Social Security Subcommittee Members Don't Want To Hear Any More "Crap" And "Lies"; Call Delays In Hiring ALJs A "God-Damned Outrage" And "Insanity"

The heated nature of the Social Security Subcommittee hearing today on disability backlogs should be making it clear to the Commissioner of Social Security that he will have to do something about those backlogs or Subcommittee members will make his life very difficult.

Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio pressed Commissioner Astrue on why Social Security had not hired more ALJs and demanded to ask questions about this of Deputy Commissioner Linda McMahon, who was along but not scheduled to testify. McMahon said she has been told that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is nearly done with a new register from which ALJs could be hired -- after a ten year delay. Jones made no effort to hide her anger about the situation and said at one point that she did not want to hear any more "crap" about regulations and (OPM) holding up getting more ALJs.

Representative Pomeroy of North Dakota said that he thought he had been "lied" to by former Commissioner Barnhart and others about the problems in hiring more ALJs. He said that he wants a Subcommittee hearing with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and former Commissioner Barnhart as well as the current Commissioner testifying so that he could get to the bottom of why more ALJs have not been hired. Representative Pomeroy talked about the incompetence of OPM and called it a "god-damned outrage."

If anything, my summary understates just how angry Jones and Pomeroy were. I would not want to be the director of OPM if there is another hearing on the ALJ register issue -- and there probably will be.

Even the ranking Republican member, Sam Johnson of Texas, referred to the OPM situation as insanity.

I hope someone can post this hearing on You Tube.

Streaming Video Now Available

I am now able to access the live House Ways and Means Subcommittee hearing streaming video, although not without some problems, especially in video. I would be interested in finding out how to access a recording of this hearing. Please e-mail me at charles[at]charleshallfirm.com.

I have heard Commissioner Astrue say that Social Security would not be rolling out Disability Service Improvement (DSI) in one or two regions per year over the next few years.

One thing to remember in watching this is that the House Ways and Means Committee cannot appropriate one cent to the Social Security Administration. The Budget and Appropriations Committees control the money.

Witness Statements For House Social Security Subcommittee Hearing

The House Social Security Subcommittee is holding a hearing today on Social Security disability backlogs. The hearing may be available streaming live over the internet, but the techology does not seem to be working for me at the moment. Below are links to the witness statements, with the statements from Schieber and Warsinskey seeming to me to be of the most immediate interest:

Witnesses

	Panel:
	The Honorable Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration
	Panel:
	Sylvester J. Schieber, Chairman, Social Security Advisory Board
	Nancy Shor, Executive Director, National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
	Rick Warsinskey, President, National Council of Social Security Management Associations, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio
	James Fell, President, Federal Managers Association Chapter 275, Alexandria, Virginia

Institute Of Medicine Strikes Out

The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies has issued a report entitled "Improving the Social Security Disability Decision Process", which is available for the bargain price of $36.90. Before you buy it, you may want to read all the way to the end of their blurb on the study:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) uses a time saving screening tool called the Listing of Impairments (Listings) to identify individuals who meet the Social Security definition of disability, but it is concerned with a substantial drop in the percentage of claims granted disability benefits based on the Listings over the past 25 years.

At the request of the SSA, the Institute of Medicine formed a committee which issued the report; Improving the Social Security Disability Decision Process, addressing the medical aspects of disability determination and recommending improvements. The committee recommended the SSA:

• Investigate the reliability and validity of the Listings as a tool for identifying the truly disabled;
• Incorporate condition-specific functional assessment tools in the Listings that demonstrate a strong correlation with work disability;
• Strengthen the process for revising and updating the Listings;
• Expand medical and functional expertise at the staff level; and,
• Establish an external advisory committee system

The committee concluded that a better mechanism than the Listings does not exist at this time, although it recommends that SSA monitor and support promising alternative approaches to disability assessment.

One day I would like to read a report from one of these beltway bandits that says "There is no solution to the problem, so quit wasting your money on consultants." Instead we always get studies that advise things like setting up "an external advisory committee system" or "support promising alternative approaches", with the authors of the study being ready, willing and able -- for a hefty price -- to set up and man these external advisory committees and explore the "promising alternative approaches."

From The Weird Fringe

This has only a tenuous relation to the topic of Social Security News, but you ought to see the article about Social Security on The Fatherland Security State. I do not even know what this person's point is.

Lame Valentine's Day Press Release

This is from the HeraldStarOnline.com of Steubenville, Ohio. Clearly, it was written by some PR person at Social Security who is unfamiliar with the shaky state of online service at Social Security.

People falling in love with online services for Social Security

By MICHAEL REYNOLDS

As you’re preparing your Valentine’s cards, you may also want to join the millions of users who have fallen in love with Social Security’s online services. Here’s our own Valentine’s sampler of things you can do at www.socialsecurity.gov.

