House CR Proposal Would Cut Social Security Funding But Government Shutdown Looms — What A Mess

      Social Security and other federal agencies are operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) allowing them to spend money at the same rate as during the prior fiscal year. The current CR expires on March 15.

     Republicans in the House of Representatives have released their version of a new full year CR. It gives the Social Security Administration $14.2 billion for operations, which is down by about $100 million from the prior FY. Of course, this is effectively a greater cut when inflation is considered. That bill's chances in the House are uncertain.

     However, no appropriations bill can pass the Senate without Democratic votes or ending the filibuster. The price for Democratic support in the Senate is an end to the DOGE reign of terror, which many Republican Senators might also want, even though they won't say it publicly. A government shutdown looks inevitable and it could be a long one. I don't know about the President or Republicans in Congress but this is a fight to the death for Democrats.

    Remember that while most Social Security employees are deemed essential and will stay on the job, eventually the pay checks stop in a very long shutdown. You can't get pay for the time period after the shutdown begins until some sort of funding bill is passed. Federal employees will have to figure out when that will occur.

     Hovering over this is the claim of the President that he is under no obligation to spend appropriated funds — recission. This is almost certainly unconstitutional but that’s not stopping him at the moment. It’s not clear that he will obey the Supreme Court when they finally tell him explicitly to knock it off as I expect.

A Year To Implement WEP/GPO Repeal

 

    The Social Security Administration posted questions and answers on the implementation of the bill ending the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision on January 24 — after Inauguration Day. Here’s an excerpt:

… SSA's ability to implement the law in a timely manner and without negatively affecting day-to-day customer service relies on funding. The Act did not provide money to implement the law. The law requires SSA to adjust benefits for over 3 million people. Since the law's effective date is retroactive, SSA must adjust people's past benefits as well as future benefits. Though SSA is helping some affected beneficiaries now, under SSA's current budget, SSA expects that it could take more than one year to adjust benefits and pay all retroactive benefits.

Callers to SSA's National 800 Number hear a message about the Act. This message has helped tens of thousands of people avoid holding for a representative. However, more than 7,000 people each day still choose to wait to speak to a representative about the Act. These calls, as well as visitors and appointments in local offices, will continue to increase over the coming weeks and months.

Helping people with this new and unfunded workload is made more difficult by SSA's ongoing staffing shortages, including operating under a hiring freeze since November 2024. This hiring freeze is likely to continue. All SSA customers, including those not affected by the Act, will face delays and increased wait times as SSA prioritizes this new workload. …

GOP Asking Questions

      Ways and Means Republicans are asking questions about implementation of the WEP/GPO bill, including whether the agency needs more money to implement it. About time they start asking questions.

     By the way, I don’t see why this letter is only signed by Republicans other than the fact that almost all civility has broken down in the House of Representatives. 

And Finally The Discussions Of Practicalities Begin

      From The Hill:

 On Jan. 5, President Biden signed into law the Social Security Fairness Act, which will provide new or additional Social Security benefits for about 3 million individuals who receive government pensions from jobs not covered by Social Security. …

The Social Security Administration (SSA) will now need to quickly scramble and begin issuing large back payments to millions of individuals. 

Complicating the issue, SSA received its administrative budget via a continuing resolution with no provision for the potentially large start-up costs to implement the legislation. SSA’s administrative budget has been in sharp decline over several years, and the agency recently testified before Congress that it now has “one of the lowest staffing levels in 50 years.” 

It is unlikely SSA has the bandwidth to implement the new benefit structure seamlessly, quickly and correctly.

WEP/GPO Bill Advances While Government Shutdown Looms

     The Hill reports that the bill to end the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset passed a crucial vote in the Senate yesterday 73-27. This isn’t final passage but the margin suggests that the bill is likely to pass. It has already been passed the House of Representatives.

    In other legislative news, President-elect Trump seems to be ordering a government shutdown. At least he’s ordering Republican legislators not to vote for the Continuing Resolution they just negotiated with Democrats. The GOP can’t pass the CR without Democratic votes in this Congress and probably not in the next. Most of Social Security will stay open if the shutdown happens beginning December 20 but there would be no money to continue paying salaries for long. I have no idea what the endgame is here. 

     If you voted for Trump, this is the chaos you voted for.

CR Contains Nothing For Social Security

   

  The text of the Continuing Resolution to prevent a government shutdown is out. I see no additional funding for Social Security operations, not that I was expecting any.

Crunch Time For Continuing Resolution

     From Newsweek:

Customer services from the Social Security Administration (SSA) could be subject to delays in 2025 if [no additional] funding is agreed on by lawmakers before the end of the year.

The government agency was forced to implement a hiring freeze in November after Congress denied additional funding for the SSA in its September continuing resolution. ...

However, in September, House Republicans blocked what is known as a budget anomaly request by the Biden administration for an increase in the SSA's current 2024 annual funding level... . With a December 20 deadline set for another stopgap government funding bill, it remains to be seen whether the same request will be granted to fund the agency through to March 2025. ...

