Newsweek has an article on Social Security’s response to the story in the Washington Post on the deterioration of service at Social Security. Maybe they gave Newsweek a more substantive response that’s poorly reported but what I’m reading is no more than bluster. Why are they responding to Newsweek anyway? Everybody else rolled their eyes at the agency’s response?
12 comments:
Frankie and his friends don’t care. They hate Americans, just look at how they treated and continue to treat hard working Federal employees. It’s very sad to watch such narcissistic losers take us all down with them (oh right, Frankie and friends stole enough money so they will be fine, F the rest of us).
Do you think the unnamed press officers ever get tired of having to just post the same old fluff piece for every response? How out of touch with reality is the 9th floor?
Not my office. We rolled up our sleeves and learned to do more with less. Telework has helped. Despite many in our office getting the opportunity to retire early, we created new opportunities and efficiencies and the workload is just fine. Seems like more doing and less complaining would serve many in here well.
SSA's response to reports of 6 million pending actions at the payment centers is to say no, we only have 1.9 million pending claims. Apples to oranges: they're comparing post-eligibility actions at PSCs to pending initial and recon disability claims at DDS. Neither statement is wrong--SSA has both backlogs!
The Washington Post piece is full of Pinocchios. Social Security provided multiple on the record statements to refute the fake news, but the Washington Post would rather fearmonger seniors than print the truth. An independent OIG audit proved that the Social Security Administration has made profound customer service improvements as a result of technology and staffing decisions. Under President Trump’s leadership, Social Security is serving more people faster and better than before, and SSA will remain undeterred by politically-driven propaganda peddled by the Post."
IGs were removed from at least 18 departments and agencies, including Departments of Defense, State, Education, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Personnel Management, the Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
This blatantly illegal and incredibly concerning mass firing removes the only independent offices within agencies designed to protect taxpayer money and root out corruption, fraud, waste and mismanagement.
This administration is taking Pinocchio to a whole different level.
9:23 must not be an FO. No telework here. No opportunity for efficiency when working phones, reception, and 800# and little time left for anything else.
Yeah, well, sometimes less is just less. Maybe in your office, some efficiencies needed. Maybe you were not optimized previously.
SCOTUS said these were fine. Not blatantly illegal. A Pinocchio for you to start the new year.
@9:23am Please list each efficiency and opportunity created by your office, versus efficiencies and opportunities created/provided by HQ, including some before/after metrics and volumes for each. I agree there tends to be a lot of complaining here. So let’s see what positives you are talking about. We are eager to hear them.
9:23, has staffing changed in your office in the past year (including having folks reassigned to N8NN)? What percentage of your appointments and calls are about SSI vs Title II? How much telework are employees allowed? Does your office have adequate supplies of paper, toner, and other supplies? When you send inquiries to the payment center, AWIC (assuming you have one), and regional trust cadre, do you get timely answers? What's your FO2 time and how much longer after people get put in pay do they get their retro benefits? Are you getting calls or other workloads transferred to you from other FOs? Are there any best practices you've identified that other FOs could use?
@12:48 a federal judge ruled that Trump obviously violated the law. The Supreme Court has not ruled in this case.
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2025/09/trump-unlawfully-fired-17-agency-igs-judge-finds-but-wont-reinstate-them/
Stop saying "Pinocchio." You sound like a toddler.
Post a Comment