Why Social Security's Budget Shouldn't Be Frozen

The President's recommended budget for the next fiscal year is due out this morning. Here are a couple of charts from an Urban Institute Fact Sheet showing why a budget freeze for Social Security would be devastating. The first is for men and the second for women. Click on each to see full size.

Informal Remand Instructions Released

Social Security has released an emergency message with updated instructions on informal remands, also known as "re-recon." These are cases where a disability benefits claimant has been denied at the reconsideration stage, files a request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, but has his or her case sent back for a new review at the reconsideration level while awaiting a hearing. A not insignificant percent of these cases are approved on re-recon.

ALJ Removed

The Merit Systems Protection Board has affirmed the removal from office of Danvers Long, who had been an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for Social Security, after he was arrested in Coral Springs, FL for domestic violence battery and culpable negligence.

Clear That Backlog!

Beth Bates, a Jackson, TN attorney, has a nice op ed piece in the Jackson Sun dealing with the human costs of Social Security's hearing backlog. While there has been some progress on this backlog in the past year, a budget freeze could start moving things in the opposite direction.

Budget Situation Perilous

President Obama's recommended budget for fiscal year (FY) 2011, which begins on October 1, 2010, is due out on Monday, February 1. The President has stated that he intends to recommend a freeze for almost all domestic agencies. for the next three years. The Center for American Progress has posted an analysis of what this could mean, which includes this paragraph:

Based on extensive analysis, the IRS Oversight Board has concluded that for each dollar spent at the IRS, four dollars in taxes owed to the Treasury are collected. Studies by the Social Security Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services show similar ratios between staffing resources and savings to the U.S. Treasury from identification of fraudulent claims, overpayments, and incorrect billings. These three agencies have a combined annual budget of $27 billion over the next 10 years. The federal government will spend approximately $337 billion on salaries, contracts, and other expenses if we maintain the same level of effort as we have today.

A Contrast

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has its own severe backlog problem. To help deal with the onslaught of claims, VA is proposing some changes to its computer systems. The response from veterans advocacy groups:

• "This is old news"
• "Verbiage in proposal is obtuse to the max ... many in attendance did not understand the Gov.speak gobbledygook."
• "This proposal is Dead on Arrival."

I cannot help but contrast this to past introductions of somewhat similar plans at Social Security. I do not know whether this is good or bad but I have to say that Social Security advocacy groups have been much more restrained in their comments on similar proposals at Social Security even when their private thought might have been the same as what the veterans advocacy groups are saying.

Status Of Attorney Scheduling System?

There have been reports that Social Security is working on a computer system to track Social Security hearings scheduled for individual attorneys to avoid conflicts. I have never heard that Social Security considered such a system to be operational.

I now have a Social Security hearing scheduled in one city on a specific date and at a specific time. Another Social Security hearing office has scheduled a hearing for another client in a different city on the same date and at the same time without calling me as Social Security's own HALLEX manual requires. When I asked for a continuance, I was told that no continuance would be granted since their system did not show any such conflict for me.

What is going on?

A Question And An Opinion

Is it appropriate for a Commissioner of Social Security to change the agency's basic interpretation of a statute without any intervening change in the statute? I was under the impression that members of the Federalist Society such as Michael Astrue opposed reinterpreting even the Constitution which is over 200 years old. Of course, there is the recent example of Citizens United v. FEC where other members of the Federalist Society were quite happy to reinterpret the Constitution when it suited the interests of their political party.

My opinion is that if a Commissioner does not like the settled interpretation of a statute that he inherits that he should go to Congress and ask them to change the statute instead of threatening to unilaterally change that interpretation.