Politics In Office Closures?

Here is a list of recent Social Security Field office closures I know about with the names and party affiliation of the representatives of those cities in Congress:

• Auburn, NY -- Senators Schumer (D) and Clinton (D), Representative Arcuri (D)
• Bristol, CT -- Senators Dodd (D) and Lieberman (I, but caucuses with Democrats), Reprentatives Larson (D) and Murphy (D)
• Carbondale, PA -- Senators Spector (R, but increasingly acting in an independent manner) and Casey (D), Representative Carney (D)
• Dickinson, ND -- probable closure, but nothing definite -- Senators Conrad (D) and Dorgan (D), Representative Pomeroy (D -- member of Social Security Subcommittee who talked about how he had been lied to by former Commissioner Barnhart and how the ALJ hiring situation at Social Security was a "god-damned outrage")
• San Pedro, CA -- Senators Feinstein (D) and Boxer (D), Representatives Harman (D) and Rohrabacher (R)
• Slidell, LA -- Senators Landrieu (D) and Vitter (R), Representative Jindal (R) (This office closure was probably inevitable due to the population loss in the area following the hurricane.)

I do not want to seem paranoid, but I think I see a pattern here.

Some caveats are in order. I am only reporting the office closures that resulted in newspaper articles that I can access online. It is certainly possible that some office closures have not been covered by local newspapers. Many of these newspaper articles have been generated by a Congressman's office calling a local newspaper to get coverage of the Congressman's efforts to keep a Social Security field office open. Republican Congressmen may be less likely to make the effort to keep a Social Security field office open or to publicize that effort, leading to fewer stories. Also, not all newspapers are accessible online.

Still, if I were a Democratic Congressman whose local Social Security field office were threatened with closure, I would really like to see a list of all the offices that have been or will be closed. I would also like to know the criteria used in making these decisions. I would also like to know whether the the Social Security Commissioner's liaison to the White House has been involved in these decisions.

OIG And Washington Times On Overpayments And Administrative Finality

From The Washington Times, a right wing paper:

The Social Security Administration is resisting proposed rule changes aimed at fixing longstanding errors that have resulted in tens of millions of dollars in erroneous overpayments to beneficiaries.

More than 44,000 people have received approximately $140 million in extra, undeserved payments because of clerical and other errors by the Social Security Administration (SSA), according to recent estimates by the agency's inspector general.

What's more, the SSA has continued making overpayments even after learning of errors because of an internal rule known as "administrative finality."

Under the policy, the SSA cannot reduce benefits for disability and other beneficiaries after four years except in cases of fraud, even if they later learn that incorrect calculations are responsible for the overpayments.

"We believe that when SSA discovers errors in the payments to beneficiaries, the agency should correct them rather than continuing the errors in future benefit payments," Patrick P. O'Carroll Jr., inspector general for the SSA, wrote in a report sent to Congress and SSA officials last week.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) study is available online. Carroll has seemed to be very much more hard line right wing than anyone else working at the Social Security Administration. We cannot know if he was the one to call the Washington Times, but that seems awfully likely. Certainly, he has not called the Washington Times about other studies OIG has done showing the underpayments to Social Security claimants.

In considering this study, I am reminded that on many occasions the idea has been proposed at Social Security to charge interest on overpayments owed to the Social Security Administration. Every time this comes up some alert person in the room always says, "But if we charge interest on the money they owe us, don't we have to pay interest on the money we owe them?" The idea always dies immediately after this question, since it is obvious that Social Security owes far more money than is owed to it. If Social Security does away with its administrative finality rules it will ultimately have to pay out far more than it will collect.

25% Hike In Disability Pay?

This is Social Security News, not VA News, but if this happens, there is bound to be some fallout for Social Security. From the Army Times:

A presidential commission will call Wednesday for an immediate 25 percent increase in veterans’ disability compensation while awaiting a larger overhaul of disability and transition benefits. ...

With the Bush administration already balking at the $4 billion increase in veterans’ health care and benefits programs being pushed by Congress, it is unlikely that administration officials would support further increases. ...

The commission comes down squarely on the side of veterans on several controversial issues. For example, it supports allowing disabled retirees to receive full veterans’ disability compensation and military retired pay when they are eligible for both, and to allow survivors to receive their full veterans’ and military survivors’ benefits.

