Social Security News

May 8, 2009

Budget Details

The Social Security Administration has put out a useful summary of the President's proposed budget for Social Security for the 2010 fiscal year, which begins on October 1, 2009. The summary shows the proposed budget for Social Security is $11.6 billion, which is what had been earlier announced. The $12.081 billion figure I am quoted on Thursday apparently includes some items not normally included in budget announcements for Social Security. Federal budgeting is very technical and confusing.

Of particular interest in Social Security's summary are numbers for employment levels at Disability Determination Services (DDS). These are the state agencies which work under contract with Social Security. The full time equivalent (FTE) level for DDS was 13,605 in FY 2008, 14,369 in FY 2009 (the current year) and 15,128 in FY 2010 under the President's budget. 759 more employees are not going to make those backlogs at DDS go away.

By the way, the budget proposal calls for "research" at Social Security to go up from $35 million to $49 million. That is a much more dramatic increase than for anything else. Why?

May 7, 2009

Press Release On Budget

A press release from Social Security:

By requesting $11.6 billion for Social Security’s administrative expenses, a ten percent increase over the previous year, the President has demonstrated his commitment to help us reduce longstanding backlogs as well as handle the recession-related work that is flooding the agency. With this support, we can continue to drive down the hearings backlog, process increasing numbers of retirement and disability claims, modernize our information technology, and improve service in our field offices and teleservice centers.

It is critically important that Congress enact President Obama's budget proposal in a timely manner so that we can make the changes that will provide the American public with better and more timely service.

Full Obama Budget Proposal Out

I have criticized the current and former Commissioner of Social Security for not requesting a higher budget for the Social Security Administration. Almost every time I do this, I get one or more comments saying that I am off-base, that all budget requests for all executive branch agencies must be approved by the President, that the Commissioner of Social Security cannot legally do what I suggest. That would be true for all or almost all other executive branch agencies, but not for Social Security. The President has released his full budget proposal for fiscal year 2010 (which begins on October 1, 2009). Take a look at this excerpt from the budget for Social Security:

As directed by Section 104 of P.L. 103-296, the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994, the Commissioner of Social Security shall prepare an annual budgetfor SSA, which shall be submitted by the President to the Congress without revision, together with the President's request for SSA.

The Commissioner's budget includes $11,949 million for total administrative discretionary resources in 2010. This represents $11,842 million for SSA administrative expenses and $107 million for the Office of the Inspector General. In addition, the Commissioner requested $750 million for replacement of the National Computer Center.

There may be practical reasons why the Social Security Commissioner will not communicate a budget proposal to Congress that really reflects what the agency needs, but there is no legal barrier.

The Obama budget for Social Security's operating budget (the Limitation on Administrative Expenditures or LAE) is $12.081 billion which is slightly higher than Astrue had requested. I should say that I find these budget proposals are confusing, so it is possible that I have misinterpreted something. It had been previously reported that the Obama budget for Social Security's LAE would be $11.6 billion. As I read the budget proposal, the difference between what had been reported previously and what this document says is additional allocations for improving program compliance. These additional allocations are expected to save money, so they will not really cost what they seem to cost. Again, I would appreciate any help that any real budget expert can give me.

The budget proposal says that Social Security's Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employee total was 60,744 in FY 2008, 63,469 in FY 2009 and projects it as 65,114 in FY 2010 under this budget proposal, which is about what we had heard. This is not nearly enough to significantly reduce the backlogs at Social Security or to significantly improve service. I am quite sure of that.

Business As Usual?

Social Security has made a lot of announcements lately on FedBizOpps.Gov seeking space or services for meetings. Here is a list:

Many of these meetings may be essential by anyone's definition. However, I have no doubt that the improvement in Social Security's budget situation has a lot to do with the length of this list.

Meetings like these are quite useful for purposes of training and morale. Under normal circumstances, I support them.

You know that a "but" is coming.

If one works at Social Security's central or regional offices, it may be easy to temporarily forget that Social Security is an agency in crisis. Social Security cannot answer its telephones or process its workloads. There are backlogs both visible and hidden all over the agency. The budget situation has improved since Barack Obama became President, but the crisis will not be over until Social Security hires something like 10,000 to 20,000 more employees. We are a long way from that.

Can an agency in crisis afford these meetings? Does scheduling these meetings suggest that some at Social Security think that we are back to business as usual? Some of this money being spent on meetings might be better spent on travel for Social Security brass to get out in the field more.

We will finally know that the crisis is over when Social Security field offices no longer have "private" telephone numbers not given out to claimants. Those "private" numbers are essential now because it is almost impossible to get through to these field offices if you use the phone number in the telephone book. Without the "private" numbers, a school nurse calling to report that the child of a field office employee is sick could never get through. Without the "private" numbers, Social Security management could never get through to the field offices. Discontinue the "private" numbers and I have no problem with these meetings.

Spending The Extra Money

From Social Security's May 1 report to the Office of Management and Budget on how it has used its extra funding under President Obama's economic stimulus package (ARRA) so far:

Agreed on a monthly reporting cycle with the House Ways and Means Subcommittee starting June 15, 2009.
Hired 100 employees in the Office of Disability and Adjudication Review - Atlanta (34), Chicago (11), Dallas (10), Denver (3), Kansas City (3), New York (1), Philadelphia (10), San Francisco (24), Seattle (4); Continuing to hire Operations, ODAR and State DDS employees, including 35 Administrative Law Judges.
Hired 1,510 employees in the Office of Operations - Atlanta (395), Boston (24), Chicago (186), Dallas (165), Denver (29), Kansas City (39), New York (105), Office of Central Operations (154), Philadelphia (145), San Francisco (230), Seattle (38).
Hired 236 employees in the State Disability Determination Services - Atlanta (118), Boston (5), Chicago (13), Dallas (17), Kansas City (5), New York (2), Philadelphia (31), San Francisco (28), Seattle (17)

Get Out The Pitchforks!

Steny Hoyer's plan to "reform" Social Security is drawing strong opposition at Firedoglake. Worth a read.

Finally

Tomorrow's Federal Register will contain a notice that the Social Security Administration is officially withdrawing the proposal to increase by two years each of the age categories in its regulations on disability. This was proposed while Jo Anne Barnhart was Commissioner of Social Security and drew widespread opposition. It would have had a dramatic effect upon Social Security disability claimants. The rumor was that Barnhart was forced into the proposal by the Office of Management and Budget and did not support it. While it made no progress towards becoming a final rule, it was not withdrawn and could have been adopted at any point. After the election, I had a small concern that it would be adopted as a spiteful act in the final days of the Bush Administration. Similar things happened at other agencies. I am relieved to see this finally and officially killed off.

Update: Here is the link to the notice as published in the Federal Register.