Disability Programs Still On GAO High Risk List

Each year the Government Accountability Office (GAO) releases a list of what it considers "high risk" programs that need attention. "Improving and Modernizing Federal Disability Programs" remains on this year's list. Here is GAO's explanation of why these are on the list:

Designated a high-risk area in 2003, federal disability programs remain in need of modernization. Almost 200 federal programs provide a wide range of services and supports, resulting in a patchwork of policies and programs without a unified strategy or set of national goals. Further, disability programs emphasize medical conditions in assessing work incapacity without adequate consideration of work opportunities afforded by advances in medicine, technology, and job demands. Beyond these broad concerns, the largest disability programs-managed by the Social Security Administration (SSA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and Department of Defense (DOD)-are experiencing growing workloads, creating challenges to making timely and accurate decisions.

More Criticism For Republican Budget Proposal

From a press release issued by Senator Daniel Inouye, the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee:

The Republican [budget] proposal would force the SSA [Social Security Administration] to cut more than 3,500 staff from SSA’s 1,300 field offices, state disability determination services, and disability hearing offices and may ultimately result in furloughs of two to four weeks for about 50,000 Federal and state employees. As a result, the millions of Americans filing for retirement and disability benefits this year will wait longer for the benefits they’ve earned, backlogs of those with pending disability claims and hearings could reach record levels, and waiting times at field offices and SSA’s 1-800 number would increase dramatically.

Binder & Binder Wins Trademark Suit

From the American Bar Association Journal:

The law firm Binder & Binder has been awarded $292,000 in a trademark infringement suit against a competitor that paid Google to have its ad appear when people searched for the Binder name.

U.S. District Judge George King of the Central District of California ruled that the Disability Group Inc. had violated the Binder law firm’s registered trademark, and had engaged in false advertising and unfair competition.

The ABA Journal got one thing wrong. The Binder & Binder entities that won this case are not law firms.

Poll

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

Something Doesn't Add Up

From House Ways and Means Committee Democrats:

The 2011 budget plan presented this week by the House Republican Majority strips $1.7 billion away from the Social Security Administration (SSA) for the remainder of the year, a cut so drastic that SSA would need to impose the equivalent of a month of furloughs. ...

House Republicans have proposed a $1.7 billion reduction in SSA funding for the remainder of 2011. That includes:

* Cutting SSA’s operating budget by over a billion dollars (8.5%) below what’s needed for 2011. That level is $506 million below what SSA actually spent in 2010 to process claims and operate Social Security offices.

* Cutting an additional $500 million by draining SSA’s reserve account. Most of the money in reserve is already allocated for this year’s expenses and the rest is budgeted for next year’s planned information technology improvements.

* Rescinding an additional $118 million from funds already set aside to build a new National Computer Center, which could delay equipping this mission-critical project.

House Ways and Means Committee Republicans countered with this:

Democrats today made outrageous claims that the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) offices “would shut down” due to a proposed administrative budget reduction, a claim which is false and based on hypothetical scenarios. Despite the Democrats’ irresponsible scare tactics, the facts show that the Republicans' proposed one percent cut will not harm seniors’ benefits. Furthermore, any decisions to furlough workers – another highly misleading claim made by the Democrats – would result only if that decision were made by the Administration.

Here is a look at the facts.

Wrong Numbers:
The Democrats’ claim of $1.7 billion in cuts is based on the President’s budget request from last year.

One Percent:
The proposed 2011 budget plan from House Republicans would reduce the SSA’s administrative budget by only one percent ($125 million) compared to the current level.

In point of fact, the Republican statement is flatly wrong unless they have already altered their proposed budget for this fiscal year. The Republicans own budget summary shows them proposing a $625 million reduction for Social Security from FY 2010 and a $997.6 million reduction from the President's requested FY 2011 budget. That is a lot more than 1%, however you look at it. Republicans do not dispute that they would take away all money needed to construct a new National Computer Center for Social Security at the same time as they criticize the agency for not constructing the National Computer Center faster.

