Yesterday's Hearing

     The hearing yesterday before the Labor-HHS Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee went about as I expected but there were interesting details.

Robert Aderholt, Subcommittee Chair

    Robert Aderholt, the Chair of the Subcommittee, spoke first. He said he was happy that Commissioner O'Malley had already come to his office to discuss the agency's appropriation. He said that less than half of agency heads did this, which I find surprising. He also said that this was the first House Appropriations Committee hearing on Social Security in a decade. I knew it had been a long time but that's even more than I imagined. Note to future Commissioners, including Acting Commissioners: Meet with Appropriations Committee members on as regular a basis as you can.

    Aderholt went quickly into Republican talking points which basically amount to pressure to force an end to telework and a demand that the agency manage its way out of its service delivery problems. In particular, he didn't like the amount of overtime at Social Security and thought that it was being abused by employees. Maybe there are problems with overtime but if it there are, it's just the normal sort of management issue that you find at any large entity. It's hardly responsible for any work backlogs, nor is telework. Just about every entity employing white collar employees allows telework. If you don't allow it, you have a hard time holding onto your employees or hiring new ones.

    The other Subcommittee members divided along party lines in predictable and somewhat depressing ways. My limited experience with Congressional hearings in past decades was that they were nowhere near as partisan as this.

     There were many questions along the lines of “Can’t you use AI so you can give better service inexpensively?” The Commissioner’s answer was basically “We hardly have the money to maintain the systems we already have so we can’t possibly afford new AI contracts.”

    It grated on me that Commissioner O'Malley kept saying he had "turned around" Social Security. He's a politician so you expect some hyperbole but saying that the agency has been "turned around" is over the top. O'Malley has done a good job in the short time frame he's had but actually "turning around" the agency was impossible without more time and more money.

    In the end, I hope I'm wrong but I would be surprised to see any additional money for Social Security coming out of this Subcommittee.

    Republicans will get a chance to see whether a Trump appointee as Commissioner can manage the agency out of its service delivery problems. I don't have high hopes of anyone even being nominated for the position for many months, if not years, into the future. Given the quality of the man Trump appointed in his first term in office, I'm not expecting a transformational leader.

House Appropriations Hearing

     The written witness statement of Commissioner Martin O'Malley for today's hearing before the Labor-HHS Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee is already available. I think someone slipped up. They normally embargo these until literally the moment the witness starts speaking.

    The hearing, which is set for 10:30, will be available for viewing online.

Overpayment Changes Written In The Sand?

    From a press release issued by Social Security on March 20 of this year:

Social Security Commissioner Martin O'Malley today announced he is taking four vital steps to immediately address overpayment issues customers and the agency have experienced. ...

Our deeper understanding of the complexities of this problem has set us on the following course of action:

1. Starting next Monday, March 25, we will be ceasing the heavy-handed practice of intercepting 100 percent of an overpaid beneficiary's monthly Social Security benefit by default if they fail to respond to our demand for repayment. Moving forward, we will now use a much more reasonable default withholding rate of 10 percent of monthly benefits — similar to the current rate in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.
2. We will be reframing our guidance and procedures so that the burden of proof shifts away from the claimant in determining whether there is any evidence that the claimant was at fault in causing the overpayment.
3. For the vast majority of beneficiaries who request to work out a repayment plan, we recently changed our policy so that we will approve repayment plans of up to 60 months. To qualify, Social Security beneficiaries would only need to provide a verbal summary of their income, resources, and expenses, and recipients of the means-tested SSI program would not need to provide even this summary. This change extended this easier repayment option by an additional two years (from 36 to 60 months).
4. And finally, we will be making it much easier for overpaid beneficiaries to request a waiver of repayment, in the event they believe themselves to have been without any fault and/or without the ability to repay.

        This has all been implemented via an Emergency Message and changes in the agency's POMS manual. Social Security says it has reduced the number of people affected by withholding the entire monthly check from 46,000 to 7,000. The problem is that none of these changes have the force and effect of law, as a regulation would. Everything O'Malley has done on overpayments could be easily undone by a simple memo. Regulations can be amended but the process takes time. It's much less likely to be done. Maybe the agency was working on regs and didn't get finished. Maybe it was thought that a subsequent administration wouldn't change this. Maybe they won't but I wouldn't be surprised if this one does. Have you noticed that the incoming administration seems a little bloody-minded?

    One other thing that O'Malley talked about was a statute of limitations on the collection of overpayments. I thought he could have done this by a regulation but, apparently, his agency eventually decided that Congress would have to amend the statutes, which, of course, is impossible.

O'Malley Resigning On November 29

     Martin O'Malley is resigning as Commissioner of Social Security effective on November 29.

