FOIA Suit For Employer Data

From the Judicial Watch website:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Social Security Administration (Judicial Watch v. Social Security Administration, Case No. 1:06CV02034). Judicial Watch is seeking documents identifying the top 100 corporations in the United States receiving the highest number of "no match" letters from the Social Security Administration.

The problem of getting information from Social Security under the Freedom of Information Act goes well beyond this case. As a general matter, Social Security tries hard to avoid giving information out of its databases, even when the information is a compilation that does not identify any individual.

Staff Instructions On Attorney Registration

Social Security has issued staff instructions in its Program Operations Manual Series (POMS) on the new system by which attorneys and others representing claimants must register with Social Security and must submit a new form 1695 for each claimant they represent. This is being done so that Social Security can start providing 1099 forms to the attorneys and other representatives.

The crucial question of whether the attorney or other representative must include the name and Social Security number of all of their clients' dependents who may obtain benefits on the account of their clients, as suggested by the form itself, is not answered in the instructions. Trying to obtain this information would be a big burden for attorneys representing Social Security claimants. Doing the data entry for all these names and Social Security numbers would be a big administrative burden for Social Security. There seems to be no crying need for obtaining and entering this information and a huge potential for error, yet Social Security has been unable so far to say that they really need the data or why they need it.

Rescission Of Acquiescence Ruling

From today's Federal Register:

On June 23, 1988 we issued SSR 88–10(c) to reflect the Supreme Court’s decision in Galbreath v. Bowen, 485 U.S. 74 (1988), in which the Court held that the relevant statutes did not permit withholding past-due Supplemental Security Income benefits for attorney’s fees in title XVI cases. As the Court noted at the end of its decision, the earlier Congressional decision not to extend attorney fee withholding to title XVI would stand ‘‘[u]ntil Congress [saw] fit to override its original decision, by amending Title XVI in a way that manifests an intent to allow withholding.’’

In the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA), Public Law 108–203, Congress enacted such legislation. Section 302 of the SSPA amended section 1631(d)(2) of the Social Security Act to extend the attorney fee withholding and direct payment procedures to claims under title XVI. We began paying fees directly to attorneys in title XVI cases effectuated on or after February 28, 2005, the date the amendments made by section 302 took effect. While this provision will only be effective for 5 years, we believe that SSR 88–10(c) should be rescinded for this period and we will later determine if there is a need to reinstate it.

Monthly Statistics Released

Social Security has released its monthly statistical packages for Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act.

New Urban Legend

Here is a brand new urban legend, or, at least this preposterous tale is new to me, fresh from a web board:

Have you heard anything about Social Security numbers, African Americans and the 5th digit of your SSN? Supposedly, if you are an African American or a minority, the 5th digit in your SSN is even and odd if you are white!

It has been said if you take a poll, most African Americans will have an even 5th digit. Rumor has it, some companies are looking at potential employees SSN to discriminate. Why not send this email to every African American and Minority that you know! I'm sending this to everyone I know. Mine was even, what's yours?

This absurd urban legend is attributed to Tavis Smiley, an African American man who has a talk show on Public Radio International, but Smiley would probably be appalled to know his name was connected to this nonsense.

No Social Security Furloughs Through February 15 -- And Maybe None Period

From Govexec.com:

[A spokeswoman for Senator Byrd, the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee] said the joint resolution [which is planned to fund government operations for the rest of the fiscal year] would not rely on a formula like that used in the current continuing resolution [which funds Social Security at such a low rate that the agency says that if it is continued for the entire fiscal year that employee furloughs are inevitable], but will "evaluate broad priorities and look at areas in desperate need." In that way, it would more closely resemble an omnibus spending bill, but she said the joint resolution would be different in that it would be "a lot more bare bones," with no policy direction. ...

At the Social Security Administration, where Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart has publicly warned that proposed budget cuts would require furloughs of about 10 days agencywide, that flexibility could mean the agency gets sufficient funding to stay open as usual. A spokesman said Wednesday that SSA could continue to operate through mid-February [when the current continuing funding resolution runs out] without needing to make a decision on furloughs.

Furlough Worries At SSA

The article below is from the Baltimore Sun. The only good thing is that the article does not mention the prospect of a furlough before Congress can reconvene. One has to wonder if this could have been avoided if Barnhart had been willing to speak out publicly about this budget problem before things got this bad, but she was unwilling to do this until it became clear that she would not be reappointed and by then it was too late and she had made too many statements promising dramatic productivity gains from her Disability Service Improvement plan.

The Social Security Administration may still have to close offices nationwide for several days next year after the Republican-led Congress failed to act on nine of the 11 spending bills for 2007 and incoming Democratic leaders announced that they would hold spending at current levels until Oct. 1.

Agency spokesman Mark Lassiter said this week that extending 2006 spending levels through the entire 2007 fiscal year would "leave the agency open for the furlough."

When Congress returns in January, Lassiter said, one way to avoid sending workers home without pay would be to set Social Security spending at $9.29 billion, the amount approved by a House subcommittee for 2007 and $146 million more than what the agency is operating with now.

Outgoing Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart said in an interview last week that once Congress dips below that figure, "there's no place left to give."

Barnhart has been warning of a potential furlough since September, which she characterized as the culmination of Congress allotting the agency less than the president requested for five straight years.

"Let me assure you, there is no strategy here," said Barnhart, a former congressional staffer. "As the person who's responsible for a program that delivers benefits to 48 million people, I think it's my responsibility to make sure Congress understands the consequences of its planned actions. If I had waited until after Congress signed off on appropriations bills and said, 'Gee, that's not enough money. We need to do a furlough.' I think they'd be a little annoyed with me."

Barnhart said that if Congress had supported the president's requests, people applying for disability benefits and challenging denials would not be faced with the long delays they are experiencing now.

Lassiter said Wednesday that the agency has instituted a hiring freeze until at least Feb. 15, almost a month after Barnhart's term expires. The agency had been hiring one employee for every three who left.

"The point is, there's a very direct correlation between service and getting the president's request and not getting the president's request," Barnhart said.

Until late last week, when the spending bills failed to get off the Senate floor, the agency's lobbying efforts had been gaining ground with 54 senators, including 12 Republicans, sending a letter to the chamber's leadership calling for enough money to avoid service disruptions.

"On the philosophical level, I certainly feel the agency is enjoying a victory, but on the practical side we're still piling on," Barnhart said. "We could absorb the House's proposal, but it's not going to be an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination."

Richard Warsinskey, president of the National Council of Social Security Management Associations, said that agency budget officials estimate that for every $20 million the agency loses from the House's 2007 budget proposal, offices would shut down for one day.

"So if we stick with our current funding level, we're looking at a seven- or eight-day furlough," Warsinskey said. "It's not looking good."

NOSSCR Board of Directors

The National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) has announced its officers and board of directors for 2006-2007.