What Will New Continuing Resolution Say?

The current continuing funding resolution under which Social Security is operating expires on Friday, December 8, according to the Library of Congress. There will be a new continuing resolution before the end of this week. The big question is what it will say. Congress has passed no budget for the Social Security Administration for the current fiscal year, which began on October 1. The agency is operating under a continuing funding resolution that allows the agency to spend money only at a very low rate. If the current continuing resolution provisions are continued, Social Security cannot hire new employees to replace any who leave and there is a threat of a furlough for current employees, simply because there may not be enough money to keep the offices open every day. It is already clear that there will not be a budget for the current fiscal year until after the new Congress convenes in January. It is not clear how long it will take the new Congress to produce a new budget. Will the new continuing resolution continue funding only at the current very low level which may require a furlough of Social Security employees before a new budget is passed or will the funding level be increased so that Social Security can operate effectively until a new Congress can pass a funding bill?

POMS On Administrative Sanctions

Social Security has added a new section to the Program Operations Manual Series (POMS) issuance entitled "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions" on the administrative sanctions program, by which Social Security can punish claimants for making false statements. The POMS issuance gives many examples of situations in which it would be appropriate to apply the administrative sanctions process.

Upcoming Meetings and CLE

• December 8, 2006, NC Academy of Trial Lawyers CLE, Winston-Salem, NC
• February 2, 2007, State Bar of Michigan Social Security Section Meeting, Lansing, MI
  
• March 1-3, 2007, NADE Mid-Year Board Meeting, Washington, DC
  
• March 9, 2007 Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers CLE, Columbus, OH
• March 25-28, 2007, NADR Conference, Albuquerque, NM
  
• April 18-20 2007, NADE Regional Training Conference, Albuquerque, NM
  
• April 18-21 2007, NOSSCR CLE, Baltimore, MD
• May 2-4, 2007, NADE Regional Training Conference, Seattle, WA
  
• May 7-10 2007, NADE Regional Training Conference, Atlanta, GA
• May 18, 2007, State Bar of Michigan Social Security Section Meeting, Lansing, MI
  
• May 20-23, 2007, National Association of Disability Examiners Meeting, Stowe, VE
• September 15-20, 2007, NADE National Conference, Sioux Falls, SD
  
• October 17-20, 2007, NOSSCR CLE, St. Louis, MO
• April 8-11, 2008 NADE Regional Conference, Austin, TX
• June 4-7, 2008 NOSSCR CLE, Miami, FL
• October 15-18, 2008 NOSSCR CLE, Century City, CA

If you know of one that I have missed, please e-mail me at charles[at]charleshallfirm.com.

SSAB Meeting Agenda

The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) had a meeting yesterday. The agenda was not posted until just about the moment the meeting began. The agenda is below. It suggests that the SSAB is considering some general Social Security reform proposal. It is almost amusing that Republicans still believe that they a "reform" proposal put forward, in essence, by the Bush Administration has any hope of adoption.

Social Security Advisory Board
Meeting Agenda
Thursday, November 30, 2006

9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Dan Crippen; Chair, Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods

1:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Stephen Goss; Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration

New Form To Allow Attorneys To Get Fees Raises Host Of Questions

Social Security has issued a new form SSA-1695 which attorneys and others representing claimants before the agency must file in order to get withholding of fees. The form asks for the claimant's Social Security number, as well as the attorney's or representative's Social Security number. This will allow Social Security to produce 1099 forms for those representing claimants and to use direct deposit for payment of the fees.

The problem with the form is that it includes a section that asks the attorney or representative to "List below the Social Security Numbers and names of all other claimants not mentioned above. " Does this mean that the attorney or representative must list the name and Social Security number of all of the claimant's dependents who might receive benefits on the account? If it does not mean this, what does it mean? What is the point of requiring this information? Requiring it dramatically increases the compliance difficulty for the attorney or representative. Many attorneys and representatives routinely take down the names of their clients' dependents but it has not been routine to take down their Social Security numbers. For an attorney with a modest Social Security practice, which might be 200 clients, getting this information would take a good deal of effort. There would certainly be clients who would resist giving the information. Many claimants do not like the idea of their attorney or representative getting a fee out of the dependent benefits. There are many claimants who do not know their children's Social Security numbers and cannot readily obtain them because the children live with their mother and the claimant is estranged from the mother. What happens if the attorney does not list all of the children or does not get all of the Social Security numbers down accurately? Does the attorney or representative just not get a fee from those benefits? Why would Social Security want to go to the trouble of entering all this information in its own database anyway? What happens if the attorney or representative supplies the form to Social Security, but the data is not properly entered in Social Security's database? Social Security has problems already with data entry. This would add several hundred thousand new data entry items each year to Social Security's burden.

Poor Funding For SSA Under Continuing Resolution

Stephen Barr reports in his Washington Post column that the continuing funding resolution that Social Security is working under funds the agency only at the lowest level that had been under consideration in Congress, which answers my question as to why the agency does not drop the hiring freeze. It also means that Social Security may have little choice but to furlough employees before a real funding bill is passed.

Senate Letter On Social Security Funding

The Federal Times has now posted a copy of the letter signed by 54 senators, 12 of them Republicans and 42 of them Democrats demanding more funding for the Social Security Administration.

This raises the question. Should Social Security continue its hiring freeze? Commissioner Barnhart put a hiring freeze into effect because of fear that the agency would be stuck with the draconian budget put forward by the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives during the current Congress. It is now clear that no FY 2007 budget will be adopted for the agency during the current Congress. With Democrats in the majority in both houses of Congress when a budget is finally passed next year, it seems fairly clear that nothing like the draconian budget reported out of committee in the House this year will be adopted.

Senators Press For Adequate Funding For Social Security

This is from a November 22, 2006 press release:

WASHINGTON D.C. – U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and Senator Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) urged Senate Majority and Minority Leaders and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee to provide additional funding for the Social Security Administration (SSA) budget in the final fiscal year 2007 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. The Appropriations Committee approved the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Labor- HHS Appropriations bill in July of this year to provide $9.1 billion to the SSA for administrative expenses, $401 million less than the President’s budget request and $54 million below the FY 2006 appropriated level.

The impact of a 2007 budget shortfall could potentially require the Social Security Administration to layoff staff throughout the country, causing delays in service for Social Security recipients and impacting services to Medicare beneficiaries.

“This Social Security Administration funding shortfall could disrupt those essential services provided to millions of Americans and Mainers at a time when we can ill afford to leave Social Security recipients out in the cold,” Snowe said. “Our seniors need to have certainty – they need to know that if they have problems with their Social Security or Medicare benefits that the resources are available to fix the problem. If we under fund the administrative budget of the SSA then we will see longer waits and greater confusions for people across the country. I believe this shortfall must be closed when the Senate takes up this funding bill and I urge the bipartisan leadership in the Senate to find the funding to close this gap. At a time when hundreds of thousands of Baby Boomers are retiring, these budget cuts are wrong headed and irresponsible.”

Senator Snowe and Senator Conrad, joined by more than 50 Senators, sent the following letter to the bipartisan Senate Leadership.