AARP Backs Giving More Time To Withdraw Claims

From Janet Novack's column in Forbes:

AARP [American Association of Retired Persons], the 40-million member seniors’ lobby, has asked the Social Security Administration to give a break to current retirees who want to pay back the benefits they’ve received to earn higher future benefit checks. ...

In mid-January, AARP representatives met with Social Security officials and said they did not know if they would take a position on the rule change. But on Feb. 7, the last day for comment, the AARP finally weighed in on the side of the seniors. It asked the government to give those who are already receiving Social Security a full 12 months—until Dec. 8, 2011—to withdraw their Social Security applications and pay back their benefits without interest. The letter, signed by David Certner, the AARP’s legislative counsel, said the organization generally agrees with the intent of the new rule but believes “that equity and fairness” require that those who took early benefits more than a year before the abrupt rule change be given an opportunity to withdraw their initial Social Security applications and repay the money.

Two Retired ALJs Pass

I regret to report the passing of two of Social Security's retired Administrative Law Judges (ALJs): Pat McCormick, who had been the Chief ALJ in San Jose, and John Volz, who had been in Tulsa.

What Happens At Social Security In Case Of A Government Shutdown?

Let me give you my speculation on what will happen at Social Security in case of a government shutdown. Remember, I have no inside information.

The last time there was a government shutdown caused by a budget impasse the vast majority of Social Security's employees were initially furloughed but most of them were soon called back to work even as the impasse continued. Does this mean that most Social Security's employees would escape a furlough if there is a general government shutdown this time? The Anti-Deficiency Act says that it is illegal to "involve either [the federal government or the District of Columbia] government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law." A straightforward reading of that law makes one wonder how Social Security employees were called back in 1995.

There may be some ways around the Anti-Deficiency Act but the first question is whether the President wants to get around it. Republicans have taken an aggressive stance against government in general, a stance that borders on anarchism, the belief that government is so terrible that we would be better off without a government. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate the folly of anarchism is to remind everyone of all that the federal government does for us. Shut down air traffic control and you shut down civil aviation. Shut down the Federal Reserve and you may well shut down banks and stock exchanges. Shut down the Department of Agriculture and food production in the U.S. may shut down. Shut down the Department of the Treasury and Social Security checks stop going out. Shut down the Department of Veterans Affairs and VA hospitals start shutting down. Even Rand Paul might blanch at the prospect of all this happening.

Let us assume, however, that the President wants to ameliorate the effects of a government shutdown at Social Security. Here are some things he can do:

• The President has some poorly defined emergency powers that apparently include budgetary powers that may supersede the Anti-Deficiency Act to some extent. 50 U.S.C. §1641(c). This was almost certainly the justification used when most Social Security employees were called back to work in 1995.
• The economic stimulus bill enacted soon after President Obama was elected included a good deal of money for Social Security that has not yet been expended. The money that is left was intended for construction of a new national computer center for Social Security but was not so limited in the appropriation. Some of that money has been spent and Social Security has contractual obligations on some of the rest but I think that there is still a pot of money available in an emergency. The agency could spend the money with the assurance that the pot can be refilled once the money starts flowing again. This money may be enough to keep Social Security going for a time.
• Social Security also squirreled away $280 million from last year's appropriation in a "no year" account. That money may be available to be spent in an emergency, assuming it has not been committed to long term information technology projects.

Stay tuned. I would not expect any announcement of what the plans are until the very last minute. Let us hope that there is no need to ever announce those plans.

Let me make one warning: If any Social Security employees are furloughed, do not expect that their salaries will be made up as happened in 1995. I doubt that employees who were furloughed can be paid for their time off without at least tacit Congressional approval. In 1995 Republicans did not want to alienate government employees. This time around, Republicans are not only willing to hurt public employees, they seem eager to do so. If Republicans have an enemies list in 2011, public employees are at the top of it.