The Reopening Controversy

      From the Washington Post:

... Hundreds of agencies submitted their return-to-office plans to the White House budget office to meet last Monday’s deadline, laying out how they would begin to phase out remote work for hundreds of thousands of employees after Labor Day, with a full return to federal offices planned by the end of the year. ...

But with the more contagious delta variant surging and sending tens of thousands of unvaccinated people to hospitals across the nation, trepidation over the reentry plans has risen among some Biden administration officials ...

The Social Security Administration, the focus of increasing pressure from Republicans on Capitol Hill to reopen, has not submitted its reentry plans to the White House budget office. ...

The White House is under intense pressure from disparate sides of the debate over reopening. Unions that represent the majority of the federal bureaucracy of 2.1 million workers — and are a key Democratic constituency — are reluctant to cede full control of workplace decisions to the administration, although they have not disagreed publicly.

Advocates for the disabled, meantime, have pushed for reopening some of the nation’s 1,240 Social Security field offices. Applications for disability benefits have plummeted during the pandemic, as low-income Americans without access to the Internet have been prevented from seeking benefits.

And the administration has been hammered for months by Republican lawmakers over the slow pace of returning federal employees to the workplace. Republicans have charged that closed offices and remote work, particularly at the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, have led to diminished services for the public. ...

On a conference call Tuesday, the agency’s union leaders concurred that the administration’s push to reopen, particularly the field offices around the country that provide vital face-to-face service to low-income applicants for disability benefits, “is happening a little prematurely,” ...

     Covid is now an endemic disease. It's not going away ever. The toll it takes can be dramatically reduced by vaccination but we can no more eliminate all Covid risk now or in the future than we can completely eliminate all risk from influenza. It's unlikely that we'll ever find a way to be any safer from Covid at any time in the future than we are now. The risk from Covid, including all variants, is minimal if you're fully vaccinated and we're never going to be able to remove that minimal risk.

     Anyone who claims that Social Security is getting its work done now is either a fool or a liar. The agency is having massive problems. Certainly, the biggest cause is a lack of adequate staff. There would be major problems even if Covid-19 had never happened. However, it's going to be impossible to convince me or anyone else who deals with the agency that employees are just as productive working from home every day. There's just been too much deterioration in service since last March. And, of course, there's some things that can't be done from home, like meeting claimants in person. However, quaint that may seem to some, there's a huge demand for that sort of service.

     Many Social Security employees find working from home every day to be quite satisfactory. Their unions are hyping the risks of the the delta variant to the hilt to try to stave off the day when those employees are forced to return to the office. However, let's be honest, how many of those employees are really cowering in their homes in terror of Covid-19? In the world where I live, it's hard to get a restaurant reservation on the weekend. People are attending concerts and ball games in large numbers. Families and friends are gathering for social occasions. My guess is that the vast majority of Social Security employees are out and about doing these things and more, just like their neighbors. If they can do that, they can come into work.

     If you think that delaying reopening is a good idea, what's your end game? What do you think is going to happen to make it safer in the future than it is today? If your position is that we should never reopen the offices to the public, do you honestly think the public will tolerate Social Security field offices closing for good?

     The unions will never be happy with it but the field offices will reopen to the public at some point in the future and I can guarantee that they won't be any safer then than they would be now. Let's get on with it. The American public needs and deserves it. 

Temporary Change To MS Listings

      From a temporary final rule that Social Security is publishing in the Federal Register tomorrow:

Since the outset of the COVID-19 national public health emergency, many individuals have experienced barriers that prevent them from timely accessing healthcare. In response to those barriers, we are issuing this rule to temporarily revise our requirement in the Listing of Impairments (listings) that, for purposes of applying several of our musculoskeletal disorder listings, all relevant medical criteria be present simultaneously or “within a close proximity of time,” which we define as being “within a consecutive 4-month period.” While this rule is in effect, we will find that the evidence of a musculoskeletal disorder is present “within a close proximity of time” if the available evidence establishes such a condition within a consecutive 12-month period. We expect that this temporary change to our rules will allow us to make findings of disability in appropriate cases in which individuals have experienced barriers to access to healthcare because of the COVID-19 national public health emergency.

GOP Lawmakers Call For Reopening

      From Fedsmith:

A group of [Republican] lawmakers said that the interests of federal employee unions are being put ahead of those of Americans in making decisions about when to fully reopen agency offices.

A group of 14 Congressmen are the latest lawmakers to call for federal employees to return to work in agency offices in greater numbers to better meet the needs of their constituents. In a letter to agency leaders, they called for an immediate and safe reopening of agency offices, especially for those that offer in-person services that cannot be replicated virtually.

“As you finalize reopening and staffing posture plans with individual Federal agencies this week, we request that you consider the impact that continued closure of many Federal offices to the public has on millions of Americans, particularly elderly and low-income Americans who rely on the in-person services offered, particularly at Social Security Administration (SSA) field offices, across the country, and urge you to prioritize the reopening of Federal offices in the interests of all Americans, not just those of unions,” said the lawmakers in their letter. ...

     Democratic members of Congress won't be bashing employee unions and will be more interested in protecting employee health but they too have constituents who need something closer to normal service from their federal government than what we're getting now.

