Bomb Threat In Florida

From NBC-2 in Fort Myers:

The sheriff's office is investigating a bomb threat at the Social Security Office on US 41 East.

According to authorities, a woman called in the threat at 9:49 a.m. Thursday.

She reportedly said she was not happy with the service she received at the office so she was going to blow it up.

The sheriff's office is investigating the incident, but managers at the Social Security Office have decided to go forward with business as usual.

No evacuations have been ordered and the office is open.

Editorial In Virginian-Pilot

From the Virginian-Pilot, a newspaper in the southeastern corner of Virginia:

According to a piece in Monday’s New York Times, the appeals process for Social Security disability cases has been so bogged down — because there aren’t enough judges, essentially — that Americans are dying, losing their houses or being forced into financial ruin before the government decides their cases. ...

The people waiting for the judges to decide are already so sick that they can’t work. Some have been diagnosed with terminal illnesses. Some will die while they wait. Others will go bankrupt. All to save a few bucks by refusing money to those who deserve it, who most need it.

Knoxville TV Station On Backlogs And Foreclosure

WATE in Knoxville is running a story on Tony Grindstaff, who has rheumatoid arthritis and who may be about to lose his home because it has taken so long for him to get a hearing on his Social Security disability claim. He has been selling off his assets to survive. (That name, Grindstaff, is so perfectly Dickensian!) Read the written article or view the video.

Astrue As Stickler

These copies of e-mail traffic came in over the transom. I cannot completely vouch for them, but they appear to be genuine:

From: xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:57 PM
To: #DCS Front Office Management; #DCS AC Admin Staffs
Cc: #DCS Executive Officers
Subject: FW: Use of "Impact" as a verb
Importance: High

Please share with appropriate staff.

______________________________________________
From: xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:05 PM
To: #DCHR Exec Officers; #DCHR FO All; #DCHR ESS All
Cc: #DCHR Exec Staff; ^DCHR Controls
Subject: FW: Use of "Impact" as a verb
Importance: High

To Executive Officers: Please ensure that the below preference is
shared with analysts in your component. Thanks!

______________________________________________
From: xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:21 AM
To: xxxxxxxx; ^DCBFM Controls; xxxxxxxx;
xxxxxxxx; ^DCHR Controls; xxxxxxxx; ^DCLCA Controls

Cc: xxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: Use of "Impact" as a verb
Importance: High

Please see xxxxx's email below regarding the Commissioner's preference
and pass this on to your components. The Commissioner does not accept
usage of the word "impact" as a verb regarding people. Please do not
forward correspondence to OC for his signature used in that manner. I'm
attaching some recent examples.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks.

xxxxxxxxx
Senior Executive Analyst
Office of the Commissioner
Office of Executive Operations
______________________________________________
From: xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:53 AM
To: #HQ OC OEO Analysts
Subject: Use of "Impact" as a verb

Commissioner Astrue has indicated on several occasions that the word
"impact" should not appear in SSA correspondence as a verb.
Unfortunately it keeps coming up in letters for his signature. Please
share with your components that they should not use it as a verb and
that if they substitute affect/effect. Affect is a verb and effect is a
noun.

Potential Vehicle For More Social Security Funding?

Maybe this explains Pelosi's apparent capitulation. Remember, that it is merely my speculation that it is possible that additional funding for the Social Security Administration could find its way into this emergency bill. From Fox News:

The top Republican in the House made a modest but important break with President Bush over the budget Wednesday, endorsing more than $6 billion in new spending.

The surprise development removed one hurdle from among the many standing in the way of Congress completing its budget work.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has been perhaps Bush's most loyal ally in his months-long battle with congressional Democrats on the budget. His remarks came as a surprise to the White House, but reflected a realistic assessment of the budget battlefield on Capitol Hill.

Boehner endorsed adding funding above Bush's budget for border security, foreign aid and State Department operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other purposes. These "emergency" funds are supposed to reflect one-time needs and not be permanent fixtures in the budget.

Boehner remains committed to supporting Bush vetoes of any catchall spending bill that tops his budget request.

"It all passes the straight-face test," Boehner said in supporting the emergency budget items. Later, a Boehner spokesman said the top House Republican doesn't necessarily support the entire bundle of emergency spending.

SSA Appropriation Likely To Be Same As Bush's Proposed Budget

From The Hill:

In the face of stiff opposition from powerful fellow Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has abandoned a proposal she supported less than 24 hours ago to eliminate lawmakers’ earmarks from the omnibus spending package.

Pelosi told the Democratic chairmen of the House Appropriations subcommittees, the so-called appropriations cardinals, that earmarks would stay in the omnibus and that Democratic leaders would accede to cut spending to levels demanded by President Bush in order to save 11 spending bills from a veto, said sources familiar with a meeting that took place in Pelosi’s office early Wednesday morning.

The House Democrats’ tentative plan is to finalize the package for passage in the next day or so, said sources.

By leaving earmarks largely untouched and agreeing to Bush’s budget ceiling, Democrats have capitulated in their spending battle with Republicans. In the end, Democrats realized they would not be able to muster enough Republican votes to override Bush’s veto. The president vowed to reject any spending package that exceeded the $933 billion limit he set.

Advanced Rulemaking Notice

From today's Federal Register:

On October 19, 2007, we published final rules in the Federal Register (72 FR 59397) revising the criteria in sections 5.00 and 105.00 of the Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations (the listings), the sections that we use to evaluate claims involving digestive disorders. In those rules, we indicated that we would issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) inviting public comments on whether we should add a functional listing for digestive disorders, and if so, what functional criteria would be appropriate (72 FR at 59416). We are now requesting your comments and suggestions.

After we have considered your comments and suggestions, other information about the functional effects of digestive disorders, and our adjudicative experience, we will determine whether it is appropriate to add a functional listing for digestive disorders. If we decide to add such a listing, we will publish for public comment a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will propose specific revisions to the rules.

Just what do they mean by "functional limitations?"

Union Newsletter

Council 220 of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents many Social Security Administration employees has published its November 2007 newsletter. The newsletter contains some interesting information about bonuses to upper level Social Security employees:

Linda McMahon
Deputy Commissioner for Operations
2005: $22,000
2006: $24,000
2007: $25,000

Milt Beever
Associate Commissioner, Office of Labor Management and Employee Relations
2005: $1,500
2006: None
2007: $8,000

Regional Commissioners
Manuel Vaz (Boston) 2005 $8,000 2006 $10,000 2007 $20,000
Beatrice Disman (NY) 2005 $22,000 2006 $54,527 * 2007 $25,000
Laurie Watkins (Phila.) 2005 $20,000 2006 $20,000 2007$ 20,000
Paul Barnes (Atlanta) 2005 $2,000 2006$ 54,527 * 2007 $22,000
James Martin (Chicago) 2005 $9,000 2006 $12,000 2007 $12,000
Ramona J. Schuenemeyer (Dallas) 2005 $15,000 2006 $24,000 2007 $20,000
Michael Grochowski (Kansas City) 2005 $29,120** 2006 $24,000 2007 $10,000
Nancy Berryhill (Denver) 2005 — 2006 $12,000 2007 $14,000
Pete Spencer (San Francisco) 2005 $20,000 2006 $22,000 2007 $56,708*
Carl Rabun (Seattle) 2005 $7,246 2006 $10,000 2007 $10,000

* Distinguished Rank Award: winners receive a lump-sum payment equaling 35% of their base pay.

** Meritorious Rank Award: recipients get 20% of their base pay.

What did Pete Spencer do this year to get that $56,708 bonus?