Let's Watch To See If Michael Astrue Goes On Peterson's Payroll Next Year

     From Huffington Post:

Peter Peterson, a Wall Street billionaire who has been calling for cuts to Social Security and other government programs for years, is hosting a "fiscal summit" Tuesday that brings together Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former President Bill Clinton, Rep. Paul Ryan, House Speaker John Boehner, Tom Brokaw and Politico's John Harris, among a host of other elites ...

The bipartisan luminaries will be carrying on a discussion to a large extent framed by Peterson, who has spent lavishly to shape a national conversation focusing on the deficit rather than on jobs and economic growth. ...

According to a review of tax documents from 2007 through 2011, Peterson has personally contributed at least $458 million to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to cast Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and government spending as in a state of crisis, in desperate need of dramatic cuts. Peterson's millions have done next to nothing to change public opinion: In survey after survey, Americans reject the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare. ...

But Peterson has been able to drive a major shift in elite consensus about government spending, with talk of "grand bargains" that would slash entitlements, cut corporate tax rates and end personal tax breaks, such as the mortgage deduction, that benefit the middle class.

To put Peterson's spending in context, all corporations and unions combined spent less than $4 billion on lobbying in 2011. ...

Peterson has been pushing his fiscal arguments by spreading that half-billion dollars widely across the Washington spectrum, putting both Democrats and Republicans on his payroll. ...

You've Got To Be Kidding Me!

      I have heard from an attorney who submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the identity of the Administrative Law Judge scheduled to hold a hearing. This is the response that came back:

I am responding to your request on behalf of your client, _____, for the name of the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) currently scheduled to conduct his hearing.  

 I am withholding the name of the ALJ assigned to hear this case under FOIA Exemption 2 (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2)). This exemption protects from disclosure records "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency." The information you seek is the internal personnel assignment of an agency employee to a particular case. Therefore, you are not entitled to it under FOIA.

I am also withholding the ALJ's name under FOIA Exemption 7(E) (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E)). Exemption 7(E) exempts from mandatory disclosure records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes when production of such records "would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law." Information may fall within this exemption even if it was originally compiled for non-law enforcement purposes, if it is later related to crime prevention or security measures. Milner v. Department ofNavy, 131 S. Ct. 1259, 1272-73 (2011) (Alito, J., concurring).

      I salute Social Security for not just stalling on these requests but I have to say that this response falls into the "You've got to be kidding me" category. The Attorney General has warned agencies not to expect the Department of Justice to automatically defend Freedom of Information Act denials. I have a hard time believing that the Department of Justice will choose to defend this. And quoting an Alito concurrence that has nothing to do with the issue at hand! That's waving a red flag at Eric Holder's Department of Justice!
     I guess we will find out soon if the Department of Justice will choose to defend Social Security on its "secret judge" policy. I hear that there is at least one civil action pending on this issue and the government's answer is due this month.

Remember That Picture Of Nixon And Elvis?

     From the Associated Press:

Elvis returned to the list [of most popular baby names] at No. 904, after dropping off for a year. When Elvis dropped off the in 2010, it ended a run that had started in 1955.

[Social Security Commissioner Michael] Astrue, a big Elvis fan, said he was all shook up when Elvis left the list.

"Congress may not listen to me," Astrue said. "But God bless the American people for listening to me last year when I raised concerns about Elvis dropping off."

ALJ Krafsur Resigns After DUI Arrest

     Gerald Krafsur was an Administrative Law Judge (ALJs) at Social Security's office in Kingsport, TN. He was arrested on May 2, 2012 for driving under the influence and speeding.  My understanding is that he has now resigned. I don't know what happened after the arrest but Krafsur had a history of approving almost all claims that he heard.

     What has happened when other ALJs got into this sort of trouble? Don't try to tell me this hasn't happened before. With almost 1,500 ALJs, it's no insult to say that drunk driving charges are going to happen from time to time.

Update: The Wall Street Journal says that Krafsur is on paid administrative leave.

Most Popular Baby Names

     Social Security has released its annual list of the most popular names given babies. Here it is:

Boys:

Jacob Mason William Jayden Noah Michael Ethan Alexander Aiden Daniel

Girls:

Sophia Isabella Emma Olivia Ava Emily Abigail Madison Mia Chloe

      It's interesting how many of the names come from the Old Testament: Jacob, Noah, Michael, Ethan, Daniel, Abigail, and Chloe by my quick review. I don't think any of the names come from the New Testament. Is there some meaning in the relative unpopularity of Mary, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc.?

