What Happend In The Past At Social Security When There Were Previous Government Shutdowns Or Threats Of Shutdowns?

     From a February 17, 2011 e-mail sent out by head of the union that represents most Social Security Administration (SSA) employees to union members: 

I have heard that SSA is having a high level management conference call today regarding the Agency’s furlough preparations. ... In some past furloughs the Agency has closed all field offices. In other furloughs SSA has declared maintenance of benefit rolls as essential and kept skeleton staffs at work but such staff was instructed to take no new claims. In the 1995-96 furlough the Agency closed all field offices for the first 5 day furlough. They kept all field offices open during the 2nd 20 day furlough and declared field employees essential. Employees were called back from X-mas leave and forced to work without pay. When the furlough ended, Congress reimbursed all employees whether they worked or not.

       From an April 6, 2011 e-mail from then Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue to Social Security employees:

As soon as funding lapses, Federal agencies will not be permitted to incur further financial obligations performing activities funded by annual appropriations, except those related to the orderly suspension of operations or performance of excepted activities. This means that some employees will be furloughed and unable to work. Our contingency planning for the potential funding lapse includes determining which agency functions are excepted from a furlough. We plan to continue services associated with the White House's statement that Social Security checks will continue to go out. Our field and hearing offices, teleservice and program service centers, and State disability determination services will provide limited services if there is a shutdown. Should it become necessary to implement our contingency plans, you will receive details from your supervisor no later than Friday, April 8th regarding your furlough status.

Today's Social Security Subcommittee Hearing

     I watched the House Social Security Subcommittee hearing today on the alleged Social Security disability fraud ring in Puerto Rico. It wasn't a news packed event. Subcommittee members expressed outrage at the allegations, of course. Many Subcommittee members seemed interested in preventing this sort of thing from happening in the first place rather than dealing with it after it has happened. The answer to that, of course, is that Social Security would like to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening but crime prevention only gets you so far. Banks, for instance, make extensive efforts to prevent fraud but bank fraud still happens and must be dealt with after the fact. Members also wanted to know how much of the alleged overpayments would be recouped and seemed skeptical at the testimony that most would be recouped. I don't think they realize that the lack of a statute of limitations gives Social Security an almost limitless opportunity to recoup overpayments, a good thing when you're talking about overpayments due to fraud but a questionable thing when you're talking about overpayments that happened through no fault of the beneficiary.

     Of particular interest to me was something that I had earlier predicted. Bea Disman, Social Security's Regional Commissioner for the region covering Puerto Rico, testified that some of the claimants involved in this alleged fraud really are disabled. A person unfamiliar with these cases might think that all of the cases involved in this alleged fraud scheme would be complete fabrications but that's not the way something like this would work or could work. If all the cases were complete fabrications, the fraud would have been discovered more quickly. Even someone as dimwitted as the non-attorney representative involved in these allegations appears to be could have figured that out. This alleged scheme lasted as long as it did -- and it wasn't that long -- because there was other, genuine evidence supporting the award of disability benefits in many cases. Probably, what you had here, in many cases, was gilding the lily. Why would someone gild the lily, that is add fraudulent evidence on top of genuine evidence of disability? Perhaps because they relied upon the advice of a former Social Security employee who told them this was what they should do. Perhaps because they felt real urgency to be approved as quickly as possible. Perhaps because they were people who were more than willing to lie to get something they wanted. It's even possible that some of the claimants didn't even know that this was done on their behalf.

     As I think about this alleged scheme in Puerto Rico, all I can say is what I've said before. It was dumb, dumb, dumb. There was no way it could keep going indefinitely. I can't think of a way that a sophisticated scheme would have worked indefinitely but I can't imagine why a sophisticated person would even try to come up with a scheme. There's too much risk for too little gain. It's not easy but there is money to be made representing Social Security disability claimants honestly.

Getting In Is Easier If You Make An Appointment

     From WRAL:

Police arrested a Chapel Hill [NC] man early Thursday after they said he tried to break into a Social Security Administration office in Durham [NC] through the building's roof.
Brendan Phillip Cannell, 25, was being treated at a hospital Thursday for an arm injury he suffered when he jumped from the roof trying to flee police. Authorities said he would face several charges upon his release from the hospital.

