EM-07084 Part 3

March 20 Letter From AFGE To Commissioner Astrue

March 20, 2009

Commissioner Astrue:

On February 23, 2009 I sent you a letter regarding the Commissioner’s broadcast that you issued to all SSA employees on February 17, 2009 regarding the Economic Stimulus bill. In this broadcast you stated that SSA would be hiring 5000 to 6000 new employees in 2009. In my letter I urged you to use this hiring authority as an opportunity to provide current SSA employees past due merit promotion opportunities and to use the new hiring authority to backfill vacancies created by promoting current deserving SSA employees to higher graded positions. I made a legitimate request for information asking what positions SSA intended to fill through outside hires and what positions SSA intended to fill through the merit promotion process.

I received a reply to this letter from Milt Beever, Associate Commissioner of Labor and Employee Relations, on March 2, 2009. Mr. Beever failed to answer the information request and stated that it was premature to speculate on the mix of outside hires and merit promotion opportunities that the Agency would utilize to “make the most efficient use of stimulus resources”. He indicated that the Agency would be designing a plan encompassing a combination of new hires and merit promotion opportunities to make the most efficient use of the stimulus budget authority provided by Congress to SSA.

I responded to Mr. Beever on March 3, 2009 expressing skepticism of the Agency’s assurances regarding providing adequate promotional authority and questioning skewed statistical data that Mr. Beever provided in his response of March 2, 2009 that portrayed a false representation of SSA record regarding merit promotion. I asked for accurate information regarding SSA’s hiring and merit promotion record over the past three years so that we could have a meaningful dialogue regarding this issue. I also questioned whether no decisions have been made in this area since you encouraged managers in your 2/17/09 Commissioner’s broadcast to start the hiring process.

On March 9, 2009 Mr. Beever sent me an e-mail and stated that I should receive a response to my March 3, 2009 letter by March 16, 2009. No response has been received to date.

Last week on March 11, 2009 you sent another message to all SSA employees regarding President Obama’s signing of the FY 09 appropriations bill and your decision to lift SSA hiring restrictions. Your broadcast also provided information regarding the FY 10 appropriation request. In the broadcast you assert that President Obama and Congress provided SSA with budgetary support in the stimulus package, the FY 09 and FY 10 budgets due to your efforts to communicate SSA’s budgetary requirements. Your self serving plaudets ignores the work that numerous SSA employees have done to educate and lobby Congress and the Obama administration for more resources for SSA. Your failure to acknowledge such efforts in this broadcast is an insult to those employees who are dedicated advocates of SSA. It also contradicts history which is that your FY 09 budget request was actually less than that requested by your predecessor in FY 08. Congress provided a higher budget than you requested for FY 09 primarily due to efforts of SSA unions, SSA management organizations and retirement and disability constituent groups. All these organizations urged Congress for more resources since your request was too low.

Your March 11 broadcast further urges managers to “begin laying the groundwork for bringing on new employees”. Despite the statements of Mr. Beever that it is “premature for us to speculate” regarding hires and promotions, it is clear that management has already made its decisions regarding how many employees will be hired, what jobs they will be hired to fill and the mix of hires for each SSA component. As is your legacy, you have failed to communicate those decisions to the Union despite clear requests by AFGE for this information. In addition, your agent, Mr. Beever, has failed to tell the truth regarding SSA’s intentions and ignored his own deadlines for providing AFGE requested information.

The Union has learned from numerous sources that SSA has allocated positions to managers with hiring authority and decisions have been made on which positions to fill. Information has been provided to other groups regarding the number of positions SSA intends to fill in each SSA component and in the DDS. In fact the Union has learned that you intend to fill the following vacancies:

• 157 ALJs

• 600-700 ODAR

• 175 PSC

• 125 TSC

• 1450 Field – DCO

• 1000 DDS

If these figures are accurate, rather than hiring 5000-6000 employees in SSA as you stated in your 2/17/09 Commissioner broadcast, the Agency is only hiring about 2600 SSA workers and 1000 DDS workers. The field which is about 58% of the SSA workforce will only receive about 25% of the new employees that you stated in your 2/17/09 broadcast that SSA would hire in 2009. In view of the problems with the inability of the public to reach SSA employees by phone through either the 800 number or at their local office, and in view of the failure of SSA to process significant portions of its Continuing Disability Review and redetermination integrity workloads, and in view of the increased interviewing waiting times in field offices across the country, it is incomprehensible that SSA would devote such a small percentage of jobs to the field/TSC. Please confirm whether the above figures are accurate and please explain why the field is being shortchanged in comparison to its size and the backlog problems.

