Why I'm Concerned About How Social Security Spends Increased Appropriations

      In an earlier post I mentioned my fear that Andrew Saul would attempt to spend the increased appropriations likely to come Social Security's way next year on contractors rather than on increasing the federal workforce in order to reduce backlogs. Let me go through two episodes from Social Security history that will explain my concern.

     When Jo Anne Barnhart became Commissioner of Social Security in November 2001 Social Security was suffering from bad backlogs at the hearing level which were a matter of great Congressional concern. The obvious thing to do about the backlogs would have been to hire additional employees. However, Barnhart, a highly skilled snake oil salesperson, put forward two plans to avoid doing anything of the sort. First, she wanted to streamline the process. If you were around for that fiasco, you'll remember that Barnhard delayed and delayed in producing a plan to streamline the process. She only came up with one as her term as Commissioner was coming to an end. Once people saw her plan, just about everyone's response was "Are you kidding me? In what way is this any better?" She made sure that none of her plan was to be implemented until after she left office. Once she was gone, her plan was quickly abandoned as unworkable. Second, Barnhart, knowing that Congress wanted to spend money on solving the backlog, proposed spending huge sums of money making a switch from paper files for disability claims to electronic files. Doing this wasn't a bad thing. However, there has to be some kind of balance. In Barnhart's case, there was no balance. She lavished money on contractors developing an electronic file system while refusing to hire additional employees to actually get the work done in the meantime. The result was that backlogs soared to previously unimaginable levels. It was taking about a year to get a hearing when Barnhart took office, which was already way too long. By the time she left office it was up to insane levels -- about two years on average and worse in some areas of the country! Even after the electronic files came into effect, there was never any proof that they improved productivity, even though I'm sure that Social Security would have loudly trumpeted that proof had it existed.

     At least, Barnhart's spending on electronic files had long term benefit even if done in a way that caused disaster for six or seven years. Michael Astrue was responsible for a plan that spent a lot of money on contractors but which produced little if any long term benefit for Social Security. The Social Security Administration is heavily dependent on computers. By the time Astrue took office, Social Security's National Computer Center building, where the heavy duty computing was done, was antiquated. Social Security also lacked any offsite backup in case of disaster. Astrue proposed and got Congress to fund not one but two hugely expensive computer centers, with the second one near me, somewhere near Durham (the address is apparently a secret, not that I have any interest in visiting it), as a backup. These may seem like necessary expenses but have you heard of cloud computing? By the time Social Security was constructing these big, expensive computer centers (around a billion dollars if I remember correctly), other government agencies were rapidly dumping their computers centers in favor of cloud computing. Don't take my word for it that Social Security's data centers were unnecessary. The guy who was in charge of building the National Computer Center became a whistleblower because he felt the project was oversold and wasteful. Another guy that Social Security hired to develop a computing strategy vision for the agency was fired because he kept saying Social Security was wasting money on the computer centers.

     It's not that I think that Barnhart wanted to create a disaster or that Astrue wanted to waste money. It's that I think they and other Republicans have two simple, unshakeable convictions:

• Federal employees = Bad
• Federal contractors = Good

     My opinion is that while federal contractors have their place, federal employees are the ones who actually get the work done. To cope with backlogs, we first need an adequate workforce at Social Security. We should spend money on federal contractors to the extent they help federal employees get the work done. Don't put the cart before the horse by insisting that additional funding has to be spent on contractors rather than on workforce.

     I fear that with additional appropriations coming Andrew Saul will be very receptive to federal contractors trying to sell him on grand, expensive schemes and very unreceptive to any plans coming up through the bureaucracy for increasing Social Security's workforce. 

     You may not have seen the actual appropriations language the Congress uses when it gives money for Social Security's operations but I have. The legislative language typically imposes few limits or restrictions on how Social Security Commissioners spend the agency's operating funds. I don't trust Andrew Saul. There's no reason Democrats in Congress should trust Andrew Saul. The next appropriations bill should force Saul to use additional funding to hire an adequate workforce. Saul should be prevented from making significant new commitments for contractors without specific outside approval.

Altmeyer Building Renovations Completed

 

From left to right, before during and after renovations

     From the General Services Administration (GSA), which handles a lot of the federal government's housekeeping duties, including handling federal properties:

... An example of optimization is the recently completed modernization project at the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Arthur J. Altmeyer Building in Woodlawn, Maryland. The Altmeyer Building serves as SSA’s main facility on their headquarters campus, housing the SSA Commissioner, SSA executives and support staff.

In 2013, GSA and SSA completed a master plan that identified the Altmeyer Building as their highest priority to optimizing the headquarters campus. Constructed in 1959, the 181,662 square foot facility includes office and meeting space, and a first floor auditorium. With no major renovations in 60 years, Altmeyer was functionally and technologically obsolete, with original building systems past their expected life and costly to maintain.