     Update: Actually, Chloe is a New Testament name. 1 Corinthians 1:11.

Does Michael Astrue Realize That Dick Cheney No Longer Controls Federal Information Policy?

     I have heard a report that since Social Security adopted a policy of keeping the identity of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) holding a hearing a secret until the day of the hearing that Social Security has received a large number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the identity of the ALJ holding a specific hearing. I have some familiarity with the FOIA and I have trouble imagining any basis that Social Security would have for withholding that information. However, Social Security will inevitably stall on these requests until after the hearings have been held, rendering the FOIA requests pointless. This appears to me to contradict Obama Administration policy.

     On his first full day in office, Barack Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of all federal departments and agencies, including Social Security, stating that "The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. ...All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure ... Disclosure should be timely...." This was a response to extraordinarily secretive Bush Administration policies, reportedly initiated by Dick Cheney. Under Obama's directive, the Attorney General was to issue further FOIA instructions. Those instructions state that "...[A]gencies should make it a priority to respond in a timely manner. Timely disclosure of information is an essential component of transparency. Long delays should not be viewed as an inevitable and insurmountable consequence of high demand."

      Is the "secret ALJ" policy in accordance with Obama Administration policy? Is intentional delay in responding to simple FOIA requests for the identity of the ALJ holding a hearing in accordance with Obama Administration policy?

     Update: By the way, you can make an FOIA request online. How would Social Security deal with thousands of such requests?

It's Shocking

     Mark Miller at Reuters thinks it's a terrible thing that Social Security is no longer mailing out annual statements to working people. Miller is also shocked to hear that the agency has frozen hiring, reduced its workforce and is cutting field offices. He cannot believe that people are increasingly required to do business with Social Security over the internet.

     He's right. This shouldn't be happening. 

     The problem with Miller's piece is that its thrust seems to be that the service reductions are the result of choices by Social Security management. I don't get the feeling when reading his piece that he has any idea just how tight the budget squeeze is at Social Security, that Social Security management had a gun held to its head when it made these decisions. There's no way to fairly write about service at Social Security without talking about the insistence of Congressional Republicans on slashing federal non-defense discretionary spending. Miller doesn't talk about that subject even though he's been critical of Republican budget plans for Medicare. I know that "federal non-defense discretionary spending" sounds like an awfully boring topic but the consequences of decisions on "federal non-defense discretionary spending" for Social Security, for other government agencies and for the American public are important.

GAO Criticizes Social Security

     From a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has undertaken numerous modernization efforts, but it lacks effective measurement tools to determine progress. Since 2001, SSA has reported spending about $5 billion on the modernization of its systems. Specifically, the agency has undertaken hundreds of modernization projects each year from 2001 to 2011, and officials identified 120 such initiatives that they considered to be key investments in modernization. ... While the Office of Management and Budget requires agencies to establish performance measures to gauge modernization progress, SSA has not fully established quantifiable performance measures for all its modernization projects or performed post-implementation reviews, which GAO has previously recommended and which would enable the agency to effectively measure its progress....

SSA lacks updated and comprehensive plans to guide its modernization efforts. Strategic planning is essential for an organization to define what it seeks to accomplish, identify strategies to achieve the desired results, and measure progress. ...

      Let someone who is fairly removed from this issue give a few guesses as to why Social Security's systems modernization efforts may not meet GAO's criteria:

• Much of it was funded by the economic stimulus adopted in the early days of the Obama Administration. A lot of money came to Social Security unexpectedly. There was a heavy emphasis on getting things going quickly. Social Security didn't have the luxury of spending a few years attending to the niceties that GAO likes. Besides, the niceties that GAO likes can lead to "paralysis by analysis."
• Social Security has no idea from one year to the next how much money it will get for information technology or anything else. This makes effective long term planning impossible.
• The whole world of information technology keeps changing at such a rapid pace that no one knows what to expect in the future. How do you plan for the future or even properly evaluate what you are current doing in this environment? There appears to be  a legitimate argument that much of the money being spent on Social Security's national computer center is a waste, that this sort of center is yesterday's technology, but  Social Security can't wait for a few years for its proper course to become crystal clear. It must go forward with what its best judgment is now. It has to do something even if that something turns out later not to have been the wisest thing it could have done.
• The GAO always whines about something. That's their job. Sometimes their whining makes a worthwhile contribution to public administration. Sometimes it's just pointless whining.