A Message From The Acting Commissioner -- Delay In Reopening Plan

From: ^Commissioner Broadcast <Commissioner.Broadcast@ssa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:51 PM
Subject: Moving Forward

A Message to All SSA Employees

Subject: Moving Forward

As I enter my second week as Acting Commissioner, I would like to share a bit about my goals, objectives, and for our path forward.

Right now, I am spending much of my time listening to and learning from agency experts.  I am meeting with labor unions this week.  I also want to hear from you, staff and managers alike.  I am relying on you to help identify what we can improve, recommend solutions, and bring about change that helps us serve the public better.  If you have an idea you would like to share with me, please send it to the  ^Employee Ideas mailbox.

My goals and objectives for Social Security are straightforward, and they will drive my decisions every day. 

• Everyone who is eligible for benefits under the programs we administer should receive them.  It is up to all of us to identify and resolve any root causes of inequity in accessing our programs.
• We must treat our employees fairly and equitably.  That means supporting you in the career paths that you choose and recognizing that your success is critical to the success of our organization. 

I believe that when we observe or encounter disparities, we should first identify and address systemic barriers that contribute to these disparities before we assume there are deficits in the individuals, families, and communities we serve, or in colleagues with whom we serve.   

As our country rebounds from a pandemic that has changed how we engage in our communities, the need for our services is tremendous, particularly for people facing barriers to our services. I know you are wondering about what we are planning for the government-wide transition back to the office and are particularly interested in telework.  You may see in the media that yesterday most agencies finalized their plans for reentry.  I take this effort seriously, and we have been given a little more time to finalize our plan so that I can ensure it is informed by our employees and stakeholders.  Therefore, I will share more information soon.  Let me assure you that we will overcome challenges together – thoughtfully and safely.

Thank you for your work every day to help the millions of people who depend on our services.

Kilolo Kijakazi
Acting Commissioner

Win For Law Firms

      From Bloomberg Law:

The Social Security Administration must change its procedures for paying attorneys’ fees in disability benefit disputes to allow payments to law firms and payments for work done by lawyers who later join the government, the First Circuit held.

The administration’s requirement that attorneys’ fees be paid to individual attorneys and not to law firms is arbitrary and frustrates the statutory mandate to provide a reasonable legal fee for representing Social Security disability claimants, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said in a July 16 opinion.

The fact that only individual attorneys can serve as representatives in the disability claims process doesn’t justify a limitation on payments that ignores the “practical reality” that law firms “ordinarily are the ultimate recipients of fees paid to salaried associates,” the court said.

The court reached a similar conclusion with respect to the administration’s bar on paying attorneys’ fees for work completed by lawyers who later leave private practice to take a government job. The administration said this rule was necessary to comply with government-wide ethics requirements prohibiting officials from being paid to represent claimants before the administration.

The First Circuit disagreed, calling this logic “inscrutable” and “facially irrational.” ...

     The decision is in the case of Marasco & Nesselbush v. Collins, et al. 

     Social Security would only have to apply this in the relatively small First Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island) but if they don't apply it more generally there will be litigation elsewhere. Also, my hope is that those involved with Social Security policy on this issue know that something should have done about this decades ago.

SSI Changes Under Consideration

      There has been some interest in Congress in adding SSI provisions to the Budget Reconciliation bill being considered in the Senate. I have no idea how serious this interest is. The Office of Chief Actuary at Social Security has prepared estimates of the costs of various provisions that might be considered. These provisions are actually part of a standalone SSI bill but no standalone SSI bill can pass in the Senate because of the filibuster. The only way any of this happens is by getting folded into the Budget Reconciliation bill. The combined effect of all the provisions being considered would be $510 billion over the next ten years. I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen, at least not this year. However, the main part of this -- $350 billion -- is for increasing benefit amounts generally. Increasing income exclusions would cost another $60 billion and eliminating the in kind support and maintenance rule would cost $31 billion. We'll see whether any of those end up in the bill. Some other provisions under consideration have much lower costs and are more likely to be added:

• Exclusion of retirement accounts from resources
• Repeal of the disposal of resources for less than fair market value rule
  
• Clarifying the treatment of certain state tax credits
• Elimination of dedicated accounts for some past-due benefits
• Elimination of installment payment rules
• Extension of period of exclusion for certain payments
• Elimination of holding out rule
  

Saul Pens Op Ed For WSJ

      There is an op ed by ousted Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul in today's Wall Street Journal. Saul claims to have administered Social Security in a nonpartisan way. He believes he's a victim of employee unions who want to reopen contract negotiations.

     Saul is certainly correct that the labor unions are most responsible for his firing. However, they were only out to get him because of his highly partisan effort to destroy the unions. I don't know why he expected them to turn the other cheek or for a Democratic administration to ignore their complaints.

     The absurd thing about this op ed is that Saul's claim to have administered Social Security in a nonpartisan fashion is being published in what must be the most highly partisan Republican editorial page in the country. That's hardly a good way to prove your non-partisanship. Perhaps he offered it to other newspapers first but they weren't interested.

     The most important thing about this op ed may be the fact that it sounds as if Saul accepts that he's been fired. There's no talk about litigation. The litigation would have gone nowhere but it would still have been an annoyance.

COLA Will Be High This Year

      Already, we're getting projections of what the Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) will be for Social Security this year. It's clear it will be far higher than what we're used to. The Kiplinger Letter is predicting it will be 6.3%. I don't know that they should be but Social Security recipients always seem happy to see large COLAs even though their purchasing power hasn't really increased.