Stats From The Only Part Of SSA Working Down Its Backlog

      Recently released report on Social Security's Office of Hearings Operations:

Click on image to view full size

 

Should State Agencies Serving As Rep Payees For Children Be Allowed To Seize The Children's Social Security Benefits To Pay For Their Care?

     From WUNC, an NPR station

To Teresa Casados, who runs the department in charge of child welfare in New Mexico, it seemed like an odd question. At a legislative hearing in July, a lawmaker asked her if the state was taking the Social Security checks of kids in foster care — the checks intended for orphans and disabled children.

"My reaction really was: That can't be right," said Casados, who in the spring took over as acting secretary of New Mexico's Children, Youth & Families Department. "That can't be a practice that we're doing." ...

Casados and her chief legal counsel drove back to the office. "When we got back, we looked into it and found out it was a practice that the agency had for using those benefits — and had been going on for quite some time." ...

[L]ast month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration sent a letter to state and local child welfare agencies to encourage these changes.

The NPR/Marshall Project investigation found that in at least 49 states and the District of Columbia, when young people go into foster care child, welfare agencies routinely look for which ones come with Social Security checks. Or, if the children are eligible, agencies sign them up for benefits. Then state agencies cash those checks — usually without telling the child or their family, the investigation found. ...

Just days after that legislative hearing in New Mexico, Casados says her department "sent out a directive to cease using those funds for care and support." It pledged to start putting aside the Social Security benefits checks for foster children to have when they go back to their families or age out of foster care. ...

Bipartisan SSI Bill

     From a press release:

Today U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) announced the first bipartisan, bicameral push in decades to reform the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which has not been updated in nearly 40 years and currently punishes older and disabled Americans for saving for emergencies and their futures. The senators’ bipartisan SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act would update SSI’s asset limits for the first time since the 1980s to ensure disabled and elderly Americans are able to prepare themselves for a financial emergency without putting the benefits they rely on to live at risk.  

In addition to Brown and Cassidy, U.S. Representatives Brian Higgins (D-NY-26) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-1) will introduce companion legislation in the House. U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Casey (D-PA), and James Lankford (R-OK) are original Senate cosponsors. ...

    Of course, the bill stands no chance in this Congress. The GOP controls the House and the GOP would filibuster in the Senate. Sorry, but there's nowhere near enough Republican support in Congress for this to advance. Maybe, maybe, I can squint at it and imagine the bill progressing after the 2024 election, but only if the Democrats have an overwhelming victory.

Confusion Over Law Enforcement Officers On Personal Business At SSA Offices And Their Firearms

     From Queen City News:

A Cleveland County [NC] deputy was told to disarm himself in order to enter the Shelby Social Security Office, according to Sheriff Alan Norman. ...

“Following that directive would place a uniformed law enforcement officer in jeopardy,” Norman wrote in a Facebook post. “[It] would compromise their safety, especially in the treacherous times we are living in.” ...

After speaking with other sheriff’s offices around North Carolina, [the county sheriff] says he discovered that is not the official policy at other Social Security Administrations. ...

SSA’s Regional Communications Director released the following statement to QCN regarding the incident:

“The Social Security Administration followed government-wide security policies established by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS). Generally, FPS policy allows Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities who are armed to enter Federal offices while performing law enforcement functions. FPS prohibits State and local law enforcement from carrying firearms into Federal facilities while on personal business.  ...

Headcount Inches Up

    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted updated numbers showing the headcount of employees at each agency. Note that these numbers do not tell the whole story. They don't account for part time employees nor for overtime. Overtime is a huge part of the story at Social Security. A Full Time Equivalent (FTE) report would cover that but we seldom see FTE reports.  Here are Social Security's numbers as of March with earlier headcount numbers for comparison:

• March, 2023  59,400
  
• December, 2022 58,916
  
• September, 2022 57,754
  
• June, 2022 58,332
  
• March, 2022 59,257
  
• December, 2021 60,422
  
• September, 2021 59,808
  
• June 2021 59,707
  
• March 2021 60,675
• December 2020 61,816
  
• September 2020 61,447
  
• June 2020 60,515
  
• March 2020 60,659
  
• December 2019 61,969
  
• December 2018 62,946
  
• December 2017 62,777
• December 2016 63,364
• December 2015 65,518
• December 2014 65,430
• December 2013 61,957
• December 2012 64,538
• December 2010 70,270
• December 2009 67,486
• December 2008 63,733

A Golden Oldie

      It’s a slow time in Social Security world so let me reprise a post from almost ten years ago. The themes coming from shills have changed but the problem hasn’t gone away. I’ve become quicker to delete comments that look phony to me. I do note comments now that appear to me to come from employee unions but it’s hard to tell since there are obvious reasons why many Social Security employees agree with union talking points.

