The Transition Approaches

Paul Light, professor of Public Service at New York University, recently spoke at the Library of Congress about the upcoming transition to a new President. Here is a bit of the summary of the talk given by Tom Shoop at FedBlog:

The upcoming change of administrations "will be the most difficult transition since Abraham Lincoln," he said. Even Franklin Roosevelt at least had more time to begin planning to address the effects of the Great Depression (his inauguration wasn't until March 4, 1933) and didn't have to deal with two wars overseas.

And here is some detail on what the two candidates transition plans from Sam Stein at the Huffington Post:

As the 2008 campaign nears its conclusion, the presidential transition efforts of the two major candidates have become a study in contrasts: Sen. Barack Obama has organized an elaborate well-staffed network to prepare for his possible ascension to the White House, while Sen. John McCain has all but put off such work until after the election. ...

[O]ne official with direct knowledge, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, expressed concern with McCain's approach. The Arizona Senator has instructed his team to not spend time on the transition effort, according to the source, both out of a desire to have complete focus on winning the election as well as a superstitious belief that the campaign shouldn't put the cart before the horse. ...

With 100 or so days before the next president takes office, Obama's transition effort has been organized into roughly a dozen teams of six to eight people to plot out the approach for each agency, according to a Democratic official. ...

The president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, former White House chief of staff John Podesta, is reportedly heading up Obama's transition team.

Mostly A Win For UNUM

Remember that qui tam (or whistle blower) lawsuit claiming that UNUM was doing something abusive by forcing the people to whom it was paying long term disability benefits to file claims for Social Security disability benefits? It's over and UNUM mostly won. Here are some excerpts from UNUM's press release:

A news release issued this morning by Washington law firm Phillips & Cohen LLP claiming victory in a trial against Unum regarding Social Security Claims is misleading and filled with inaccuracies. [It looks like Philiips & Cohen has taken the press release off its website.] The jury actually sided with Unum on the majority of claims. The two claims that were decided in favor of the plaintiff resulted in a total award of less than $3,000. ...

As part of the trial, Unum produced 1,600 claim files that the plaintiffs then narrowed down to 101 claims that they said should not have been submitted to the Social Security Administration. This number was later reduced to 61 as it was revealed that many of these claims were actually awarded Social Security disability benefits, and in other instances there was no proof that an application was ever made to the government.

To put these numbers in perspective, Unum processed nearly 400,000 disability claims and paid more than $4 billion in disability benefits in 2007. ...

“Of the two remaining claims decided in favor of the plaintiff, we continue to believe they have no merit and we think we will ultimately prevail upon appeal,” Collins added.

I have no love for UNUM but this lawsuit just seemed ridiculous to me.

Someone Notices That Astrue Is Stretching The Truth

Alex Wayne has written an article in Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) that points out that while Michael Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, is saying is saying that his agency is making progress on the backlog of disability claims awaiting a hearing, in truth, those backlogs have gotten measurably worse over the last year. A spokesman for Social Security could only make the argument that there was improvement because things were getting worse at a slower rate than they used to. Even this "improvement" is probably due to the fact that the agency has gotten a larger budget than President Bush and Commissioner Astrue asked for.

You may never have read Congressional Quarterly, but, trust me, it is an important publication. CQ is required reading for many in Congress and higher levels of government. No one else comes close to covering Washington the way CQ does. Issues that first appear in Congressional Quarterly are often picked up by the popular media. By the way, despite the name, Congressional Quarterly is published daily and e-mail updates throughout the day are available.

Update: The article is now available at CQ's free site.

He Won't Be Resigning

Robert Muller, the FBI Director, has a 10 year term of office which runs to 2011. On Tuesday, Muller spoke out to quell rumors that he would resign during the presidential transition.

Crack Is Awful Stuff

WHAS reports that Carol Hedges, an employee of the Louisville Social Security office, has been charged with prostitution and possession of a crack pipe and possession of controlled substances.

More TVs At Social Security Offices, But Fewer Employees

I am going to bump this post up since I think it concerns something important.

The National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel, has posted on its website a summary of meetings that its leadership had at Social Security's central offices on September 10, 2008. One of the meetings was with Linda McMahon, Social Security's Deputy Commissioner for Operations.

There is a casual reference in the summary to a hiring ceiling, also known as a head count cap ,at Social Security. I have seen Social Security's budget legislation. There has been no head count cap in that legislation. Has the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) set a head count cap for Social Security? There was legal authority for such OMB set head count caps for federal agencies during the Clinton Administration, but that authority ended in 1999. I can find a 2005 memorandum from OMB saying that it was not setting hiring ceilings at that time, probably because it had no legal authority to do so. I cannot find a record of legal authority being created for such head count caps at any later time. Can anyone explain to me what has been going on?

The summary says that most of Social Security will only be able to replace one employee for every three who leaves, even though Social Security has been receiving and will receive increases in its budget that are considerably more than the rate of inflation. One might infer that because of a head count cap that Social Security is going to lose employees, no matter how much extra money Congress gives the agency as long as George W. Bush is President, but is this cap a legal reality or, more likely, just something that Michael Astrue voluntarily chooses to observe because he is a loyal player on President Bush's team? Again, can someone explain to me where this head count cap is coming from and why Michael Astrue appears to be abiding by it?

Here is an item from the NCSSMA's summary of their meetings which seems to give at least a partial explanation of where the extra money not spent on personnel is going:

Linda indicated resources have been shifted to IT [Information Technology]. Systems is moving forward to buy a small number of large-screen TVs for reception areas for a pilot that will broadcast SSA messages while visitors are waiting, and they are also buying touch screens for visitor check in. The move is now to convert from COBOL to web-based systems and to have a common system for DDS [Disability Determination Services]. Another real issue is the need for a new National Computer Center (NCC). The existing one is rapidly proving inadequate for current needs, let alone the projected increases in demand that are anticipated. It will cost a significant amount to upgrade our infrastructure, but 5 years from now it will be too late to get started. The agency needs to start now.

Proposed Representation Regulations -- Speak Now

My official comments on the proposed new rules on representation of claimants before the Social Security Administration have finally appeared on the Regulations.gov website. My official comments are a reorganized and re-edited version of what I had earlier posted on this blog.

The deadline for comments on this proposal is November 7. Few comments have been posted so far. This is an important proposal that deserves the careful study of everyone who represents claimants. Comments may be posted online. I suggest that you not walk away without filing a comment if you review the proposal and find it confusing. Everyone whom I have talked to who has read this proposal has found it confusing. Commissioner Astrue appears to have conceded that there were drafting problems with the proposal when he spoke at the conference of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) recently. The confusing nature of the proposal is worth commenting on.

Cert Petition To Watch

From the SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] Blog's list of cases that have a reasonable change of being granted certiorari at the conference of the Supreme Court Justices on October 31. Granting a writ of certiorari (or cert for short) means that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case.

Docket: 07-1468
Title: Manning v. Astrue

Issue: Whether attorney’s fees awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act must be paid to the plaintiff directly, where it may be attached by the government for outstanding debts, or to the plaintiff’s attorney.

• Opinion below (10th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

Timothy White of Tulsa, OK is the attorney for the appellant.

A new Solicitor General, who represents the federal government before the Supreme Court, will be appointed by the next President. The new Solicitor General could have a different position on this issue than President Bush's Solicitor General, particularly if the next President is Barack Obama.