The report shown below was obtained from Social Security by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) and published in its newsletter, which is not available online to non-members. It contains basic operating statistics for Social Security's Office of Hearings Operations (OHO).
 |
| Click on image to view full size |
 |
| Senator Leahy |
As is normally the case, the draft report on the bill, an explanation of the bill which isn't officially enacted, contains recommendations for the Social Security Administration. These aren't binding but agencies take them seriously. Here's what's in the draft Senate bill for Social Security:
Delayed Disability Payments.—The delayed payment of Social Security Disability Insurance claims can create a significant burden on claimants. The Committee requests a briefing within 90 days of enactment on the issues that can result in delayed payments, and the polices SSA has implemented, or has considered, to streamline the disability payments’ process.
Disability Hearing and Initial Claims Backlogs.—The Committee commends SSA for the progress it has made reducing the average disability hearing processing time and the disability hearing backlog. The Committee recommendation combined with investments in recent years will help SSA stay on schedule to eliminate the backlog in fiscal year 2022 and further reduce the average disability hearing processing time. At the same time COVID–19 has created significant challenges for SSA, and has contributed to a growing backlog of initial disability claims. The Committee recommendation will support additional hires for Disability Determination Services to help address the growing backlog and an estimated increase in initial claims. The Committee requests a briefing within 60 days of enactment, and quarterly thereafter, on its progress towards reducing initial disability claim and hearings processing times and backlogs.
Field Offices Closures.—The Committee remains concerned about decisions to permanently close field offices and the impact on the public. The Committee encourages SSA to find an appropriate balance between in-person field office services and online services for beneficiaries. While the SSA’s Inspector General reviews decisions to close field offices, the Committee directs SSA to take every action possible to maintain operations at the offices under review.
Occupational Information System [OIS].—The Committee is aware that SSA continues to operationalize OIS using BLS ORA data, O*NET, and other DOL-derived occupational statistics. The Committee commends SSA’s progress in implementing OIS, and directs SSA to provide an update in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and Finance within 60 days of enactment detailing the status of implementation, to what extent OIS is fully operational, a timeline for moving from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles entirely to OIS, and an action plan to accomplish said timeline.
This is almost completely different from the House version which discusses the regulations allowing Administrative Appeals Judges to hold hearings, judicial independence of ALJs, backlogged claims processing, the attorney fee cap, telework and telephone hearings. The differences between the two draft reports will be sorted out in the legislative process so there will be one final report on the bill.
The current continuing resolution that keeps Social Security and other agencies running ends in early December. I don't think that appropriations have been as contentious this year as most. I hope we can get something passed by that early December deadline.
Some of the President’s commitments are very affordable: increasing the income disregards is only $60 billion over ten years, eliminating the rules prohibiting help from family and friends is only $31 billion, and updating the resource limits is only $8 billion. Other smaller changes we have long supported have negligible costs of under $500 million over ten years (including expanding SSI to the territories, excluding retirement accounts from resources, eliminating dedicated accounts, and other technical changes from the SSI Restoration Act).
A tweet from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:
Today is #EndPovertyDay. Without #SocialSecurity, a typical white household has 5 to 7 times the wealth of a minority household, but adding in Social Security reduces the gap to 2 to 3. Learn more: bit.ly/36aJ6EV #EndPoverty #PovertyEradication #RDRCResearch
Wednesday’s argument in Babcock v Kijakazi displayed a bench still uncertain about how to resolve a problem about the Social Security benefits available to a small group of National Guard workers.
The case involves a special rule that protects certain members of the “uniformed services” from a rule that limits Social Security benefits for people with irregular work histories over the course of their lifetime. … The case involves a group of about 50,000 people still living who worked before 1984 as a “dual-status military technician.” Although paid as civilians, those technicians provide a variety of services involving the National Guard and are obligated to maintain membership with an appropriate rank in the National Guard and to wear the corresponding uniform while on duty. At bottom, the question is whether the pay they receive for that work is “wholly” based on service “as” a member of a uniformed service, even though much of it is civilian rather than military work.