Your two Commissioner broadcasts regarding the budget, the stimulus package and SSA hiring plans are notable in that neither address merit promotion opportunities that SSA should offer to existing employees in conjunction with this hiring effort. While the existing workforce is anticipating long neglected promotional opportunities, your messages offer no hope to employees that SSA will be afforded any promotional opportunities in conjunction with the Agency’s hiring plans. Lower graded SSA workers have been patiently waiting for promotional opportunities and SSA appears to be telling them to continue to wait, since the stimulus hires will be to jobs in the normal line of promotions. Please confirm or clarify this conclusion.

It is also evident that managers in the field have been instructed to use discredited non competitive hiring authorities such as the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP) to fill SSA vacancies. Managers are informing employees that they are seeking new hires at colleges and using other non-competitive sources. Jobs are not being posted on the USA jobs network for competitive hires. Despite the use of FCIP, SSA appears to have a strategy to cover up the fact that this has become their primary hiring tool. The SSA National Recruitment Guide of July 2008 states:

SSA will use all available recruitment and retention resources to attract, recruit and retain employees, particularly those with critical and hard-to-fill skills. Do not reference FCIP. (Emphasis added) We do not want to highlight our use of FCIP in light of the pending NTEU suit against OPM which alleges that agencies use FCIP to circumvent merit systems principles. We’re trying to avoid being dragged into the lawsuit.

You should be wary of using non-competitive hiring authorities such as FCIP. SSA’s own statistics indicate that in FY 08 62% of hires in SSA were done under FCIP. Only 4.68% of these hires were veterans. Only 26% of hires in SSA in FY 08 were done under competitive procedures. However, 17.45% of competitive hires were veterans. FCIP clearly discriminates against veterans yet you persist in using it as the primary mechanism for hiring new employees. Reports indicate that FCIP and other non-competitive hiring methodologies will be the exclusive procedure for hiring new employees authorized under the stimulus budget despite the adverse affect this will have on veteran employment opportunities. To use such a discriminatory hiring mechanism during wartime is unfathomable. To hide to avoid lawsuits is disingenuous.

AFGE has also received a number of reports from employees complaining that managers have used FCIP to hire their relatives, friends, neighbors, fellow church members, etc. Examples are the FCIP hire of Ryan Kulinski, son of Milwaukee DT District Manager Mark Kulinski or the FCIP hiring of Mark Fansler, nephew of Seattle Area Director Steve Dymale. Both Kulinski and Fansler were not only FCIP hires but they were quickly selected at the first opportunity to higher graded positions instead of highly qualified veteran employees who were not related to management. It is clear that the FCIP method of selection is corrupt. The FCIP hiring system is unfair to selectees in that it subjects them to a 2 year probationary period instead of the 1 year probationary period that exists for competitive hires. 1 year is a sufficient period of time for SSA to determine whether an employee possesses the necessary tools to succeed as an SSA employee. Requiring an additional year of probationary period is oppressive. I urge you to terminate this corrupt and discriminatory non-competitive system for hiring. If the Agency persists in using FCIP as a hiring mechanism AFGE will seriously consider filing a law suit to force the Agency to terminate this hiring mechanism which was not ever designed for the routine hiring that SSA is using with stimulus revenue.

