Appropriations Hearing On November 14

    The House Appropriations Committee has scheduled a hearing on the Social Security Administration appropriation for 10:30 on November 14. Commissioner Martin O'Malley is the only scheduled witness.

Veterans Day 2024

 

OHO Caseload Analysis Report

 

Click on image to view full size

Why O'Malley Will Leave Office By January 20

     When I posted yesterday to give my advice about one thing the Commissioner could do before leaving office I didn't explain why he would be leaving office soon. I thought everyone knew that but it's apparent from the comments made that many don't understand so let me explain. Commissioners of Social Security have fixed six year terms. A Commissioner's six year term doesn't run from the date that he or she is confirmed. It runs until the end of the fixed six year time period. In O'Malley's case, he was confirmed with only a little more than a year left in that six year time period. O'Malley's six year term ends on Inauguration Day in January. However, after a Commissioner's six year term ends he or she can remain as Commissioner until a new Commissioner is confirmed. If Kamala Harris had been elected, this might have been of importance but she wasn't. More important than all this six year term business is the fact that a President can fire a Social Security Commissioner any time he or she chooses. That's what happened to Andrew Saul. It's extremely unlikely that O'Malley would want to hang around for the chaos of Trump II but even if he tried, he'd almost certainly be summarily fired. If you think there will be any bipartisanship in Trump II you haven't been paying attention. Thus, O'Malley will be leaving office by Inauguration Day.

    By the way, don't expect a nomination for a new Commissioner anytime soon. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have taken treated the nomination as a low priority matter.

What O’Malley Can Do Before Leaving

      There is precious little that Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley can do before Inauguration Day that could not be quickly undone by the incoming Trump Administration. One exception would be finally putting an end to the Eric Conn cases. There have been reports that O’Malley has planned to do something to terminate most of the Conn cases. Why not just end them all? Apart from the Chief Counsel, no one at the agency seems to have any appetite to go after these claimants any further. The politicians in Kentucky are pushing for relief for these claimants. Does anyone in Congress still want this group punished? It's time to clear this matter off the agency’s plate.

On Election Night House Freedom Caucus Uses Scheme To Stall Bill To Repeal WEP And GPO

     From Roll Call:

Members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus orchestrated an unusual play on the House floor during a rare election night, 5 p.m. pro forma session that resulted in killing, at least for now, a broadly popular bill that was set to hit the floor as soon as next week.

Reps. Garret Graves, R-La., and Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., had successfully rounded up the 218 signatures needed for a discharge petition to bypass GOP leaders and bring up bipartisan legislation that would repeal two long-standing provisions docking Social Security benefits for certain retirees. They were set to make their move as soon as Tuesday night by triggering a two-day clock to bring to the floor the special rule for immediate consideration of the bill. ...

Then the Freedom Caucus, which opposes the measure’s $196 billion cost over a decade, intervened.

What happened: Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., a more or less local member from the Eastern Shore, presided over the pro forma session, which lasted all of seven minutes.

During the brief session he recognized outgoing Rep. Bob Good, R-Va. — the former Freedom Caucus chair who lost his primary — for a unanimous consent request. Good’s request to lay the Social Security bill on the table was agreed to by unanimous consent, with no one else in the chamber to object.

The effect of laying the bill on the table in this context, under House rules, has the same effect as defeating a bill on the floor; it is dead for the time being. Since the discharge petition was actually filed on the rule for consideration, not the bill itself, the rule could still be called up for a vote under discharge procedures, which if adopted would remove the bill from the table and allow a vote.

 Alternatively, a brand new, identical bill could simply be introduced — as early as this Friday’s pro forma session — and that measure put up for a vote under suspension of the rules as soon as next week. ...

Harris’ move to recognize Good goes against the “Speaker’s announced policies” in exercising authorities under House rules, which stipulate that such UC requests can only be made after receiving assurances that the majority and minority leadership of both the House and the relevant committees have no objection.

In fact, before Harris recognized Good, House Parliamentarian Jason Smith can be heard on the microphone saying: “The chair will not entertain the gentleman’s request. The chair cannot entertain the gentleman’s request.” ...

November 6, 2024

I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. 

                                                                                    — Judge Learned Hand

Don't Forget