Resistance Is Futile!

Results of last week's poll:

Who do think will be win the Democratic nomination for President in 2008?

Joe Biden (0)	0%
Hillary Clinton (77)	65%
Chris Dodd (4)	3%
John Edwards (13)	11%
Mike Gravel (3)	3%
Dennis Kucinich (2)	2%
Barack Obama (10)	8%
Bill Richardson (2)	2%
None of the above (2)	2%
Don't know (6)	5%

Total Votes: 119

Fraud In Sacramento

From the Sacramento Bee:

A 73-year-old Sacramento woman pled guilty in federal court Monday to stealing more than $91,000 in Social Security funds.

Margaret Williams admitted to federal prosecutors that for nearly 35 years, she collected disability benefits under her true Social Security number while working under a fraudulent Social Security number, according to a news release by the office of U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott.

In 1953, Williams was assigned a legitimate Social Security number that she used to work and then to collect disability benefits with until 1988. In 1971, a second Social Security number was issued to Williams, who obtained it using a different name, false birthplace, false parent names and false birthdate. She began working under the fraudulent Social Security number in 1973, the release states.

New Security Features On Social Security Cards

A Fact Sheet from the Social Security Administration:

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), P.L. 108-458, was signed into law on December 17, 2004. Section 7213(b)(1) of the law requires the Commissioner of Social Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to form an interagency Task Force to establish requirements for further improving the security of Social Security cards and numbers; and, for the Commissioner to provide for implementation of those requirements.

The Task Force was formed in January 2006 and issued its recommendations in May 2006.

Status of Changes

As a result of the Interagency Task Force, SSA plans to include several new security features to the Social Security Card. Some of these new features are overt and are listed below. SSA has already implemented two overt features and will implement the other four on October 1, 2007.

Changes Implemented in April 2007:

• The card issuance date was added to the front of each card. This date reflects the date that SSA processed the application for that particular card. Information about the issuance date was also added to the perforated attachment to the card.

• Signing instructions were added to the perforated card attachment. The instructions state “ADULTS: Sign this card in ink immediately. CHILDREN: Do not sign until age 18 or your first job, whichever is earlier.”

Changes to be Implemented on October 1, 2007:
• A guilloche background pattern, which is a unique non-repeating spiral design, will replace the existing marbleized pattern. The new pattern is very similar in color to the current background and will continue to have the security feature of being erasable. This background is computer generated and very difficult to duplicate.
• A latent image has been added to the SSN card face. This feature, a text image, is visible only when the document is viewed at specific angle or angles.
• A split fountain production method was added which produces a unique ink color mixture on the press that then transfers to the paper. The colors on the background of the card flow from blue to aqua.
• Color shifting inks were added to the face of the card. These inks have a multilayer light interference ink pigment imbedded that creates a noticeable color shift when moved in front of a light source. This feature is also used in currency.

Additional Change

In addition to the above IRTPA changes, SSA implemented a change in response to requests from employer groups to distinguish the last name of the individual on the card. As a result, beginning on September 8, 2007, the individual’s last name was displayed on a separate line on the card directly below the first and middle name.

Prior Versions of the Social Security Card
• There are different versions of the Social Security card in circulation and all prior versions of the card are valid.
• Individuals do not have to request a new Social Security Card.
• Because all prior versions of the cards are valid, employers can select to use the free, Social Security Number (SSN) verification services offered by SSA to verify that their employees’ names and SSNs match our records.

Budget Cuts And Service

From the New York Times:

Two weeks before the Social Security Commissioner told Congress that personnel cuts proposed by the White House would have no impact on her agency's services, she said in an internal memorandum that the services would in fact ''deteriorate all over the country'' if the cuts were carried out.

Thanks to an anonymous poster for this one. This is from 1999. The Social Security Commissioner was Dorcas Hardy and the President was Ronald Reagan.