Your March 11, 2009 Broadcast concludes by touting SSA as “A leader of hiring persons with disabilities and that we should continue our outstanding record in hiring and promoting these employees”. This statement is highly deceptive and distorts the truth. SSA does have a higher percentage of disabled employees than most Agencies. However, SSA’s promotion record for the disabled is miserable. Evidence indicates that the disabled are selected for promotions when they appear on well qualified lists at a significant smaller percentage than non-disabled employees. This poor promotion record has caused many disabled SSA employees to file a class action discrimination case against SSA for its failure to promote the disabled. This case has been certified by the EEOC as a proper class and AFGE is confident that the evidence will show that SSA discriminates against the disabled in the merit promotion process. You should concentrate in eliminating such discrimination rather than ignoring it and issuing false self praising missives.

The union expects you to provide the information that we have requested regarding hires and promotion plans for 2009. AFGE requests that your hiring strategy for 2009 take into account the widespread promotional aspirations of the workforce. AFGE also requests that you reconsider the distribution of staff resources and fill vacancies in the field proportionate to the field’s percentage of employees. The Union also urges you to abandon the FCIP hiring system and to take steps to eliminate discrimination in promotions for SSA’s disabled workforce.

Sincerely

Witold Skwierczynski

AFGE General Committee

Cc: AFGE General Committee

AFGE SSA Local Presidents

J. Gage

M. Beever

L. McMahan

M. Baucus

J. Tanner

AFGE Statement

STATEMENT BY AFGE COUNCIL PRESIDENT WITOLD SKWIERCZYNSKI, REGARDING EAA FACILITIES AT SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION HQ, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 12:26 AM

Union leaders:

Yesterday Commissioner Astrue sent an inflammatory message to every SSA and DDS employee regarding the Employee Activity Association (EAA). There are separate Employee Activity Associations within SSA in various locations throughout the SSA universe. Mr. Astrue’s poorly worded communication to every employee has raised questions regarding the survival of these numerous EAA’s. Although I am hardly a spokesperson for Mr. Astrue, I do believe that his message to SSA and DDS employees concerns the Baltimore Headquarters EAA.

The EAA has provided services to SSA employees in the Baltimore area for 68 years. The EAA has run both SSA Headquarters day care centers since 1991. They also ran the Headquarters fitness centers. The EAA also has stores which provide postal services, bill paying services, transportation services, etc. The EAA also sponsors SSA athletic teams and was the ticket vendor for the annual SSA night at the Orioles game.

Last year Commissioner Astrue contended that the Agency had received complaints about child abuse at the day care center and that the Agency conducted a survey regarding child care services and the EAA scored poorly on the survey. Commissioner Astrue initiated an “investigation” and admitted that the child abuse allegations could not be proven. GSA had conducted national day care surveys and the Headquarters EEA run day care centers scored high on the survey. Astrue, however, devised his own unscientific survey, distributed it selectively to parents and used a scoring system that penalized for unanswered questions. He then compared it to the average scores of the GSA survey which asked different questions. This was clearly a bogus attempt to achieve a preordained result – a finding that the EAA run day care centers had poor acceptance from parents.

Astrue then asserted that there were financial irregularities in the management of the day care centers. Although the EAA undergoes an annual audit, they invited Astrue to audit its day care operations. While conducting the day care audit, Astrue’s auditors started demanding records for the fitness center. Users of the fitness center are required to provide medical certification to the fitness center in order to use the facilities. Astrue’s auditors demanded to inspect employee fitness center users’ medical records. The EAA demanded to know on what authority SSA was asking to inspect medical records of fitness center users. SSA terminated their audit and alleged that the EAA was being uncooperative.

Subsequently SSA set up a hand-picked Board of Directors for the day care center and demanded that the board fire the EAA and select a new for-profit business to run the day care centers. Astrue took these actions in violation of Article 20 of the AFGE/SSA contract which provides for union participation in the day care center board. The Agency tried to limit union participation. Astrue completely ignored the monitoring role of the National AFGE/SSA Child Care Committee. The national AFGE/SSA contract requires this committee to monitor all SSA child care centers. The Committee is responsible for monitoring the operations and funding of SSA child care centers and is also responsible for analyzing the results of any surveys regarding such centers. Astrue totally ignored this contractual requirement and sent no information regarding the alleged problems regarding the Baltimore child care centers to the National SSA/AFGE Child Care Committee.

The day care center has been handed over to a for profit corporation from Texas. The “abusive” day care staff was retained but their compensation package was cut. Tuitions are expected to increase in the future.

