Fewer And Fewer Employees To Get The Work Done

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted updated figures for the number of employees at the Social Security Administration.

• June 2013 62,877
• March 2013 63,777
• December 2012 64,538
• September 2012 65,113
• September 2011 67,136
• December 2010 70,270
• December 2009 67,486
• September 2009 67,632
• December 2008 63,733
• September 2008 63,990
• September 2007 62,407
• September 2006 63,647
• September 2005 66,147
• September 2004 65,258
• September 2003 64,903
• September 2002 64,648
• September 2001 65,377
• September 2000 64,521

     Since the Republicans took over the House of Representatives in January 2011, the number of employees at Social Security has gone down by  7,393, an 11% reduction, in the face of a rapidly increasing workload. This may understate the staffing reduction since Social Security was employing a good deal of employee overtime prior to the 2010 election. There is now little employee overtime available at Social Security.

Government Shutdown: The Only Way To Resolve The Question Of Presidential Legitimacy?

    I have hesitated to post anything about the current budget impasse in Washington. I know that one of the traditional benefits of federal employment has been job security. That's a big reason many federal employees took their jobs. Any threat to job security worries federal employees even more than private sector employees. In the end these budget impasses are almost always resolved without a government shutdown so why worry people unnecessarily? Jonathan Chait writing in New York Magazine explains why this impasse is looking very dangerous:

The incipient showdown in Washington is ... very much a crisis of legitimacy. American government has developed customs for resolving the divided government problem [when the White House and Congress are in the hands of different parties]. In the best cases, the two parties try to compromise. In the worst cases, failure to compromise leads to stalemate. ...

Since taking control of the House of Representatives in 2011, a coterie of Republicans has challenged this informal approach. Their belief is that the absence of cooperation should lead not to stalemate but to the president bending to their will. That assumption implies a delegitimization of the presidency that Obama has come to understand, belatedly, that he can’t accept. ...

The tension between the two parties is higher now than ever before because they disagree not only on underlying policy but on the basic premises of shared governance. Obama recognizes that allowing debt-ceiling hostage crises to become enshrined would not only subject him to continuing extortion but set the system on course for an eventual default when, inevitably, ransom negotiations fail at the last minute. Establishment Republicans are trying to talk their base out of extreme measures without addressing their deeper belief that House Republicans are entitled to extract concessions from the president, via threat, without compromising at all. ...

      Even before Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouted "You Lie!" at President Obama during an address to a joint session of Congress in September 2009, Republicans were mounting an all out effort to delegitimize President Obama. This process accelerated after the 2010 election and has not abated even since Obama decisively defeated Mitt Romney to gain a second term of office. As ridiculous as it would sound to most people, I think it is taken as an article of faith in many Republican circles that regardless of the election results, Barack Obama has no right to be President of the United States. To compromise with Obama is to concede that he is the rightful President of the United States and this they cannot do.
     This dispute may get papered over again before the end of September but my guess is that we're past that. The country needs a resolution to this problem. There's going to have to be a winner and a loser in this showdown. We won't get that sort of clear cut result without a government shutdown. That may be the price we have to pay.

Social Security Cases In The Federal Courts

     The federal courts have published their annual statistical report for the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2012. A total of 17,645 Social Security civil actions were filed that year. The busiest district was the Central District of California with 1,134 Social Security civil actions. However, I'd guess that relative to population the Western District of Missouri with 743 civil actions was the busiest district. Only 19 Social Security civil actions were filed in the Middle District of Louisiana, based in Baton Rouge, 8 in North Dakota and 6 in Hawaii.

What Do You Think?

     Here is a question for readers:

Mr. Smith is found to have lung cancer. He has part of a lung removed and has radiation and chemotherapy. Soon after the cancer was discovered, Mr. Smith applies for Social Security disability benefits. The claim is approved. By seven months after he stopped work, Mr. Smith is over the surgery and the chemotherapy and radiation therapy, Mr. Smith is feeling better. He's not sure that he'll be able to work but he wants to give it a try. He returns to his old job. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith finds that he can't handle his old job. He's just too short of breath and he gets tired out too quickly. He stops after two months. Mr. Smith informs Social Security of his attempt to return to work and its unsuccessful outcome. They do nothing. His checks continue. What should have happened?

1. Social Security did the right thing. Mr. Smith should not be punished for his brief, unsuccessful attempt to return to work.
2. Social Security should have said that Mr. Smith was ineligible for Social Security disability benefits until his attempt to return to work ended and declared him overpaid for the months of benefits paid before that date.
3. Social Security should have ended Mr. Smith's benefits permanently and declared him overpaid for any benefits he received.

      If you chose 1, that Mr. Smith should not be punished for his unsuccessful work attempt, you chose the correct answer under current law. If you chose 3, that Mr. Smith should be made permanently ineligible for disability benefits because he made an unsuccessful attempt to return to work, you made the same choice that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made in producing a report saying that Social Security made $1.3 billion in overpayments to Social Security disability claimants. If you chose either 1 or 2, you believe that the GAO report is misleading.
      By the way, this sort of unsuccessful attempt to return to work is common. I'll guess that at least 10% of claimants do it, perhaps as many as 25%.

     But, forget what answer is correct under current law and which answer the GAO chose. Which answer makes most sense to you as a public policy matter?

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

Depends Upon How You Want To Look At It

     From the Chattanooga Times Free Press:

A congressional panel that earlier this year criticized judges for lavishly awarding Social Security disability benefits might have been talking about Tennessee.

It depends how you crunch the numbers.

Nearly two-thirds of administrative law judges in Tennessee grant benefits to more than half the sick and injured workers who come before them, federal figures show. ...

But there's another way to look at it, a local disability attorney said: Judges are the back-up for a high turn-down rate at the first stage of the application process.

Though the disability rate among Tennessee workers is about a third higher than the national average, the state has the second-lowest rate in the nation for initial approval of disability claims, figures from the Social Security Administration show.

Here's An Alternative If You Don't Like Having The Trust Funds Invested In Government Bonds

     From Slate:

A lot of coverage of the sale of Neiman Marcus by the private equity companies than own it to new private equity companies seems to me to be missing what's interesting here. David Gelles at Dealbook, for example, said the buyers are "a group led by Ares Management and a Canadian pension plan."

But it's not just a Canadian pension plan. It's the Canada Pension Plan.

Which is to say the luxury retailer has been bought by Canada's version of Social Security.

Pittsburg Office Closing

     The Topeka Capital-Journal reports that the Pittsburg, Kansas Social Security field office is closing.

Hearing On Puerto Rico Fraud Allegations

     The House Social Security Subcommittee has scheduled a hearing for 2:30 on September 19 concerning the recent allegations of a number of fraudulent Social Security disability claims in Puerto Rico. The hearing notice says that employees involved in adjudicating disability claims noticed that they were receiving nearly identical medical reports on different claimants. The allegation is that the physicians involved were receiving $150 to $500 per fraudulent report. If that's true, all I can say is dumb, dumb, dumb. How stupid did they think Social Security is? Why would any physician with good sense risk serious criminal charges for such a small amount of money? Dumb, dumb, dumb. I'll bet that most of the claimants involved could have been approved based upon honest medical evidence. I've seen that sort of claimant. There aren't that many of them out there but they exist. It was once said of boxing promoter Don King that "... he would rather put a dishonest quarter into his pocket than an honest dollar." That's the mentality that some people have.