A Deep Irony

Sylvester Schieber, the Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB), spoke to the conference of the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ) last month. Schieber did not speak off the cuff. He prepared a nine page speech and then thought enough of it to post it on the SSAB website. I find what he wrote appalling.

Trotting out the tritest rhetorical trick in the book, Schieber told the AALJ that "those who choose to ignore history are condemned to repeat it." Schieber thought that either Winston Churchill or Harry Truman said this. They may have said it, but if they did they were quoting George Santayana. But this is a minor quibble.

My bigger problem with this speech is encapsulated in the contradiction between this excerpt from the speech:

We all know that over the years there have been numerous attempts to reform, redesign, and improve the disability hearing process. In fact, when the Board was doing research for our September 2006 report, Improving the Hearings Process, we counted over 40 “hearings process improvements” initiatives undertaken by the agency in the preceding 30 years. Unfortunately, none of them had much lasting success. Today, the Social Security Administration has implemented another initiative designed to eliminate the disability hearings backlog and prevent its recurrence.

And this excerpt:

... it is necessary to look beyond conventional solutions to address the needs of the future. If SSA [Social Security Administration] truly is going to reduce the hearings backlog and prevent its recurrence, then the effort must extend beyond ODAR [Office of Disability Adjudication and Review] and look at how work gets done across the agency. Policy and procedural conflicts and ambiguities need to be addressed; performance measures need to be standardized; and technology must be leveraged in a way that reflects a new approach to workflow rather than as a tool that merely automates current processes.

Schieber seems to recognize that grand plans for solving the problems of the Social Security Administration with reorganizations and technology have a dismal history. New managers at Social Security keep trying to reorganize or use technology to get their agency out of the hole it is in, but eventually find that all they have been doing is digging the hole deeper. But Schieber can only recommend that the agency dig smarter!

Here is Schieber's plan for smarter digging:

The Social Security Advisory Board believes that it is incumbent upon the Social Security Administration to once again envision a future where emerging technologies and other innovations can be used to deliver services that meet the needs of the American public. This will involve shedding traditional paradigms and undertaking a comprehensive review of current business processes, identifying gaps in service delivery and looking for efficiencies that will leverage human capital and resources. It is time for the agency to learn the right lessons from its history—that appropriate adaptation of technology can be the key to addressing its massive administrative challenges ...

This is a nothing but a mind-numbing barrage of corporate buzzwords. Do the other members of the SSAB know that he was speaking this nonsense on their behalf?

Schieber's speech is deeply ironic. Even though Schieber starts out by telling us that "those who choose to ignore history are condemned to repeat it," he proceeds to recommend that we repeat past mistakes. Schieber does not mention the obvious alternative of letting Social Security hire enough employees to get the work done, an approach that Commissioner Astrue once referred to as "brute force," which would be a genuinely new idea. Such a straightforward approach seems truly inconceivable to Schieber.

Schieber's speech is a good argument for dismantling the SSAB. The money would be better spent on more personnel to get the work done at Social Security. But I would say the same even if the chairman of the SSAB had something sensible to say.

By the way, if you are wondering how Schieber got his job, it was because he co-wrote a book calling for the partial privatization of Social Security.

Some Old Poll Results -- Great Prognostications!

Below are the results of a couple of polls that appeared here in September and October of 2007.

I will do a new poll after the Republican convention asking whom you think will win the general election, but the results of these polls suggest that no one should not put much faith in the prognosticating ability of the readers of this blog!

Who Will Win The Democratic Nomination?
Who do think will be win the Democratic nomination for President in 2008?

Joe Biden (0)	0%
Hillary Clinton (79)	65%
Chris Dodd (4)	3%
John Edwards (13)	11%
Mike Gravel (3)	2%
Dennis Kucinich (2)	2%
Barack Obama (11)	9%
Bill Richardson (2)	2%
None of the above (2)	2%
Don't know (6)	5%

Total Votes: 122

Who do you think will win the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination?