SSA spokesperson Mark Hinkle told news outlet Government Executive that, without the funding, the agency is being forced to "operate conservatively."

"We have been forced to restrict hiring to critical targeted areas and will not be able to invest in new information technology development," Hinkle said.

"In addition, we have reduced overtime to historically low levels and essentially have no overtime to serve the customers who are waiting in our lobbies late in the day or to clear workloads that we are unable to get to during core hours of operations." ...

    The deadline for the next continuing resolution is December 20.

Does Frank Bisignano Realize What He's Gotten Himself Into?

     I'm surprised that Frank Bisignano wants the job as Social Security Commissioner. He's now the highly paid CEO of a very successful corporation. It's his niche and apparently he's very good at it. Is he aware of the problems he'll face at Social Security?

• If he thinks he'll lead Social Security out of its long term financing problems, he's deluded. Senators of both parties will demand that he promise that he will stay completely away from long term financing issues. He can't be confirmed without making such promises. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that Trump would want him to stay away from such issues. Also, if he actually looks into the political thicket surrounding it, he'll want nothing to do with Social Security "reform." Let Elon Musk take that bullet.
  
• If he thinks he can in any sense "transform" Social Security, he's deluded. There's no simple fix, technical or otherwise, for Social Security's service delivery problems. There's not even a complicated set of fixes that don't take a lot of money and time. It's highly unlikely that he'll get more money.
• If he thinks that he'll have an advantage because he knows nothing about Social Security and won't be held back by old ideas, he's deluded. In any job, it helps to know how things are already set up, what the obstacles to change are, and what ideas have been tried before and how they worked out. The people who came before you weren't fools (except for Jo Anne Barnhart). Social Security isn't a Gordian knot and Bisignano won’t have have a sword.
  
• If he thinks that the real problem at Social Security is that federal employees are stupid and lazy, he's deluded. That sort of arrogance would lead to indifference, if not joy, in losing the experienced, hard-working employees who keep the Social Security Administration afloat. Not every agency employee is a star but they mostly do their jobs ably. There just aren't enough of them.
  
• If he thinks that ending telework will make Social Security significantly more effective, he's deluded. I've been around long enough to know that telework makes little, if any, difference. If telework ends, some percentage of employees will quit. My guess is that it won't be that high a percentage but that's just a guess. Nobody knows. Losing even a few experienced people will hurt an agency that's as bad off as the Social Security Administration. The commonly held view that Social Security is simple is simply wrong. For example, there's not just one type of Social Security disability benefit. Depending upon how you count them, there are as many as seven (remember that blindness is a separate category under both Title II and Title XVI)! And don't get him started on the windfall offset! It'll blow his mind. It takes long training and considerable experience for an employee to become competent.
  
• If he thinks he can transform the Social Security Administration with new IT, he's deluded. When the companies that Gisignano has led have needed to spend money to acquire new IT systems, all he's had to do was to convince a complaisant board of directors to approve the money. The money was available since the companies were profitable. The situation at Social Security is entirely different. Convincing the White House to approve additional funding will be hard enough. Convincing Congress is much more difficult. Martin O'Malley is a born lobbyist. How far did he get? Is Gisignano any kind of lobbyist?
• If he thinks that fighting employee unions will make the Social Security Administration more effective, he's deluded. The unions can be a pain in the neck but they have just about no effect on productivity. Spending energy fighting them isn't worth it. They're not the enemy.
  

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.

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.

John Oliver On Social Security Disability

     I've found a video of that John Oliver piece on Social Security disability. I can't say whether this is an excerpt or the whole thing.

    By the way, I wish I could set this up so you click on the image on the left and you go directly to the video but Blogger doesn't make it that easy.

John Oliver Segment Segment On Social Security Budget; Also "Tackling That Outdated Occupations List"

     A couple of tweets from the Commissioner of Social Security (emphasis added):

Martin O'Malley

@OMalleySSA

·

I want to thank @iamjohnoliver @LastWeekTonight for calling out the crucial need for more staffing + funding @SocialSecurity

 

Martin O'Malley

@OMalleySSA

·

In the 9 months I've been serving, @SocialSecurity has made good progress to improve our disability programs but - as you noted - we need more Congressional support and partnership. By the way, we're tackling that outdated occupations list.

    Did anyone catch that John Oliver segment?

No Anomaly For SSA

    The federal fiscal year ends on September 30. Without some sort of appropriation bill passed before then, there will be a federal government shutdown on October 1. Usually, a continuing resolution (CR) is passed which allows the government to keep functioning based upon the prior year's rate of spending. Every year "anomalies" are added to the CR allowing additional funding for some functions. The Biden Administration has sought an "anomaly" to give additional funding to the Social Security Administration. The CR which has been agreed to contains no "anomaly" for Social Security. This is not good for now and portends an inadequate regular appropriation.  Social Security has been an agency which appears to have been disfavored by appropriators for many years.