SSA gave notice to EAA at the end of 2008 that it would take over operations of the fitness center and contract out its operation. SSA also notified the EAA that is must close all its stores by 1/16/08.

Employees at Headquarters were outraged and asked the union to take action to Save the EAA. AFGE Local 1923 called for a rally on January 22, 2008 at Headquarters to protest the Commissioner’s actions to shut down the EAA. Senator Barbara Mikulski had already sent a strongly worded protest to Commissioner Astrue on 1/9/09 urging him to stop all plans to undermine the EAA. She criticized Astrue’s “unsupported claims of financial impropriety and mischaracterized statements made by EAA officials”. The Senator also expressed concern about the audit authorized by Astrue “for the sole purpose of trying to shut down the EAA”.

On the day of the rally over 300 SSA employees were greeted by an overwhelming police presence. Commissioner Astrue had summoned police from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Protective Service (FPS) and contract guards. In addition, demonstrating SSA employees were greeted by police dogs. After speeches, AFGE President John Gage, Local 1923 President Cynthia Ennis, and AFGE NVP Joe Flynn attempted to deliver copies of over 3500 postcards that SSA employees had sent to Senator Barbara Mikulski protesting Commissioner Astrue’s actions to eject EAA from SSA. They were greeted by police in the lobby and on the 9^th floor of the Altmeyer Building which is the location of Commissioner Astrue’s office. The aisle to Astrue’s office was blocked by the police. The Commissioner’s Acting Chief of Staff took the box and the event was over.

Veteran SSA union officials who have attended many union rallies at SSA facilities indicated that they had never seen anything like the Astrue ordered police presence which was obviously summoned in an effort to intimidate the demonstrators. Not only did SSA order scores of police to the rally but unidentified photographers, who apparently worked for either SSA or the police agencies, took pictures of the entire rally. The union has subsequently learned that some employees were advised by their managers that it would not be in their best interest to attend the rally. Other managers appeared to purposely schedule meetings at 11 AM (the time of the rally) so employees could not attend the event. Other employees were denied leave to attend the rally.

Commissioner Astrue responded to the Mikulski letter with unspecific assertions regarding “abuses”, “predatory conduct” lack of “professional care” by the EAA. In the letter he falsely stated that I told him that any change in child care vendors would result in an abrupt increase in
child care fees. I have never had any conversation with Mr. Astrue about the EAA. Such attacks are similar to his false accusations against me last year that I had mischaracterized the fact that SSA closed a record number of offices in 2007 and, according to Linda McMahon, intended to close many more. Facts are facts and the record of 15 closed offices in 2007 is the most SSA closed in any other year.

Congressman Elijah Cummings, whose district includes the SSA Woodlawn Headquarters complex, has subsequently sent a strongly worded reply to Astrue’s response to the Mikulski letter. He specifically criticizes Astrue’s unsupported allegations regarding financial impropriety by the EAA.

Yesterday an AFGE ad appeared in the Baltimore Sun which specifically criticizes Astrue for his views on privatizing SSA and his actions against the EAA. (Although Astrue has remained silent on privatization legislative proposals, he does effusively praise aggressive privatization advocates such as Andrew Biggs and Dorcas Hardy, both with extensive backgrounds in the CATO Institute which supports eliminating SSA.) The ad criticizes the fact that under Astrue’s watch SSA’s staff and budget have been inadequate to meet the needs of the American public. It expressed No Confidence in his continuing ability to lead SSA. This ad mirrored the No Confidence petition that many of you signed.

On the same day an article was published in the Washington Post in which AFGE President Gage indicates that the union is asking President Obama to seek Commissioner Astrue’s resignation and, if he refuses, will be asking the President to remove him for malfeasance and neglect.