None of the justices seemed to approach the case with certainty. Two main threads of analysis dominated the argument. For Chief Justice John Roberts, it seemed obvious that some of the pay was for the serviceman’s work “as” a member of the National Guard, but much of it was for the various civilian duties of his technician status. …
Justice Elena Kagan – the only justice who seemed to state a settled view during the argument – seconded Roberts’ perspective, commenting “that we can sort of make this simpler” by following his lead, “and this is the way I read the language too.”
Conversely, Justice Neil Gorsuch found most relevant the statutory requirement that dual technicians must be members of the National Guard. In a colloquy with Nicole Reaves (appearing on behalf of the government), Gorsuch commented that “the work may be civilian for a bunch of other purposes, but it can only be performed by someone who is serving in the capacity of a National Guardsman.” …
A group representing employees of the Social Security Administration’s office of inspector general is calling on lawmakers and President Biden to take action against the watchdog office’s leadership, saying the leaders have lost the confidence of their employees.
The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association’s promise to take its complaints directly to Capitol Hill and the White House follows a vote in which 98% of responding employees represented by the professional association said they no longer had faith in SSA Inspector General Gail Ennis. The inspector general has ignored employee complaints and defied efforts to engage with workers, the group said in a recent letter to Ennis. The association represents 90% of the IG’s agents.
Employee satisfaction has declined since Ennis took office in early 2019 and took a significant hit this summer when the IG told employees the agency had begun conducting surveys of employee computer logs and telephone records to ensure its largely remote workforce was engaging in work activities at the proper times. Ennis said the agency was weighing disciplinary actions for those employees who were allegedly slacking off during their telework hours.
After the law enforcement association raised concerns about those practices and other managerial decisions, asking Ennis to meet with labor representatives to discuss concerns, the IG responded directly to the workforce with a letter rejecting the group’s concerns.
FLEOA suggested the total number of OIG special agents—plain-clothed federal law enforcement personnel who conduct investigations—has dropped by 37% in the last 18 months, though Ennis said the overall office of investigations was down just 7% since the pandemic began. She also vowed to oversee a workforce increase in the coming months as the agency fills vacancies. ...
The IG’s office was ranked 382 out of 411 agency subcomponents on the Partnership for Public Service’s most recent best places to work rankings, which is compiled from the government’s annual Federal Employees Viewpoint Survey data. The office’s engagement score has fallen by 22% in the last two years.
From Scotusblog:
Wednesday’s argument in Babcock v Kijakazi will take the justices deep into the intersection of the Social Security Act and a host of statutes defining the obligations and compensation of National Guard workers. This will definitely not be the most closely watched case of the month — but the court’s resolution of the arcane question in the case may determine how much money certain veterans can receive in retirement benefits.
At the highest level of generality, the case involves an exception from a “windfall elimination provision” of the Social Security Act. To understand the issues before the justices, it is enough to know that Congress has adopted a statute designed to eliminate what it regards as “windfalls” that some workers would receive – unjustly large Social Security awards that would flow to workers who spent a substantial share of their working years in jobs not covered by Social Security. The exception to the windfall-elimination provision describes some payments to which that provision doesn’t apply – employees for whom Congress would tolerate what it generally would regard as a windfall. Specifically, the exception protects any “payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service,” a defined term that includes among other things the Army National Guard of the United States. To put that another way, the “uniformed-services exception” at issue here allows members of uniformed services a windfall Social Security payment that is barred for members of the general public.
The question before the court is whether the benevolence of that uniformed-services exception reaches dual-status military technicians who serve in the National Guard. Those technicians provide a variety of services involving the equipment and supplies of the National Guard. Although they are paid as civilian employees, they routinely wear military uniforms and are obligated to maintain membership with an appropriate rank in the state National Guard where they are located, which carries with it (by law) membership in the Army National Guard of the United States. …