Sam Brownback (3)	4%
Rudolph Giuliani (34)	45%
Mike Huckabee (5)	7%
Duncan Hunter (2)	3%
Alan Keyes (3)	4%
John McCain (2)	3%
Ron Paul (5)	7%
Mitt Romney (11)	15%
Tom Tancredo (2)	3%
Fred Thompson (8)	11%

Total Votes: 75

Scurrying To Address Individual Cases, But Not Addressing The Real Problem

There have been a number of stories over the past year or two about the hardships faced by Social Security disability claimants. Recently, there have been media reports about action taken by the Social Security Administration in the cases of claimants featured in these news reports .

I have received enough reports privately from attorneys representing claimants who have been featured in media reports that I can say with some confidence that there has been a high level decision at Social Security to do everything possible to expedite the case of anyone featured in a news report. This is new. In the past, when I have had clients who were featured in media reports as best I could tell, there was no concerted effort to expedite things. If anything was done to speed up things, it was all a local decision. Now, orders are coming down from on high to make dramatic efforts to expedite review for individuals featured in media reports. Somewhat distressing is one report I received that an attorney whose clients were featured in a news article received an unsubtle threat of retaliation from the Social Security Administration.

While I am glad that these individuals are getting relief, this does not promote justice and equity. Most Social Security disability claimants do not want to talk with reporters. I have more compelling cases than any featured in media reports, and so does any other attorney with a full time Social Security practice, but those clients do not want to talk with the media. Even if all those with the most compelling cases were willing to talk with reporters, the media can only report on so many cases anyway.

It seems obvious to me that this response to media reports is happening now because of the political campaign. What we are seeing is politicization of Social Security -- or perhaps what we are seeing is evidence that Social Security is inherently political.

This is one of many things which suggests to me that Michael Astrue's horizon does not extend past the election. This does not mean that he will leave as Social Security Commissioner after the election, even if Obama is elected, but he is intensely focused upon the very short term and nothing else.

This is one more proof that the concept of Social Security as an independent agency is a failure.

A Democratic Theme

A major theme of this blog is the undeniable deterioration of service at the Social Security Administration. However, Social Security's problems are just one example of a larger issue which is being addressed by Democrats.

Thomas Frank wrote in The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule that conservatives actually want poor government service because to them "effective government [is] somewhere between impossible and undesirable." For them poor government service just "leads to "another sour truckload of the mother's milk of conservatism, cynicism toward government."

Barack Obama, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, echoed this theme telling us that:

... if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what — it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

Social Security Checks Delivered Early

From a Social Security press release:

The Social Security Administration announced that benefit checks are being delivered to Gulf Coast residents today and tomorrow, before the arrival of Gustav and ahead of the regular payment date. Nearly 400,000 people in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida will receive their Social Security checks August 29th and 30th, rather than on September 3rd, the regularly scheduled payment day.

SSI Monthly Stats

The Social Security Administration has issued its monthly package of statistics on the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

OMB Clears Proposed Regs On Representation

On August 27, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cleared "with change" proposed regulations it had received from Social Security to "recognize entities as representatives, mandate the use of Form 1696 to appoint or revoke the appointment of a representative, define the roles of a principal representative and a professional representative, require professional representatives to file Form 1696 electronically, and require a representative to keep paper copies of certain documents ..."

Normally, proposed regulations appear in the Federal Register within a few days after OMB clears them, although the proposed new mental impairment listings were cleared by OMB on July 9 and have still not yet appeared in the Federal Register.

In Kind Support And Maintenance: Loans To Minors

I am not even going to try to explain why this matters. Those who know, know, and those who don't, probably aren't interested. From an opinion by Social Security's Acting Regional Chief Counsel for Region VII:

State law generally provides that a minor may enter into a bona fide loan agreement with an adult, but the minor maintains the right to disaffirm the agreement upon reaching the age of majority, absent factors such as the minor's own misrepresentations concerning his or her age and good cause reliance by the adult, or emancipation by marriage.

State law provides parents have a legal obligation to support their children. Therefore, a parent may not loan an apportioned share of household expenses to a child he or she is already legally obligated to support. Guardianship and foster care cases must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if an in kind loan is proper.