Officers responded to the Social Security building, at 3004 Tower Blvd., at about 1 a.m. after an alarm went off. When they arrived, they heard loud banging sounds and saw a man moving around on the roof of the building.

The man refused to comply with officers' demands to come down, so they fired shots at him, believing him to be a potential imminent deadly threat, police said. He wasn't wounded by the gunfire.

Police apprehended the man shortly after he jumped from the roof.

A hole about a foot wide was cut into the building's roof, but metal sheeting underneath the roof appears to have prevented further access to the building. Police also found a second, smaller hole in the roof. ...

If It Doesn't Fit, You Must ...

     From KXTV:

Genevieve Catlyn Williamson Heidenreich, wants her entire married name to go on her Social Security card.

But Social Security is saying no. ...

"He said to me, 'it doesn't fit.' And I said, 'what do you mean?' And he said, 'it doesn't fit, the computer won't let me move on,'" Heidenreich explained about her visit to the Sacramento Social Security office. ...

A Social Security representative explained for the agency's purposes, a legal name consists of a first and last name only.

"The first and middle name fields allow 16 characters each and the last name allows 21 characters," the statement added. ...

As for technical limitations, Heidenreich said she can't imagine any reason the process couldn't be changed.

"We're, you know, printing livers on 3D printers and I can't have my name? It's kinda wild."

     And from KHON:

After nearly four years of trying, Ashley Barton became pregnant with her first child, who was born in 2012.

“Her name is Hi’ileikawainohiamaikalohena Barton,” Barton said.
That’s 27 letters, plus the okina, in her baby’s first name as shown on her birth certificate.

But when Barton received her daughter’s Social Security card, she noticed nearly half of her first name was dropped.

“And I asked them, ‘Why is that?’ and they said that there is a limit to how many characters they can put on the Social Security card,” Barton said.

     I've never seen this kind of story before and now there's two of them on the same day? Did something change at Social Security or is this just some bizarre coincidence?

Acting Commissioner's Broadcast E-Mail

A Message To All SSA And DDS Employees

Subject: Budget Update

 

As many of you are aware, annual funding for the Federal Government expires on September 30.  The Administration strongly believes that a lapse in funding should not occur.  There is enough time for Congress to prevent a lapse in appropriations, and the Administration is willing to work with Congress to enact a short-term continuing resolution to fund critical government operations and allow Congress the time to complete the full-year 2014 appropriations.

 

However, prudent management requires that we be prepared for all contingencies, including the possibility that a lapse could occur at the end of the month.  A lapse would mean that a number of government activities would cease due to a lack of appropriated funding.  It would also mean that a number of employees would be temporarily furloughed.  To prepare for this possibility, we are working with our Office of the General Counsel to update our contingency plans for executing an orderly shutdown of activities that would be affected by a lapse in appropriations. 

 

I realize the uncertainty of the current circumstances puts you in a difficult situation, and should a lapse occur, it could impose hardships on many of you, as well as the people that we serve every day.  As we approach the end of the month, I am committed to providing you with updated and timely information on any further developments.  I know you have many questions about your particular situation.  The Office of Personnel Management has a website that should answer some of the questions that may be on your mind. 

 

Thank you for your hard work, dedication, and patience through this process.  You remain the best employees in Government, and I know I can count on you to continue your unwavering commitment to serve the public during this uncertain time.

 

 

Carolyn W. Colvin

Acting Commissioner

Republicans Embrace Ted Cruz's Fight -- Democrats Gleeful

     A government shutdown on October 1 looks more and more likely. From today's New York Times:

House Republican leaders — bowing to the demands of their conservative wing — will put to a vote on Friday a stopgap spending measure that would strip all funding from President Obama’s signature health care law, increasing the likelihood that the government will shut down in two weeks....

House Republicans emerged from a closed-door session on the leadership’s plans seemingly steeled for a protracted showdown, a potentially troubling sign with the government’s funding authority set to expire on Oct. 1. Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana, said the House is taking up the banner first raised by the Senate’s hardest-line conservative Republicans, Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah.

“Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have been asking for this fight. The conservative base have been asking for this fight, so we’re going to give them the fight,” he said.

For their part, Democrats appeared almost gleeful that the Republican leadership had chosen the most confrontational route with just days to go before a potential shutdown....

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.