SSA and GSA collaborated on a full building modernization, using Altmeyer’s existing structure to save taxpayers nearly $13 million. Demolition and asbestos abatement began in summer 2018. GSA renovated all exterior cladding and interior finishes, and modernized the auditorium. New elevators and building systems were installed including mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire alarms.

The modernization project improved space utilization, nearly doubling building occupancy to approximately 800 SSA employees. ...

White House To Propose 9.7% Appropriations Increase For SSA

      From an attachment to a letter from the Office of Management and Budget to the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is responsible for providing essential benefits to retirees, survivors, individuals with disabilities, and elderly Americans with limited income and resources. The 2022 discretionary request would improve the timely processing of disability claims, expand outreach to vulnerable populations, ensure that SSA makes the correct payments to those who qualify, and modernize information technology to increase the accessibility of benefits for seniors and people with disabilities. 

The President’s 2022 discretionary request includes $14.2 billion for SSA, a $1.3 billion or 9.7-percent increase from the 2021 enacted level. This includes appropriations for program integrity activities. It: 

• Strengthens SSA Services. Each year, SSA processes over six million retirement, survivors, and Medicare claims as well as more than two million disability and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims. The discretionary request provides $895 million in additional funding to provide better service at SSA’s field offices, State disability determination services, and teleservice centers for the retirees, individuals with disabilities, and their families who rely on the agency. The request would address operational challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic by increasing staff to process additional disability claims, to reduce the processing time for disability claims, and to answer calls from those seeking assistance. 
• Increases Outreach to Vulnerable Populations. The discretionary request invests an additional $75 million in outreach to ensure that SSI benefits reach the most vulnerable eligible individuals, including homeless individuals, children with disabilities, and those with mental and intellectual disabilities. As part of this work, the request would invest in efforts that simplify and expand access to the program. These efforts include partnering with community-based organizations that work with vulnerable populations and delivering targeted mailers to potential SSI claimants. 
• Promotes Program Integrity. The discretionary request includes $1.9 billion for dedicated program integrity activities, including a $283 million increase above the 2021enacted level. This amount would ensure responsible spending of Social Security funds, including by funding work to ensure SSA is providing the correct benefit amounts only to those who qualify. These funds also support actions to investigate and help prosecute fraud. 
• Improves Customer Service. The discretionary request fully supports SSA’s modernization plans to maintain and improve its information technology systems, which would reduce customer wait times, improve accessibility and make more services available online, and improve the efficiency of SSA’s operations.

     I'll talk about this more later but I'm concerned about how the current leadership at Social Security will choose to spend additional money. There's a history of Republicans using increased Social Security appropriations on contractors, especially on long term contracts that tie up agency funds for many years into the future, thereby avoiding hiring additional employees to get the work done. There needs to be a balance but it was clear in the past that Republicans were not trying to balance; their fixed pole was keeping the workforce down.

Remembering Field Reps

      Tom Margenau remembers the old days when Social Security had field representatives who, like actually, went outside their offices, to the field, to help people file claims and otherwise deal with the agency.

     The lousy service we have come to expect from Social Security isn’t inevitable. It’s based upon decisions made over many years by people who are indifferent to the level of service the agency provides, if not hostile to good service.  We deserve better.

It's A Start

      To comply with guidelines from the Office of Management and Budget, Social Security has released a COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan. However, the plan contains almost nothing about how the agency will handle the general reopening of its offices to its employees and the public, much less when that might be.

Why Is David Black Still On The Job?

      David Black was nominated to be Associate Commissioner of Social Security by former President Trump and confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate. According to the statute, the Commissioner of Social Security is appointed to a six year term and can only be removed "pursuant to a finding by the President of neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." Whether that limitation on the President's powers is constitutional is another question but, unlike the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner enjoys no protection against being fired by the President for any reason or no reason. Why is David Black still on the job?

I Wish There Had Been More Of This

      Nancy Altman, the President of Social Security Works and a member of the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB), writes for The Hill on the harsh new musculoskeletal Listings that went into effect on April 2.  I wish there had been far more criticism of these rules, enough to have stopped them from going into effect. They just seem to technical to most people. That word "musculoskeletal" isn't in most people's vocabulary.

     By the way, there's still not been a public release of the study that supposedly showed that the new Listings won't affect the number of disability claims being released. I'd really like to see that.

Plan To Add $9,000 Covid Funeral Expense Benefit Administered By FEMA

      The Biden Administration plans to have the Federal Emergency Management Agency cut $9,000 checks to the survivors of Covid-19 deaths to pay funeral expenses. That's nice but I have a better idea. Why don't we do something about Social Security's absurdly low $255 death benefit? It's so low it probably costs more to administer than is paid in benefits. Covid survivors aren't the only ones facing difficulties paying funeral expenses. It's a common problem.

     Let me make it clear to any unsophisticated reader of this blog that it isn't the Social Security Administration's choice to pay only a $255 death benefit. That was passed by Congress many, many years ago and the agency has no authority to deviate from it. The $255 payments were inadequate at the time Congress added the benefit to Social Security and they were never indexed for inflation.