WEP And GPO Tactics Raise Concerns Among Republican Legislators

     From The Hill:

A group of House Republicans is making a rare move that would force a vote on a bill to reform aspects of Social Security, stirring unrest in the conference.

The bill at the heart of the push, also dubbed the Social Security Fairness Act, seeks to do away with the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), a proposal that backers on both sides of the aisle argue is long overdue.

The bill enjoys support from more than 100 House Republicans, and almost four dozen have cosigned the effort to use what’s known as a discharge petition to force consideration of the bill — and the strategy is rubbing some in the conference the wrong way.

“In a well-run Congress, no legislator signs a discharge petition if you’re a majority. That is a rule that is never broken,” Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) told The Hill. “And the fact that 47 of my colleagues signed a discharge petition shows that we have an utter lack of discipline.” ...

Republicans say the matter was a topic of debate in a conference meeting earlier this week. ...

    Regardless of the House vote, it's very unlikely that this legislation will be voted on in the Senate.

...

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.

Senators Seek Action On Long Covid Disability Claims

     Seven Democratic Senators have written the Commissioner of Social Security asking that something be done about disability claims filed by those suffering from long Covid.

    As I've said before, I'm out there representing Social Security disability claimants. My firm is taking on new cases regularly. I'm only seeing a very few claimants with long Covid. I don't see any more problem with those few cases than with other Social Security disability claims which means there are severe problems.

    The letter  also said that a couple of more general changes should be made:

... SSA should allow appointed representatives to see all exhibits at the initial and reconsideration disability claim stages. ...

SSA should restore the “treating physician rule” so a claimant’s primary care physician or Long COVID specialist can have their medical opinion given the weight it deserves. ...

Senators Seek Answers On AI Usage

     From Government Executive:

... Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and ranking member Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, sent a letter to Social Security Administration Commissioner Martin O’Malley asking for information about how the agency is complying with the Biden administration’s March policy mandating safeguards for AI use. ...

Wyden and Crapo also warned O’Malley against overly relying on artificial intelligence as he seeks to chart a path out of Social Security’s customer service crisis, spurred primarily by a slow disinvestment in the agency by Congress, leading to the agency having its smallest workforce in 30 years amid the greatest number of beneficiaries in history. ...

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?

Senators Express Concern Over Office Closures

     Senators Susan Collins and Shelley Moore Capito have written the Commissioner of Social Security to express their concern that the Commissioner has announced the closure of Social Security offices on the afternoons of May 10 and May 24 to give stressed out employees a break.

    I understand what the Commissioner has done. Social Security's staff morale could certainly use a shot in the arm and giving extra time off is one way to do that. However, the biggest factor in producing poor staff morale is relentless workload pressures. By closing the offices the workload pressures got a little worse. This seems counter productive to me.

Lauren Boebert Is An Ass -- But You Already Knew That

     From The Hill:

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) argued with a Social Security official over claims of backlogs in a Wednesday hearing about post-pandemic teleworking policies.

Boebert asked Oren “Hank” McKnelly, an executive counselor for the Social Security Administration, if the administration monitored its employees’ output and hours if workers are logging on from home.

 McKnelly assured Boebert social security employees are “subjected to the same performance management processes” whether they are teleworking or working from the office. ...

“We have systems in place that our managers use to schedule, assign and track workloads,” McKnelly said, adding that if employees work virtually, they must be responsive to various forms of communication.

Boebert continued, asking the official why the backlog of social security applicants has increased from 41,000 to 107,000.

“We’ve been historically underfunded for a number of years now,” McKnelly fired back, to which the congresswoman disagreed.

McKnelly said in the past 10 years, the administration has seen an increase of more than 8 million beneficiaries and experienced the lowest staffing levels ever at the end of fiscal 2022.

“That’s a math problem,” he said. “If you have those workloads increasing and you don’t have the staff to take care of those workloads, you’re going to have the backlogs that you’re talking about, representative.” ...