Why Social Security Needs An "Anomaly." Also, The "F" Word Gets Mentioned

     From Government Executive:

...  In a letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., O’Malley warned of dire consequences if SSA is flat-funded past September, as proposed in the House GOP’s six-month continuing resolution. House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday cancelled a planned vote on the measure, after dissent within his caucus threatened to derail its passage.

“If enacted, a six-month CR without any additional funding for the Social Security Administration would be devastating,” O’Malley wrote. “We would be forced to implement a hiring freeze with minimal exceptions. We would lose over 2,000 staff in the first half of the year alone and reach a new 50-year staffing low by the end of December. We would need to significantly reduce overtime to historically low levels, decreasing processing capacity for our most critical workloads.” 

And in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, O’Malley laid out how both the House and Senate funding proposals for SSA would fall short of the agency’s needs. Under the House plan, employees would be furloughed by 20 days, while the agency would see its headcount fall by 3,400 staff, not including the 1,500 decrease in staff at state Disability Determination Services offices. And funding for the agency’s IT infrastructure would be “barely” enough to “keep the lights on.” ...

Anomaly Requested For Social Security

     The federal fiscal year ends on September 30. Without Congressional action there will be a government shutdown. It's clear that individual appropriation bills will not be passed before the end of the month. A Continuing Resolution (CR), which permits the continuation of spending at the previous rate, will be needed. Every time there's a CR, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) submits a list of "anomalies" -- government functions that require something beyond the prior rate of spending. The OMB anomalies list this time includes a request that the Social Security Administration be funded at the full rate of the President's budget request for FY 2025 -- $15.4 billion instead of the $14.2 billion in the FY 2024 appropriation, warning that:

... Without the anomaly, SSA would be required to reduce funding for core information technology operations including SSA's network support. In addition, SSA would likely reduce the hours field offices are open to the public and would need to close field offices over time, extending wait times or seniors and individuals with disabilities. ...

    Government Executive calls the OMB request for Social Security an "unusual step."

    It's unlikely that Social Security will receive anything like what is requested. The House funding bill doesn't include an increase for Social Security. In fact, it cuts Social Security's appropriation below the current FY.

Action Plan 2024

     Social Security has recently released its Action Plan 2024. It's a good summary of what has been done during the time that the current Commissioner has been on the job.

    Social Security can be proud of what has been accomplished this year but there's going to be no fundamental change for agency employees or those who deal with the agency until the agency gets a significantly higher appropriation. The low hanging fruit has been picked. There's no way to manage the agency out of the hole it's in. As former Commissioner Michael Astrue said, it's going to take "brute force," as in a lot more employees.

Appropriations Bill Advances In Senate

 

    From Government Executive:

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday advanced spending legislation that would increase the Social Security Administration’s administrative budget by $500 million, setting up a standoff with the House. ...

That figure would fall short of the $15.4 billion requested by the Biden administration in the president’s fiscal 2025 budget proposal, but it is around $1 billion more than the $13.7 billion slated for the agency under the GOP-controlled House’s version of the legislation. ...

Field Office Closure

     Social Security is closing its field office in Newburgh, NY. Predictably, this is drawing opposition from local political leaders. The appropriations bill favored by Republicans in the House of Representatives would ban field office closures while failing to give the agency enough money to keep them open. How would that work?

Bill To Cut Social Security Funding Advances

     From Government Executive:

The House Appropriations Committee voted along party lines Wednesday to advance appropriations legislation that would cut the Social Security Administration’s administrative budget by $450 million next fiscal year. ...

During Wednesday’s committee markup, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., who will retire at the end of this year, filed an amendment restoring the $450 million in cuts, which would bring SSA’s funding flat with its current annual appropriation of $14.2 billion. He warned that, if enacted, the GOP’s proposed cuts would further exacerbate the agency’s customer service crisis. ...

Rep. Robert Aderlholt, R-Ala., who chairs the subcommittee responsible for the bill, defended the cuts, claiming that they would only affect headquarters staff and not any field offices.

“Despite what you may have heard, no field offices will be closed because of this bill,” Aderholt said. “The 4% cut to SSA would come from the $3 billion that Social Security has budgeted for its Baltimore and Washington, D.C., offices, where 61% of the workforce is fully remote. SSA’s mission is customer-facing and it serves America’s most vulnerable population and this egregious use of telework is insulting to them.”

But Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Aderholt’s assurances ring hollow.

“Now, the chairman says that no field offices will close,” he said. “Why does he say that? Because he directs, in the bill, that ‘no field offices will be closed.’ Poof, magic! He didn’t ask SSA whether that would be, he just directed it in the bill . . . The population keeps going up, and the senior population certainly keeps going up, and your assertion that somehow the expenditures to service those rising numbers is static is incorrect. Your math doesn’t work.”

Ruppersberger’s amendment failed by a 31-23 vote.