    Update: NBC News reports that O'Malley is seeking to become the Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

It Keeps Getting Worse

     From a recently released report:

From Social Security's Freedom of Information website

Online Representative Availability Portal Coming

    An e-mail I received from Social Security:

The Office of Hearings Operations (OHO) is pleased to announce the release of the Representative Availability Portal (Portal) as part of the Enhanced Representative Availability Process (ERAP). The Portal is a dynamic, modern, and user-friendly website that allows representatives, through their Designated Scheduling Groups (DSGs), to provide us their availability for hearings. While you can still email your monthly availability to us if you choose, the Portal is a simpler and more convenient way to provide us your availability.   

We plan to register Portal users over the next several months as part of a phased national rollout, ultimately offering the Portal as an option for all representatives in 2025. If you are interested in registering individuals to submit availability through the Portal on behalf of your DSG, please send an email ... to ...

    Anything would be an improvement over the mess we've got now, both for attorneys and Social Security.

Just For One Person

    Here's a note intended only for one person. You're trying to post comments under the name "Admin." You're pretending to be me but you're not me. I'm not going to allow any comment you try to post to ever appear, you jackass!

Electronic Payroll Data Rules Advance

     Social Security has asked for Office of Management and Budget approval to publish final rules on "Use of Electronic Payroll Data To Improve Program Administration." This has not been controversial. It is the only Social Security regulatory package awaiting OMB approval. Without OMB approval before the change of administration, this one could languish for months if not years.

Disability Examiner Losses

 

From a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General

GPO And WEP Elimination Bill Passes House

      It happened quietly but the bill to end the Govern Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision passed in the House of Representives Tuesday night. Its fate in the Senate is uncertain.

Coming Soon -- Walk-In Service To End

     

    If you're a Social Security employee who thinks this is great, remember that there is little efficiency gained here. You'll feel less harried mainly because workloads are reduced by discouraging the public from doing business with Social Security in the first place and by extending time frames for service out potentially by months. There is a significant percentage of the population who aren't capable of jumping through even a few hoops. They'll wait in your waiting room to see someone but they won't call repeatedly trying to make an appointment only to get frustrated after 30 minutes or more and hang up. Yes, you can go to the field office and make an appointment there to come back in a month or two but many people won't keep that appointment. They've got problems that keep them from working and from keeping appointments. That's frustrating but those people are a significant percentage of the population the agency is supposed to be serving.

    Imagine this. Your Social Security checks suddenly end. Your Medicare is terminated. All of your bank accounts and credit cards are frozen. You have no way of paying your bills or even buying food. Someone tells you that the problem is that you're been declared dead. You have no idea who decided you were dead After a month of desperation, someone tells you that the problem is at Social Security. You immediately go down to the local Social Security field office hoping for a quick resolution of the problem but all that happens is that you have to make an appointment two months out into the future. How would you feel?

Appropriations Hearing On November 14

    The House Appropriations Committee has scheduled a hearing on the Social Security Administration appropriation for 10:30 on November 14. Commissioner Martin O'Malley is the only scheduled witness.

Veterans Day 2024

 

OHO Caseload Analysis Report

 

Click on image to view full size

Why O'Malley Will Leave Office By January 20

     When I posted yesterday to give my advice about one thing the Commissioner could do before leaving office I didn't explain why he would be leaving office soon. I thought everyone knew that but it's apparent from the comments made that many don't understand so let me explain. Commissioners of Social Security have fixed six year terms. A Commissioner's six year term doesn't run from the date that he or she is confirmed. It runs until the end of the fixed six year time period. In O'Malley's case, he was confirmed with only a little more than a year left in that six year time period. O'Malley's six year term ends on Inauguration Day in January. However, after a Commissioner's six year term ends he or she can remain as Commissioner until a new Commissioner is confirmed. If Kamala Harris had been elected, this might have been of importance but she wasn't. More important than all this six year term business is the fact that a President can fire a Social Security Commissioner any time he or she chooses. That's what happened to Andrew Saul. It's extremely unlikely that O'Malley would want to hang around for the chaos of Trump II but even if he tried, he'd almost certainly be summarily fired. If you think there will be any bipartisanship in Trump II you haven't been paying attention. Thus, O'Malley will be leaving office by Inauguration Day.

    By the way, don't expect a nomination for a new Commissioner anytime soon. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have taken treated the nomination as a low priority matter.

What O’Malley Can Do Before Leaving

      There is precious little that Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley can do before Inauguration Day that could not be quickly undone by the incoming Trump Administration. One exception would be finally putting an end to the Eric Conn cases. There have been reports that O’Malley has planned to do something to terminate most of the Conn cases. Why not just end them all? Apart from the Chief Counsel, no one at the agency seems to have any appetite to go after these claimants any further. The politicians in Kentucky are pushing for relief for these claimants. Does anyone in Congress still want this group punished? It's time to clear this matter off the agency’s plate.

On Election Night House Freedom Caucus Uses Scheme To Stall Bill To Repeal WEP And GPO

     From Roll Call:

Members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus orchestrated an unusual play on the House floor during a rare election night, 5 p.m. pro forma session that resulted in killing, at least for now, a broadly popular bill that was set to hit the floor as soon as next week.

