Why?

     CNN is asking why telework is being mostly eliminated at Social Security just as the Covid-19 virus is spreading.

Congressional Democrats Press For Resumption Of Telework As Response to Covid-19

     From a press release:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) today urged Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner Andrew Saul to return telework options to SSA employees amid the outbreak of COVID-19....

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued interim guidance last month for businesses and employers that reads in part, “for employees who are able to telework, supervisors should encourage employees to telework instead of coming into the workplace until symptoms are completely resolved.” ...

     As I keep saying, this sort of message would have a greater impact if delivered in person at an oversight hearing.

     By the way, the epicenter of Covid-19 in the U.S. at the moment is Seattle. Is Social Security doing anything different in Seattle? There's a regional office there so Social Security has a significant number of employees there.

Seila Law Oral Arguments

     SCOTUSblog has posted a summary of oral arguments in Seila Law v. CFPB. There appears to be a good chance that the position of head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be found to be unconstitutional or, at least, that its head serves at the pleasure of the President.

     What would such a holding mean for Social Security? For one thing Andrew Saul would be gone by the end of next January at the latest if President Trump is not re-elected but, more important, there would probably be endless litigation on the validity of decisions made, regulations adopted and contracts granted at the Social Security Administration. These issues may require multiple Supreme Court opinions to resolve.

     It's distressing to see that the case argued before the Supreme Court dealt only with a tiny agency and that there was virtually no briefing on how this might affect a vastly larger agency that pays benefits to one person in five in this country.

     In retrospect, making Social Security an independent agency was a terrible idea. It's never really been at all independent but its theoretical independence is leading it toward pointless constitutional problems.

Case On Constitutionality Of Positions Like Commissioner Of Social Security To Be Argued At SCOTUS Today

     Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog has a preview of today's oral argument at the Supreme Court in Selia Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case that poses the issue of the constitutionality of federal agency heads serving fixed terms who can only be removed for cause.  This is the same situation as the Commissioner of Social Security. 

     The right wing wants to throw as much sand as possible into the gears of regulatory agencies. The Social Security Administration isn't the target -- now -- but it may become collateral damage. It's seems odd to me that there has been so little attention paid to the potential effects of this case at Social Security which is orders of magnitude larger than CFPB.

     Selia Law is the first case up today.

New Addresses For Service Of Process

     The Social Security Administration has posted new addresses for service of process effective immediately. This has to do with suing the agency. If you sue them, you have to let them know you've sued them. This is the address you use to let them know you've sued them. The address you use depends upon the judicial district the lawsuit is brought in. They had just changed these addresses in October. I believe all the changes shift cases from the Office of Regional Counsel in New York. Is there some problem there?

NYT On Selia Law

     The New York Times is running a piece on the Selia Law case that is to be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. This case has the potential to cause massive problems at Social Security. The Trump Administration would like to limit it to regulatory agencies, particularly the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but I don’t see any way to so limit it. Such wishful thinking may make it harder for this Administration to react properly and promptly once the position of Commissioner of Social Security is found unconstitutional, as it probably will be. If the agency is headed by a person who lacks a proper appointment, practically every decision he makes or which is made on a delegation of authority from him is illegitimate.

How Long Would It Have Taken To Get This Resolved Without The Help Of A TV Station?

     From some television station in Arizona:

Mary Jo Kavanaugh has a small home-based business where she does alterations. And, while Kavanaugh enjoys sewing, it's her finances that might be coming apart at the seams. That's because Kavanaugh recently retrieved a letter from the Social Security Administration, demanding that she pay a hefty sum of money. ...

The SSA wants Kavanaugh to immediately repay more than $28,000. Why? Well, the agency says it mistakenly overpaid her ex-husband, who was collecting disability. ...

"We were divorced in 2006," said Kavanaugh.

That divorce date is important because according to the letter, the Social Security Administration overpaid her ex-husband $28,116.44 between June 2009 through March 2013. ...

We asked [Social Security] to investigate the issue and once they did, Kavanaugh says she got a phone call from Social Security saying the matter has been dropped and they will not be pursuing her for $28,000 any longer. ...

Overpayment Problems For A 69 Year Old Grandmother

     From WKBW in Cincinnati:

Margaret Fitzwater insisted she wasn't going to cry, but her eyes quickly turned red and watery as the 69-year-old grandmother of six described the impact of unknowingly being overpaid $35,770 in monthly Social Security benefits, then having the Social Security Administration demand that she pay it back.

"I go to bed at night worrying about it," Fitzwater said. "I just want it to end."

Fitzwater, who worked a combined 37 years at Cincinnati Gas & Electric and the United States Postal Service, said the confusion over her Social Security benefits began in March 2011.

That's when she received a letter from the agency claiming it had overpaid Fitzwater $4,345 in benefits due to not including her workers compensation payments.

In an April 2011 letter the SSA sent to Fitzwater, the agency confirmed she had paid it back.

"I assumed when I paid them money back in the very beginning that they had it all figured out," she said.

Then, in 2016, she received another letter, saying she apparently owed $35,770.

The problem is not unique to Fitzwater. In a November 2019 audit, the Office of the Inspector General expressed concerns that the Social Security Administration was struggling with overpayments, its collection process and long delays on waivers and hearings. The audit revealed that the SSA estimated it had made $8 billion in improper payments in 2018 alone.

"It's a bureaucracy," Cincinnati attorney James Williams told the I-Team in January. "Probably the world's biggest bureaucracy."

Williams is not Fitzwater's attorney and we did not discuss the case with him, but he has represented clients in hundreds of disputes with the Social Security Administration. He also worked as an attorney for the SSA's Office of Hearings and Appeals. 

"They want to do a good job," Williams said. "Part of the problem is I don't think they have enough personnel to do the good job."

The audit also identified mistakes in calculating income of beneficiaries – which is what happened to Fitzwater – by nearly $1 billion in 2018. The same audit estimated that SSA would wrongly collect an additional $671 million if it didn't fix mistakes resulting from outdated computer systems and understaffing.

Fitzwater told the I-Team she was confused by some of the notifications she received from the SSA.

In April 2013, the SSA told Fitzwater it owed her money and that it would increase her benefits.

Then, in a May 2014 letter, she was notified that she had been paid $27,016 too much because of what the agency said was unreported workers comp. 

"I feel like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing," Fitzwater said.

In December 2018, after waiting 53 months for a hearing on her case, an administrative judge determined Fitzwater still owed $30,000 for excessive benefits.

According to Fitzwater's records, the SSA is withholding $804 from her monthly Social Security benefit of $2,368 to refund the excess benefits. Fitzwater said she also receives about $3,700 a month in workers comp benefits.

In a December 2019 letter to the SSA, Fitzwater's attorney, Albert Brown Jr., told the agency it had violated her rights by withholding benefits without ruling on any of her three requests for a waiver on paying back the money. ...