Senators Seek Answers On SSI Overpayments

     From a press release:

U.S. Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore.[Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security], Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio [Chairman of the Finance Committee's Social Security Subcommittee], and Bob Casey, D-Pa., urged the Social Security Administration (SSA) to provide additional information on the scope and magnitude of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries who had their benefits suspended and were assessed an overpayment due to receiving Economic Impact Payments (EIPs)[a pandemic program]. ...

Between April 2020 and July 2021, these payments were disregarded as countable resources for 12 months for purposes of SSI eligibility. In August 2021, SSA announced that  EIPs would not be counted toward eligibility and payment amount for SSI purposes indefinitely. However, SSA suspended benefits and assessed overpayments to individuals receiving SSI benefits because of the stimulus payments.

Senator Wyden previously raised this concern with SSA in two separate hearings in 2021, and the agency responded stating they had updated its policy guidance for SSA staff.  However, recent reporting has shown that SSI beneficiaries continue to receive overpayment notices because of the EIPs. 

To understand the scope and magnitude of beneficiaries affected, and the actions SSA has taken to resolve such suspensions and overpayments, the senators asked the SSA Acting Commissioner to provide the following information:

1. The number of individuals who had their benefits reduced or suspended because of the EIPs during the following periods: 

a. March 2020 to July 2021; 

b. August 2021 to December 2022; and 

c. January 2023 to September 2023.

2. Of those individuals identified in Question 1:

a. The number of individuals whose benefits were reinstated without an appeals hearing.

b. The number of individuals whose benefits were reinstated due to an appeals hearing.

c. The number of individuals whose appeals are pending.

d. The number of individuals who appeals were denied.

3. A list of the agency’s past and ongoing actions to address people who received overpayment notices resulting from EIPs?

4. The number of claimants who were denied SSI benefits because of the EIPs.

5. Whether SSA has required each beneficiary impacted to file an appeal.

By Far The Most Read Post Ever On This Blog

     From this blog on May 22, 2022:

“Serious Concerns” About IG

      From the Washington Post:

… The acting commissioner [of Social Security] “has very serious concerns about the issues raised by The Washington Post about the inspector general’s oversight of this program,” Scott Frey, chief of staff to Kilolo Kijakazi, said in an interview. Kijakazi has scheduled a meeting with her senior staff on Monday “to discuss how to proceed,” Frey said. …

A spokesman for the Senate Finance Committee, which also has jurisdiction over Social Security, said the committee is “evaluating a number of steps” in response to the article. …

     An extreme reduction in productivity has been signaling for months that something is wrong at OIG.

 

 

    And, of course, that Inspector General is still on the job.

Martin O'Malley's Positions On Social Security

     Back in 2015 Martin O'Malley was running for President. He didn't get very far but he did take these positions on Social Security:

• Increase Social Security benefits. O'Malley proposed increasing minimum Social Security benefits to 125% above the poverty line and raising benefits for low- and minimum-wage workers, who the governor claims currently don't receive enough benefits and often don't have any retirement savings at all.
• Raise the cap on the payroll tax for workers making more than $250,000 a year. O'Malley claimed that raising the payroll tax — along with raising the minimum wage and enacting immigration reform — will pay for many of his proposed reforms.  ...
  

    Please remember that as Commissioner, O'Malley would have no ability to adopt such plans. Congress has to do that. As Commissioner, he probably couldn't even lobby for such plans. That seems to be an unwritten rule these days. It's not always been that way, though. I've read the autobiography of Arthur Altmeyer, the first Commissioner of Social Security and an extremely important figure in the history of Social Security in this country. As Commissioner, Altmeyer was engaged in lobbying Congress almost full time. Other people were actually running the agency. By the way, I do not recommend reading the Altmeyer autobiography. It's really dry and tedious.

     Also by the way, the White House has lined up quite a number of endorsements for O’Malley’s nomination but none from Republicans.