Reps. Garret Graves, R-La., and Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., had successfully rounded up the 218 signatures needed for a discharge petition to bypass GOP leaders and bring up bipartisan legislation that would repeal two long-standing provisions docking Social Security benefits for certain retirees. They were set to make their move as soon as Tuesday night by triggering a two-day clock to bring to the floor the special rule for immediate consideration of the bill. ...

Then the Freedom Caucus, which opposes the measure’s $196 billion cost over a decade, intervened.

What happened: Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., a more or less local member from the Eastern Shore, presided over the pro forma session, which lasted all of seven minutes.

During the brief session he recognized outgoing Rep. Bob Good, R-Va. — the former Freedom Caucus chair who lost his primary — for a unanimous consent request. Good’s request to lay the Social Security bill on the table was agreed to by unanimous consent, with no one else in the chamber to object.

The effect of laying the bill on the table in this context, under House rules, has the same effect as defeating a bill on the floor; it is dead for the time being. Since the discharge petition was actually filed on the rule for consideration, not the bill itself, the rule could still be called up for a vote under discharge procedures, which if adopted would remove the bill from the table and allow a vote.

 Alternatively, a brand new, identical bill could simply be introduced — as early as this Friday’s pro forma session — and that measure put up for a vote under suspension of the rules as soon as next week. ...

Harris’ move to recognize Good goes against the “Speaker’s announced policies” in exercising authorities under House rules, which stipulate that such UC requests can only be made after receiving assurances that the majority and minority leadership of both the House and the relevant committees have no objection.

In fact, before Harris recognized Good, House Parliamentarian Jason Smith can be heard on the microphone saying: “The chair will not entertain the gentleman’s request. The chair cannot entertain the gentleman’s request.” ...

November 6, 2024

I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. 

                                                                                    — Judge Learned Hand

Don't Forget

 

A Poll

 

online polls

Information Requested

    From a Request for Information posted today by Social Security in the Federal Register:

... This request for information (RFI) seeks public input to inform how Federal agencies can support broader State and local efforts to improve the outcomes of children in the child welfare system who are eligible for Federal benefits. The input we receive will inform our deliberations about potential policy changes. ...

 Application

• For children who have contact with the child welfare system but who are not in foster care, what opportunities or challenges exist for child welfare agencies to assist with screening children for SSA benefit eligibility and applying for benefits?

• What opportunities or challenges exist for child welfare agencies to apply for SSA benefits on behalf of children in foster care or living away from their parents with other caregivers? Are there differences depending on whether the child or their family are eligible for other public benefits, such as preventative child welfare services, TANF, SNAP, or title IV–E foster care payments?

SSA Benefit Use and Conservation
• Current SSA rules allow payees, including child welfare agencies, who serve children in foster care to use SSA benefits to pay for the child’s current needs, including the cost of monthly foster care maintenance payments. Payees must conserve SSA benefits for future use only after meeting all of the child’s current and foreseeable needs. How effectively do these rules contribute to the ability of child welfare agencies to serve children in foster care? Are there differences depending on whether the child receives Social Security benefits or SSI payments?

• Please describe if it would be beneficial to offer additional guidance or clarification related to when Social Security benefits or SSI payments must be conserved by payees, including, as applicable, child welfare agencies, or expand on what kinds of factors should be considered in a conservation decision.

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, how do you make decisions about the use and conservation of the children’s SSA benefits? What do you do with SSA benefits that are not used as part of the monthly foster care
maintenance payment?

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, a child may be eligible to receive benefits from various sources, including Federal, State, and local. What are the benefits in using SSA benefits before or after other sources of funding to cover the costs of the child’s foster care maintenance?

• For child welfare agencies, if you were required to conserve SSA benefits on behalf of eligible children in foster care, would that affect the agency’s decision about whether to screen or apply for SSA benefits on behalf of a child?

• What would be the implications or challenges if child welfare agencies are restricted from using SSA benefits for foster care maintenance and required to conserve SSA benefits?

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, do you conserve any amount of the children’s SSA benefits for future use? If not, why not? If you do, how do you determine how much to conserve? Do you hold the funds, such as in a savings account or a trust account? Do you use Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts or special needs trusts to conserve funds? What are the benefits of and impediments to using ABLE accounts or special needs trusts? Does the decision on whether to conserve benefits depend on the type of benefit provided to the child (e.g., Social Security, SSI, foster care maintenance payments, etc.)?

• For current and former foster youth, what current needs would be met if you had access to your conserved SSA benefits? Are there examples of current needs that are not commonly met by the monthly foster care maintenance payments? If so, which needs?

General

 
• Are there other aspects of HHS’s or SSA’s programs where guidance, technical assistance, or information can be offered or improved to better support children in foster care or otherwise in contact with the child welfare system. ...