A Message From The Commissioner -- Bad News

An e-mail that went out today:

A Message To All Social Security And DDS Employees

Subject: Budget Situation

As we start the 2008 fiscal year, I am sure that it is no secret to you that we are facing unprecedented workloads. We do so with our lowest staffing level in over 30 years, and these workloads will continue to grow at an increasing rate as the aging baby boomers begin to retire and reach their most disability-prone years. At the same time, Congress has given us new and non-traditional workloads, such as taking Medicare prescription drug subsidy applications.

These factors combined with years of congressional appropriations that have fallen far short of what the President has requested for this agency - almost $1 billion short - means that we must make hard decisions about which facilities and services should be scaled back, consolidated or eliminated.

Let me be candid about our current budget situation. Under any funding scenario currently being considered by Congress, we will have limited resources to maintain our current level of services and drive down the hearings backlog. In fact, under either the House or Senate bills, we will have less discretionary money to spend in FY 2008 than in FY 2007. As you know, our FY 2007 budget appropriation narrowly enabled us to avoid employee furloughs. While we expect to avoid furloughs this fiscal year, field offices and headquarters components will generally be unable to replace employees who leave and in our hearing offices, the only significant hiring will be for up to 150 ALJs and some support staff late in the fiscal year.

To some, this constraint on our ability to hire more staff may seem counterintuitive given the increases the House and Senate have provided for us -- $100 million more than the President’s budget in the House appropriations bill and $125 million more in the Senate bill. Let me explain. Social Security has a large infrastructure, including over 1,400 field and hearing offices. Mandatory cost increases, such as rent, guards, postage, pay raises and employee benefits, means that we require a minimum administrative budget increase each year of over $300 million to fund current operations. These increases, combined with requirements in the FY 2008 budget that we spend $477 million on program integr ity work (CDRs and SSI redeterminations), mean the amount of money available to the agency to invest in additional workload processing is very limited.

Even in the face of our budget shortfall, our demographic challenges and our added responsibilities, what impresses me the most is that you continue to maintain a can-do attitude. I see that can-do attitude every time I visit a field office, a hearing office, a TSC or PSC, our DDSs, the regional offices and the components here in headquarters. I also see it in the new and innovative ideas that employees come up with for dealing with our growing workloads. This is especially evident in our multi-faceted approach to reducing the disability backlog. We can all take pride in the improvement this year in DDS processing times and the virtual elimination of our FY 2007 “aged” hearing cas es (cases pending 1,000 days or more).

Despite this progress, we must continue to look for ways to streamline our business processes. We must also convince the public to take greater advantage of other ways of doing business with us, such as our online and automated telephone services. Doing so is one of the only ways we can survive the coming demographic surge. Doing so will not jeopardize the public’s ability to do business with us face-to-face when they are required to do so or the jobs of our employees.

A May 1, 2007, editorial in the New York Times noted that we are an agency that “gets high marks for productivity and efficiency.” Clearly our situation would be worse without the productivity improvements you have achieved. As an agency, we take great pride in making efficient use of our resources. Your efforts to innovate and automate, coupled with your unwavering dedication to public service, have improved productivity on average by 2.5 percent per year since 2001. In short, we continue to produce more each year with less. The Social Security Administration is a good investment, and it is regrettable that this fact is not as w idely recognized as it should be.

For many Americans, our programs are all that stand between them and poverty. The public expects and deserves the best service we can provide. With your innovation and dedication and with the support of Congress, we will continue to provide the level of service that millions of Americans have relied on for more than 70 years. I know it is often hard, but hang in there!

Michael J. Astrue

Commissioner

So, why has Astrue been telling Congress that he did not want any more money than was in President Bush's proposed budget? Social Security is likely to get $100-$125 million more than was in Bush's budget for this fiscal year, yet Astrue is still talking about closing offices, scaling back services and a near complete hiring freeze for this fiscal year. Why was he not warning Congress and the American people about this earlier!

Congress and prospective ALJs please note what Astrue says -- his agency will not be hiring 150 new ALJs and support staff until late in the fiscal year. That will probably not be enough to even replace the ALJ attrition over the next year and the hiring will not take place until almost a year from now. This is different from what Astrue told Congress just a few months ago. Why was Astrue not frank with Congress at that time about his agency's dire budget situation? There were some sparks when Astrue appeared before the House Social Security Subcommittee at that time. There could be an explosion this time.