See if you qualify for Social Security benefits. You can use our online screening tool to see what benefits you might be eligible for from any of the programs Social Security administers. Then, you can use our benefit planners to calculate your benefit amounts, whether you’re considering retirement or disability or the benefits available to your family if you die.

Apply for benefits. You can apply for Social Security retirement, spouse’s or disability benefits right over the Internet. If you are applying for disability benefits you’ll also need to complete the disability report, which is also available online. Need to take a break or look for some records to answer the questions? That’s just fine with us: You can leave and then come back to complete it. After you have applied, you can return to the Web site later to check for status.

Find the office closest to you. There is much you can do online, but sometimes you may want to visit a representative face-to-face. If that’s the case, your first step is to visit our online field office locator. Just type in your ZIP code and find the Social Security office closest to you.

Get a Password. If you already get Social Security benefits, there’s even more you can do online when you have a password. Anyone who gets benefits can get a password.

With a password, you can check the information and benefit amounts in your Social Security records and change your address, telephone or direct deposit account information without leaving the comfort of your home.

Whether you’re ready to apply for retirement benefits this month or you’re just interested in getting an estimate for future benefits, check out our Web site at www.socialsecurity.gov and go to the “What you can do Online” section.

We won’t try to take the place of your sweetheart this Valentine’s Day, but you may fall in love with our online services.

(Reynolds is Social Security manager in Steubenville.)

Charlotte Observer Reports On Social Security Backlogs

Fred Kelly at the Charlotte Observer has written another article about Social Security's terrible backlogs in processing disability appeals.

Failed "Grand Plans" And Republicans

I have written about the string of "grand plans", re-engineering, Hearing Process Improvement (HPI) and Disability Service Improvement (DSI), tried at Social Security over the past twelve years, in an effort to produce dramatic productivity gains at the agency. The net result of the first two of these schemes was a dramatic worsening of Social Security service. DSI is just now being introduced, but I am convinced that it is also doomed to failure. This raises the question of why these failed and why would I believe that DSI is also doomed to failure? I also noted that this twelve year period corresponded exactly with Republican control of Congress. This raises another question. What do these schemes have to do with Republican control of Congress.

To answer the first question of why "grand plans" to dramatically improve efficiency at Social Security are doomed to fail, let us take a look at some fairly simple numbers. The Social Security trust funds currently total about $1,994 billion. The President's budget proposal for 2008 is $9.637 billion. Social Security annual administrative expenses come to 0.05% of the assets of the Social Security's trust funds. On it's face, does that not seem awfully low? By contrast, a report from the Cato Institute, which was clearly trying to promote privatizing Social Security, calculated the annual administrative costs of a privatized old age benefit plan at 0.3% to 0.65% of assets. Note that the Cato estimate is about ten times as high as the actual administrative costs for the Social Security Administration and the plan that Cato is promoting, unlike Social Security, does not include disability or survivors benefits which are much more expensive to administer. By comparison, the Social Security Administration looks incredibly efficient.

My point here is not that a plan to privatize Social Security would result in vastly greater administrative expenses. That is obvious enough, but privatization is not going to happen for many reasons and administrative efficiency is not even one of the more important reasons. My point is that the Social Security Administration is already incredibly efficient. The idea that Social Security could be managed into much greater efficiency is ridiculous on its face. Of course, not every Social Security employee is a dynamo and there are inefficiencies and some money wasted at Social Security. The agency is large and some problems are inevitable. However, the idea that major improvement in efficiency is possible at Social Security is ludicrous. The agency is already a model of efficiency. Any efficiency gains at Social Security are bound to be small -- or, perhaps, incremental to use a word that the new Commissioner of Social Security used during his confirmation hearing.

As to the second question of why we saw these silly schemes whose authors hoped to dramatically improve productivity at Social Security while Republican were in control of Congress, we have to look at ideology. It has long been an item of faith on the American political right that government agencies, particularly government benefit programs, are astoundingly wasteful and inefficient. A natural corollary is that Congress should put pressure upon agencies to become more efficient and that budgetary pressure is one good way of doing this. There was an incredible display of Republican ideology at the Astrue confirmation hearing. Republican Senator Jim Bunning, who was at one time in the House of Representatives and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee on Social Security, became irate in telling Astrue, and I will paraphrase, that he did not want to hear that Social Security did not have an adequate budget, because he knew that the problem was inefficiency. Bunning's display was astonishing because Astrue had said nothing whatsoever to provoke Bunning. How did Bunning know with such certainty that Social Security was so very inefficient? The facts strongly suggest that Social Security is already incredibly efficient. I cannot imagine any basis for Bunning's outburst other than that it was a display of irrational political ideology. Unfortunately, Bunning and others in his party were able to impose that political ideology upon the Social Security Administration over the past twelve years. Things got so bad by 2006 that Republicans in Congress thought that a Republican Commissioner of Social Security was bluffing when she warned that her agency would have to close its door for two weeks because the budget that Congress was about to enact was so disastrously inadequate. Probably, only the results of the November election prevented this catastrophe.