Budget News

The Associated Press is saying that the White House is willing to agree to more than $6 billion in additional spending cuts over the rest of the fiscal year. The question is whether this would be a prelude to a settlement with House Republicans or whether this would only end up buying a little more time. At some point, the White House has to say it will no longer carve slices off the salami, that there must be a deal to keep the government open for the rest of the fiscal year.

The White House is not saying where this $6 billion might come from but I would be quite surprised if any of it comes from the Social Security Administration's budget. There is every sign that this White House understands the need for additional funding for Social Security.

In Memoriam: Judge Leonard Yoswein

Retired Social Security Administrative Law Judge Leonard Yoswein of New York City died on February 25, 2011.

Union Organized Protests On Budget

The labor union that represents most Social Security employees has arranged demonstrations in 100 places around the country to protest the draconian cuts in Social Security's operating budget proposed by Republicans, cuts that would lead to massive furloughs for Social Security employees. I am not going to try to track down all the news articles generated by these protests. Here are a few:

• Baltimore
• Portsmouth, NH
• Gaston County, NC
• Painesville, OH
• Plains Township, PA
• Redding, CA

Threat Of Government Shutdown Has Not Passed

I have been writing a good deal about the threat of a government shutdown. The President has signed a bill that extends the Continuing Resolution (CR) that is currently funding the Social Security Administration and other government agencies. This is good news. Without it, there would be a government shutdown beginning at 12:01 Saturday morning.

The problem is that this CR only lasts for two weeks. We now start the countdown to a new deadline of midnight on March 18. If there is no agreement by then, there will be a government shutdown.

This CR was passed because Republicans and Democrats found some budget cuts that were low hanging fruit, items they could quickly agree upon. There may be no more low hanging fruit. We are still on a collision course that may result in a government shutdown in the near future.

Commissioner's Broadcast E-Mail

A Message To All SSA And DDS Employees

So good news, at least for now.

The House and Senate have passed legislation providing for a two-week extension of the continuing resolution that includes four billion dollars of cuts, none of which reduces our budget any further.

I want to thank all of you for staying focused on your work during this difficult period. We recently had a successful launch of some important new systems improvements, average processing time for hearings dropped to exactly one year (a reduction of about six months over the past three years), the staff and contractors have started development work on the common IT system for the DDS’s and we are wrapping up the Special Disability Workload effort after a decade of fine work. Most measures of quality and responsiveness are at recent or all-time highs.

I will be testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee next week about our budget, and we will be sure to update you about that hearing and other developments in the coming weeks.

Thanks again for all you do.

Michael J. Astrue

Commissioner

Proposed Regs On Collecting Debts

From today's Federal Register:

We propose to amend our Tax Refund Offset (TRO) and Administrative Offset regulations. We are conforming our regulations to those of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) for the following reasons: (1) Treasury removed the 10-year limitation to collect delinquent debts owed the United States by reducing eligible Federal payments, and (2) more States are participating in reciprocal agreements with Treasury to offset State payments, including tax refunds to reduce or extinguish a federally owed debt.

Workers Compensation Offset Study

Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has done a study to determine the agency's accuracy rate in making the offset computations required when a recipient of disability insurance benefits from Social Security is also receiving workers compensation. This was a followup to a 2006 study. The earlier study showed a 17% error rate. This new study shows a 12% error rate which is a significant improvement but still far too high.

The report does not make clear who determined whether there was an error. I strongly doubt that OIG has anyone with the training and experience needed to spot all possible errors, especially errors when there is a lump sum settlement of a workers compensation case, a not uncommon situation. Without knowing more about how this study was done, I cannot say how meaningful it is.

In fairness to Social Security and OIG, workers compensation offset computations are complicated. There are reasons for the high error rate and reasons why OIG would have difficulty doing an audit.

What Do You Think?

Fact Situation: Ms. Claimant has a Social Security disability claim pending in one state. She hires Attorney A to represent her. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Claimant moves to another state. She contacts Attorney A to tell him. He tells her that he knows Attorney B who practices in the state she is moving to. Attorney A tells Ms. Claimant to contact Attorney B once she gets to the state she is moving to. Attorney A tells Ms. Claimant that he will waive his fee so she will not have any problem hiring Attorney B. She contacts Attorney B once she gets to her new state. Attorney A withdraws and waives his fee. Attorney B files the appropriate paperwork to represent Ms. Claimant. Some months later after a hearing, Ms. Claimant's case is approved. She is paid. Attorney B receives her fee but is shocked to discover that it is half of what she expected. The reason is that Social Security has decided that since Attorney A waived his fee that it will release half of the fee to Ms. Claimant.

The above fact situation is in accordance with Social Security policy, although it is a policy that is haphazardly implemented.

Queries: Does this policy make sense? Is the rare implementation of this policy an indication that it does not make sense? Does this policy unduly restrict a claimant's ability to obtain a new attorney if he or she moves or otherwise needs or wishes to change attorneys? Why does Social Security have such difficulty in developing policies concerning attorney fees? Why are there almost no regulations concerning attorney fees?

Update: Many of the comments say there is something wrong with the fact pattern given. The assumption is that this cannot possibly be correct. Social Security's manual states that:

SSA will not authorize to any co-representative the share of a co-representative who waived a fee. When SSA has withheld title II and/or title XVI past-due benefits for payment of a representative's fee, SSA releases the waived share to the claimant(s).

This policy is being applied, haphazardly, to the fact situation given. Yes, the manual instructions can be read differently, but what is happening on the ground is chaotic and attorneys have no recourse. It is a mess.