Bombarding This Blog — From November 8, 2013

If you read the comments posted on this blog you might come to the impression that everyone knows that:

• Social Security employees do most of their "work" from at home but they don't really work because they're all lazy. The agency has way too many employees.
• Social Security's Administrative Law Judges are particularly lazy. They approve Social Security disability claims because they're lazy. A lot of the judges are crooks in cahoots with crooked disability claimants and their crooked attorneys.
• Most Social Security disability claimants are just crooks trying to scam the program.
• It's way too easy to get on Social Security disability benefits, especially for "mental illness." Anyone can get on Social Security disability benefits for "mental illness" just by pretending to be crazy.
• SSI child's benefits are the biggest scam. It's nothing but lazy, drug addicted mothers coaching their kids to act crazy. They get child after child on SSI child's benefits and then steal the money to support their drug habits.
• Attorneys who represent Social Security claimants are lazy. They're paid huge sums of money by Social Security but they do nothing for their clients. If anything, they're just crooks who assist their crooked clients in perpetrating fraud.
• There is no money in the Social Security trust funds. The money was all stolen by Democrats. The U.S. government bonds that are supposed to be in the trust funds are meaningless pieces of paper.
• Social Security is going bankrupt.You'll never get back the money you paid in. It's all a scam.

     Some of this comes from individuals legitimately expressing their opinions. However, it's long been apparent to me that most of this is coming from people who have been paid to post online comments about Social Security. Often, these people pretend to be Social Security employees, Social Security claimants or Social Security attorneys. Often, their comments just don't ring true because they're pretending to be someone they're not.

     Does it seem outlandish, even paranoid to think that someone would be paid to post slanted comments online? Take a look at this article from the Baltimore Sun. Officials at the University of Maryland had a problem. They wanted to shift the University's athletic programs from the Atlantic Coast Conference to the Big Ten. They knew that many of the University's alumni would be furious with this move. Here's what they did:

Brian Ullmann, the university's assistant vice president for marketing and communications ... wrote that the school planned to "engage professional assistance in helping to drop positive messages into the blogs, comments and message board sites. I will arrange for this service today." ...

Lee Zeidman, the corporate communications consultant who helped Maryland draft letters and talking points, said Wednesday that it is "standard operating procedure" in the business world to weigh in directly on message boards. "There are special PR agencies who work in the digital space who bombard blogs and newspaper sites where no one puts their name," Zeidman said.

     Who would pay online shills to post on Social Security issues? Pete Peterson and the Koch brothers are the prime candidates. They're tossing around tens of millions of dollars in their fight against Social Security. They certainly wouldn't be going after just this blog. It's quite unlikely they know anything about it. They would mostly be going after message boards at news media sites. However, I don't know that there's any other web site quite like this one where there's an ongoing discussion on Social Security issues. If you're doing an online campaign to malign Social Security both as a social program and as an agency, you're going to come here.
    I wonder how someone who works as an online shill would feel about their job. Would it make them proud? Would they tell their children about what they do for a living?

New Regs In The Works

    After a long break, the Social Security Administration is advancing proposed regulations. The agency has now asked the Office of Management and Budget to approve regulations to "implement the Commissioner’s access to and use of wage and employment information held by payroll data providers ...  to help  administer the title II Disability Insurance (DI) and title XVI Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs and prevent improper payments."

SSAB Supports O'Malley Nomination

     The four members of the Social Security Advisory Board, two of them Democratic appointees and two of them Republican appointees, have written to the Chairman and Ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee recommending swift approval of Martin O'Malley's nomination to become Commissioner of Social Security. 

    They also recommended that the six year terms for Social Security Commissioners end and that they serve at the pleasure of the President. I think it is beyond dispute that six year terms for Social Security Commissioners has been a bad idea which has led to the near impossibility of confirming Commissioners. In any case, due to recent Supreme Court rulings, Commissioners, in effect, serve at the pleasure of the President anyway.

    Let's get on with it. Endless Acting Commissioners aren't good for the agency.