The Appropriations Situation

 

    From Yahoo News:

As Republicans start laying out their proposals for what spending to cut next year, Social Security Administration employees are warning that their budget could mean longer wait times and potentially dire circumstances for beneficiaries.

In a letter to the House Appropriations Committee, the American Federation of Government Employees — a union representing hundreds of thousands of government employees — said that the GOP's proposed funding levels would "devastate the agency's ability to serve the American public."

Republicans on the committee released their Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill last week, including a $183 million cut to the Social Security Administration.

The union warned that the already underfunded agency could see its standing issues, like long wait times for accessing benefits and long lines at its offices, only worsen. As of June 2023, the average wait time for callers to Social Security's customer service and information number was a little over 43 minutes, per the Social Security Administration's data. ...

    I think that we should not worry too much about what the House Appropriations Committee is doing now. The bill they're working on is absurd for many, many reasons that go way beyond Social Security. I'm not sure the bill could get a majority vote in the House of Representatives. It's a non-starter with the Senate and the President. A government shutdown would be a far superior outcome. Nothing like that bill is going anywhere.

    I see three possible outcomes:

• Republicans eventually decide to vote out an appropriations bill based upon the previous agreement between the President and the Speaker of the House. Differences are sorted out between the Senate and House and the President signs the bill. We don't seem to be heading in this direction.
• There's no agreement on a Labor-HHS appropriations bill (which includes Social Security's administrative budget) and we see endless continuing resolutions for the entire fiscal year. This hurts Social Security but there are worse possibilities. I think this is the most likely outcome but what do I know?
• There's no agreement and the House of Representatives is so dysfunctional that it can't pass a continuing resolution so there's a government shutdown. This would be politically disastrous for Republicans but, hey, if you're a Republican members of Congress from a district that Donald Trump carried by 30 point in 2020 (like most House Freedom Caucus members), what do you care? Your constituents expect you to be as obstreperous as possible. They're in the "Keep Government Out Of My Medicare" camp.
  

Why Is Gail Ennis Still In Office?

Gail Ennis

     From the Washington Post:

A top Senate Democrat is demanding answers from Social Security’s embattled watchdog about allegations of low productivity, poor morale and retaliation against whistleblowers in her office.

In an 11-page letter sent this week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said his committee had received complaints from current and former employees in the watchdog division of a hostile work environment, hiring abuses, misuse of federal money and “falling productivity.”

“I write to express my concerns regarding your performance as Inspector General,” Wyden wrote. “It is paramount that the Office of Inspector General cultivates and maintains a workplace free of harassment, intimidation, or retaliation.” ...

Now Now. Not Later. Not Ever.

 

    When we're rushed, we cut corners and we make more mistakes than usual. Social Security employees are rushed. They're cutting corners. They're making lots of mistakes. They're putting off difficult work. Even in the best of times, there are some things which didn't get done properly to begin with that need to be corrected but in these terrible times there are many, many of these.

    The stress on Social Security employees isn't going away. They will remain overburdened indefinitely. My firm asks them to straighten out their mistakes but they don't have time to do it. It's getting to the point that I think the work isn't going to get done now. It's not going to get done later. It's never going to get done, at least not in the foreseeable future. 

    What kinds of mistakes or omissions am I seeing? Let me list a few:

• Claimant's monthly benefits are authorized but nothing is done about paying the back benefits or attorney fees.
• Claimant receives a small payment that is apparently their back benefits but it seems far too low. No award certificate is issued so the claimant and attorney can't figure out whether there has been a mistake.
• There's what I call a phantom windfall offset. Claimant filed an SSI claim which was quickly denied on income or resources. When the Title II claim is approved, no back benefits are paid because they're waiting on payment of the SSI benefits so they can do the windfall offset. Meanwhile, no back benefits or attorney fees are paid.
  
