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. ...