Takes Too Long To Get Problems Resolved

     From some Tulsa TV station that only wants to be known as "2":

There's a lot to ponder, Charles says, during his daily walks.   

How do you recover, he wonders, after a drunk driver kills your adult son? ...

It only turned worse, when the emotional grief turned to financial turmoil. 

Since his son's first and last names were the same as Charles', social security mistakenly thought it was Charles, Sr who had passed away. ...

Then, the Social Security Administration took back the $1200 it had just deposited into Charles' bank account, causing checks to bounce.  .... 

Charles says he called at least ten times to get it resolved, without any luck. ...

After several phone calls and emails, we went to the social security administration's regional office and were able to help resolve Charles' problem, by getting his money back and his benefits reinstated. 

     Sadly, mistakes like this are inevitable. The key is getting them corrected quickly. They don't get corrected as quickly as they should not because Social Security's personnel are lazy or uncaring or incompetent. Sure there's some of that at Social Security and every other large entity in the U.S. but that's not the real reason these problems aren't corrected quickly. It's because there just aren't enough Social Security personnel to take care of problems quickly. It's obvious at ground level that mistakes take longer to correct now than they did before Republicans seized control of the House of Representatives in 2010 and began cutting the agency's budget. I cringe when I see a simple mistake such as misreading an Administrative Law Judge's decision and starting benefits later than they should have been started. I know it's going to take at least a few weeks and maybe a few months to correct this sort of simple mistake.

OIG Agents Testify

     From KOMU:

Social Security Administration agents said under oath Wednesday they requested a list of Missouri's concealed-carry permit holders on three occasions but ultimately never used the data. ...

Schilb and Troy Turk, Special Agent in Charge of the administration's Kansas City field office, told the committee they had planned to compare the list of Missouri's concealed-carry permit holders, of which there are more than 163,000, to a list of Missourians claiming mental disability for Social Security benefits. The intent was to detect fraud, but both men said the project was abandoned when they realized the large amount of data they would have to sift through. Turk said the agency never had any plans to share the list with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, but would have alerted the Missouri State Highway Patrol of any matches between the two lists.

     Interesting that Social Security had these agents testify. The agency certainly didn't have to allow this.
     I have trouble believing that high level officials at Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) were unaware of this. What other explanation could there be for Social Security having a seat on the White House working group on reducing gun violence -- a working group which only has eight members?

How Well Does Social Security Use Plain Language?

     Social Security has recently issued its 2012 Plain Writing Act Compliance Report. You can send any comments on the state of plain writing at Social Security to PlainWriting@ssa.gov.

Online Fraud Attempt

     From KSDK:

The Social Security Administration says complaints of fraud linked to online social security accounts are isolated. 

NewsChannel 5 broke the story Monday that people had gotten letters about an online account they hadn't signed up for. 

Late Tuesday afternoon, the St. Louis Circuit Attorney's Office reached out to victims via Facebook, offering ways to protect themselves. 

The Social Security Administration sent a statement Tuesday saying its representatives have assisted customers to address their concerns about the issue. 

A viewer who got one of those letters told us Monday that between 20 and 40 people took their letters to the SSA office in Fenton Monday morning. Someone used their social security numbers to go online and try to steal their social security checks. 

Why Is It Acceptable For People Calling Social Security To Wait Eight Minutes For Someone To Answer The Phone?

     I thought it would be a good idea to take another look at the White House proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2014, which begins on October 1, 2013. Take a look at these numbers:

Average Speed of Answer (ASA) [on Social Security's 800 number] (seconds) 
FY 2012 294
FY 2013 455
FY 2014 482 [projected]

      It was taking an average of five minutes to get to a real person when you called Social Security last year. Of course, sometimes it didn't take nearly that long but other times it took longer. That average is up to seven and a half minutes this year and is supposed to go up to about eight minutes next year.
     The U.S. government requires cable television providers to provide an ASA (average speed of answer) of 30 seconds. Apparently, a 30 second ASA is a basic standard for adequate service in the call center business. Private business thinks 30 seconds is reasonable service. Social Security will be offering eight minutes. Why is this acceptable?
     The FY 2014 numbers are just what the White House proposes. It isn't a proposal that would make things better at Social Security. It's a proposal that accepts a significant degradation in service. Republicans termed the President's budget dead on arrival. Can they realistically propose a budget that would cause a greater degradation in call center service than the President's?

     There are many important Social Security matters that can't be handled over the internet now. Many people who need to deal with Social Security cannot use the internet. Thinking internet service delivery is going to take care of Social Security's service delivery problem is a "Let them eat cake" solution. I'd like for my firm to do most of its business with Social Security over the internet but it's just not possible. We have to spend a lot of time dealing with the agency over the telephone and it's hard. Unrepresented claimants are far less able to use Social Security's internet systems that people like myself and my firm's employees.
      And by the way, at last week's House Social Security Subcommittee hearing, one member was urging Social Security to emulate Disney World! I've never had occasion to call Disney World but I'll bet they answer their phones in a lot less than eight minutes. That's because they don't expect fairies or elves to do the work. Disney knows that service costs money and they pony up the money.

WSJ Refutes WSJ Claims

     From Media Matters:

A Wall Street Journal article debunked the myth that federal disability benefits are to blame for the shrinking labor force, "exaggerated" claims that have previously been pushed by the paper itself.

An April 29 Journal article headlined "Real Culprit Behind Smaller Workforce: Age" explained that the recent decrease in the labor force -- the number of employed and unemployed Americans who are currently seeking work -- "has more to do with retiring baby boomers than frustrated job seekers abandoning their searches." The article noted that claims that Americans are voluntarily leaving the workforce to receive Disability Insurance instead of working, for example, "may be exaggerated," and explained that retirees and students made up a far more significant portion of those leaving the labor force. ...

However, the Journal has previously pushed the myth that Disability Insurance accounted for much of the dropping labor force participation rate. An April 10 article headlined "Workers Stuck in Disability Stunt Economic Recovery" claimed that workers receiving disability benefits were costing the economy billions by not instead participating in the labor force, and quoted economist Michael Feroli's claim that "worker flight to the Social Security Disability Insurance program accounts for as much as a quarter of the puzzling drop in participation rates, a labor exodus with far-reaching economic consequences." These claims are in direct contradiction to the Journal's most recent reporting.

ALJ Union Continues To Make Friends And Influence People

     From the opening statement of Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX), the chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee at a hearing last week:

... I was outraged to learn that the union which represents Administrative Law Judges has just filed a lawsuit in federal court asking for an injunction against Social Security’s guidelines for judges to handle 500 to 700 cases a year.   

The union claims that these goals are “illegal quotas” and that management’s efforts to meet Congress’s and the public’s expectations for timely decisions interfere with judge’s decision-making independence. 

This is the same union that argues that these highly paid federal employees, who have no performance standards and cannot be fired without going through a time-consuming and expensive process, should be allowed to work at home at least one day a week.  

Let me be clear.  No one is telling any judge what decision to make, so their independence is protected.  And despite what the union argues, in FY 2012, 79 percent of judges were hearing at least 500 cases a year.  

Most taxpayers would be surprised to learn that last year the union representing judges spent $1 million in taxpayers’ dollars not on holding hearings, but on union activities.  That’s enough to fund a full year’s salary for nine judges.  

In fact, total taxpayer dollars spent by all four unions at Social Security reached $14.3 million last year, enough to fund a full year’s salary for about 206 employees. 

Hall Wins Award

     Stephanie J. Hall (no relation), Deputy Commissioner for Quality Performance at Social Security, is a 2012 Meritorious Executive Winner in the Presidential Rank Award Program.