• A field office employee makes one telephone call to a claimant about implementing SSI benefits. They can't leave a message so they immediately deny the claim for failure to cooperate. (They're supposed to make repeated efforts to contact the claimant and those who may be able to help, such as the claimant's attorney but that takes time, so they just get the claim off their desk by denying it.)
• A fee petition is approved. That's a little unusual so it doesn't get paid.

    This is a depressing, discouraging situation for an attorney like me who wants to help his clients and who wants to receive the fees he's entitled to for helping them.

    Social Security is undergoing enormous stress. I think it's fair to say it's falling apart. Asking employees to work harder isn't going to solve the problem. The systems updates and IT changes the agency is making hardly help at all. Making employees come into the office every day would make little or no difference. The only solution is a lot more employees, like 10,000 more, but that might cost another billion dollars or so a year so it's out of the question now.

    I don't think the message is getting through to the public or members of Congress about just how bad things are.

    My only suggestion is that the agency should start closing many small field offices, which will mostly be in areas represented in Congress by Republicans. The administration needs to turn a deaf ear to the howls of protest from Republican members of Congress. You get the service you pay for. What's going on now is unsustainable.

A 25% Reduction In Social Security's Operating Budget?

     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.

A Good Start

    From a press release:

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), today introduced legislation to remove a Social Security work disincentive for Americans with disabilities. ...

If an adult has a severe medical condition that began before age 22, they may be eligible for a Social Security benefit called the Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefit. Their benefits are based on their parent’s Social Security earnings, in the same way that benefits of a child under age 18 would be. However, under current law some of these young adults fear that if they try to work they will lose future DAC benefits, which are often higher than any benefit they may qualify on their own. This fear inhibits the ability of Americans with disabilities to explore their ability to work as they transition to adult life.

The Work Without Worry Act promotes financial security by ensuring that any earnings from work – no matter how much – will not prevent an individual from receiving a Social Security DAC benefit from their parent’s work history if they have an eligible medical condition that began before age 22. ...

This change is estimated to improve the lives of nearly 6,000 individuals with disabilities over the next 10 years and would have no significant effect on the Social Security Trust Funds. ...

     Now, how about we do something about the marriage penalty that cuts off DAC if a recipient marries.

Social Security's Noncompliance With The CASES Act

     I'm not sure that I heard of the CASES (Creating Advanced Streamlined Electronic Services for Constituents) Act until I saw a recent report by the Congressional Research Service. CASES requires federal agencies to "accept electronic identity proofing and authentication processes for individuals to consent to gaining personal access to, or the disclosure of, an individual’s records in possession of a federal agency to another party" and to "create templates for electronic consent and access forms and require posting of the templates on agency websites" and to "accept the electronic consent and access forms."

    Apparently, a major impetus for this legislation is the problems that Congressional offices themselves have in providing constitutent services. They want to be able to access agency records directly. However, the language isn't limited to Congressional offices. Social Security claimants should be able to access their own records as well as their attorneys. 

    Social Security seems to be wildly out of compliance with CASES and making little, if any, progress to compliance. Yes, claimants can establish electronic access to something that Social Security calls their file but that access is extremely limited. For instance, claimants can find out that an Administrative Law Judge has made a decision in their case but they cannot access the decision. They can find out that their disability claim is pending at the initial level but they cannot see what is going on other than a totally meaningless percentage that purports to show how far along their case is. Telling a claimant that their case is 55% of the way to a decision is giving them meaningless and misleading information. It doesn’t work like that. Claimants can't access the medical records in their case. Yes, attorneys can get better access to their clients' files but the attorney electronic consent and access form has so many problems that it's seldom used. If the e-1696 is submitted, the agency still contacts the claimant by telephone to make sure they really did appoint an attorney and they must still laboriously enter the information in Social Security's data systems, processes that can literally take months. Even after that, attorneys still don't get much access to their clients' files other than at the hearing and Appeals Council levels. We certainly cannot access information on what is going on at the black holes called payment centers.

