I suspect nearly all of them would still rather see the agency burn (and suffer in even greater poverty as a result) than continue funding an agency that lets “queers” and people of color collect financial aide.
Yes. Perhaps we should let every congressman get what they want and treat their many hundreds of districts as individual sovereign nations! That sounds very in line with what the founders wanted, any like a super reasonable and workable plan!
I know there is free speech but why do provide a forum for such as 10:15 !! This is should be a to large degree has been an informative and intelligent sounding board. DISGUSTED !
One of these budgets also restores telework to pre COVID levels.
Lol. You’re disgusted that someone is calling out covert homophobia and racism? And somehow you think that doing so is unintelligent and damaging to the discourse? Sounds to me like you’re the one in the wrong corner of this internet. I believe what you’re looking for is over on truth social or whatever. Oh, snd you might want to spring for a Grammarly subscription while you’re out on your next web surf.
The Republicans are also threatening to defund agencies which don't return to pre-pandemic telework levels early 2020.
At that point Commissioner Saul and Grace Kim had cut SSA telework to almost nothing.
If this happens, if telework is cut like that,, there would be a mass exodus of retiring and quitting SSA employees.
Dumb and incompetent as they are, I don’t think anyone in charge has any intent of returning to Saul‘s plan. That man wasn’t just an idiot. He belongs in a padded cell.
On the bright side, this might cause a crisis so significant that it forces Congress and the President to pay attention to SSA. A 25% cut in operating budget would not just impact disability claims, it would effect claim processing and customer service for retirees that hold much more political influence.
Other agencies that cut back in telework didn't suffer increased retirements or quitting.
It's quite easy to say you will leave if telework ends but the vast majority of workers need the money so continue to stay at the jo, much like returning to the offices last year.
I realize it’s fun to spout of nonsense on the internet that supports your narrative, but what you said is Dead Wrong. Many agencies have seen significant increases in attrition since ending full-time telework. And more recent announcements of scaled back telework have prompted similar increases in retirements and resignations.
When we had reentry my office had 15% of the staff retire. The agency staffing is so low. Even with the new hires (which can’t do the work) the agency cannot afford to curtail telework.
There were more retirement claims filed with OPM last year when some telework ended or was reduced. But it could be argued that some just held on longer than they normally would have as retirement numbers were down for 2020 and 2021. There was no surge like predicted by some naysayers.
https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/retirement-statistics/
355 the statistics you are looking at does not reflect ssa which has had higher losses attrition and retirement due to rto
@810 Those are retirement numbers for all of the federal government which includes SSA. They don't include employees quitting which in my area seems to be those who have been with the agency about 4 years or less. It's a pain because they are either in training or just out for a year or two. But most of those have only known some form of telework. Those that worked for much time in the office before covid grumble about having to come in 3 days a week but will be here if telework is discontinued. It's hard to find comparable pay to a GS 11, step 4 or higher to start elsewhere.
The agency still leases office space for attorneys who do full time telework, which is a huge waste. Certainly, closing the Crystal City offices and some of the leased space at Fall Church makes sense. It should eliminate all the unused cubicle and office space in order to end leases and thereby save administrative costs.
They won’t give up those leases. For Joe Lytle and his gremlins, it’s worth paying millions of dollars for unused office space so that they can issue petty threats to remove telework anytime an attorney falls below the arbitrarily set productivity mark.
If they cut our budget by 25%, I'm going to make their job microscopically easier after I rack up enough Hatch Act violations by honestly answering customers why our already-crappy service got that much worse.
Interestingly, the Agency has stopped publishing workforce data regarding hiring and separations. This used to be accessible to all managers, but now requires special request-only access. They've also gone backwards and removed years of prior data under the guise of some "erroneous data" which they won't rectify. I suspect this is to limit managers from seeing how many people are leaving SSA.
Unlike some earlier posters, i do think eligible employees will retire or move forward on switching Agencies if they have to come into the office. At worst, it'll be it's own form of classism between the generous IFPTE contract, favorable NTEU contract, and everyone else under AFGE or non-bargaining.
Cut budget. Create chaos at agency. Boast how the agency does not work for the people. Kill the agency. GOP strategy 101.
Post a Comment