It's Been Slow Lately

     You may have noticed that I'm not posting much recently. That doesn't have to do with me. There is little to report. Things aren't changing for good or ill. Some of this is Congress. They're doing little with Social Security. Oversight hearings seem to be nearly a thing of the past. There's no hope of passing Social Security legislation. Some of it may be due to lingering effects of the pandemic. Until recently, there was little time to develop new policies for anything other than coping with Covid. Policy development was and is difficult anyway with people working from home most of the time. However, I think a lot of the torpor at Social Security has to do with the fact that there's no confirmed Commissioner of Social Security. An Acting Commissioner can't lead in the same way that a confirmed Commissioner can. Yes, there's a real potential for bad new policies as well as good with a confirmed Commissioner but sitting dead in the water for years on end isn't good for the agency or the people it serves. The lack of action on an occupational information system is one prominent example of the lack of leadership at Social Security.

    So, why hasn't the President nominated a new Commissioner?

Members Of Congress Press For Social Security To Receive An Adequate Operating Budget

     One hundred and six (if I've counted correctly) members of Congress have signed a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee having jurisdiction over Social Security asking that the Social Security Administration receive the full funding requested by the Biden Administration for the next fiscal year.

Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing

     From Reuters:

A Republican U.S. senator's accusation on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had lied during a tussle over the future of the Social Security program obscured behind-the-scenes talks between the White House and lawmakers that have been underway for months, according to sources. 

The war of words came in a Senate Finance Committee hearing when Republican Senator Bill Cassidy asked Yellen if Democratic President Joe Biden was aware that Social Security funds will run out within the next decade unless Congress shores up the popular retirement program with 66 million beneficiaries.

When Yellen responded that Biden "stands ready to work" with lawmakers, Cassidy shot back, "That's a lie because when a bipartisan group of senators has repeatedly requested to meet with him about Social (Security) ... we have not heard anything on our requests."

For several months now, Cassidy and independent Senator Angus King, who caucuses with Democrats, have tried to address Social Security underfunding as approximately 10,000 baby boomers retire every day. ...

 Cassidy and King are leading a group of workhorse senators that include Republican Mike Rounds, Democrat Tim Kaine and independent Kyrsten Sinema. ...

"It's going to be tough. I don't think we should sugarcoat it. But there are serious conversations in the Senate ... on a package that would improve Social Security's finances," said Shai Akabas, economic policy director at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a centrist think tank in Washington. ...

    The Republican plan is to have a very few Republicans work with a very few Democrats to come up with a wildly unpopular plan that includes an increase in full retirement age. Republicans will provide only a few votes to pass the plan. It will only be passed if Biden strong arms Democrats and probably not even then. Republicans will then run against Democrats on the issue.

    Biden won't fall for this.

    By the way, I'm sure that the Democrats involved with these negotiations are well intentioned but they're fools. This is a dead end.

More On President's Proposed Budget

     Some highlights from the President's proposed administrative budget for the Social Security Administration:

• Office of Inspector General would get only about a 5% increase in its operating budget. The rest of Social Security would get about 10%.
• "The Budget includes an increase of $60 million for teleservice centers to reduce wait times by over 40 percent and substantially reduce busy rates from 15 percent to 3 percent."
• "Addressing Processing Center Backlogs. The Budget includes an increase of over $75 million for PCs to handle more work."
• "To address the large backlog of initial disability claims and the additional claims we expect to receive in FY 2024, the Budget expands processing capacity by increasing staffing at the DDS offices. As a result, we expect the DDSs to process over 400,000 more initial disability claims and over 200,000 more reconsiderations than in FY 2023."
• Average processing time for initial disability claims would go down from 220 days to 195 days.
• Average processing time for reconsideration disability claims would go down from 224 days to 193 days.
• Average processing time for hearings would go down from 475 days to 320 days.
  

And remember, this is only a proposal. Congress must act on it and Republicans are saying they want dramatic cuts in agency budgets.