Commissioner Astrue’s response to yesterday’s newspaper ad and story was to attack the EAA and attack AFGE in his Commissioner’s Broadcast to all SSA and DDS employees. He attacks AFGE for threatening political retaliation against him and “Social Security’s career civil service”. In response, Commissioner Astrue has done a lot of damage to SSA in the 2 short years that he has been in charge of the Agency. He has submitted inadequate budget requests, has created an iClaims system which cheats hard working wage earners of their hard earned benefits, has transformed SSA from an Agency that prides itself in assisting the public in obtaining the best possible benefit package when they apply for benefits to an Agency that ignores evidence that claimants are making choices guaranteed to cause them to lose benefits and has worked to destroy the community based SSA service structure by closing offices and/orwstripping offices of sufficient staff able to provide adequate services to customers.

He implies that the Union supports dishonesty, opposes transparency and compliance with the law. Yet Mr. Astrue makes false statements regarding conversations with me that never happened. He does not tell the truth about office closings. Now, while attempting to convince Congress to agree to provide $750 million for a new National Computer Center (NCC), Commissioner Astrue has declined to inform the Union, NCC employees or Congress that SSA intends to move the NCC out of the Baltimore commuting area to Frederick or Westminster MD. Commissioner Astrue doesn’t seem concerned about the impact of such a move on either the 4000 employees who work at the NCC or the affect on the community that the loss of 4000 jobs will create. This secret effort to move the NCC into the only Republican Congressional District in MD must be Astrue’s definition of transparency.

SSA officials who undermine the program and are incompetent should be removed. Thus, Astrue should resign and “career civil service” officials who are either incompetent or have harmed the agency like Wells, McMahon and Beever also need to be replaced. President Obama needs SSA leaders who he can work with and not this crew who are actively attempting to undermine SSA. It’s time for a change.

Witold Skwierczynski /s/

President

AFGE Council 220

Social Security Ruling 96-8p As Originally Published

NASI Proposals

PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FROM GARNISHMENT

Because Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits are essential to meet basic needs, the Social Security Act protects the benefits from garnishment or attachment by creditors. Nevertheless, when benefits are deposited in a bank account, beneficiaries may find that their accounts have been temporarily frozen, or worse, permanently garnished at the behest of a creditor under provisions of statelaw. Because the government encourages direct deposit, over 80 percent of Social Security and SSI recipients receive their benefits electronically. In Safer than the Mattress, John Infranca proposes a five-part legislative and administrative policy solution to ensure that Social Security and other exempt federal benefits remain safe from garnishment, attachment, and freezes when they are deposited in a bank.

HELPING HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS GET DISABILITY BENEFITS

Social Security and SSI disability benefits are often the main sources of stable income for people who have serious mental illness. Individuals who are homeless face particular barriers in navigating the application process. They typically lack a mailing address, transportation, and a treatment history from accepted medical sources (physicians or licensed psychologists). In Improving Social Security Disability Programs for Adults Experiencing Long-term Homelessness, Yvonne Perret and Deborah Dennis
propose three strategies to address these barriers: (a) expand the acceptable
medical sources to include professions likely to be available in publicly funded health and mental health care systems; (b) use SSA’s presumptive eligibility for SSI disability benefits for people with schizophrenia who are homeless for at least six months; and (c) modify the administrative process to accommodate homeless individuals consistent with SSA’s Homeless Plan of 2002.

STRENGTHENING SOCIAL SECURITY WAGE REPORTING FOR FARM WORKERS

Farm workers are at risk of not having their work count toward Social Security benefits because their employers may erroneously classify them as independent contractors or simply fail to pay Social Security taxes and report wages. In Strengthening Social Security for Farm Workers: The Fragile Retirement Prospects for Hispanic Farm Worker Families, Barbara Robles supports legislation introduced in the 110th Congress, along with stronger enforcement of existing laws, to strengthen wage reporting. She notes that the changes would increase tax receipts and benefit the Latino farm worker population by increasing their Social Security benefits, providing better access to the Earned Income Tax Credit, and easing the burden on adult children of farm workers who have the triple burden of school debt, raising children and supporting aging parents.

REDUCING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS

To qualify for Social Security retired-worker benefits, individuals must have worked at least 40 calendar quarters (ten years) in jobs covered by Social Security. In The Effects of Reducing Eligibility Requirements for Social Security Retirement Benefits, Andrew Biggs examines the impact of eliminating the 40-quarters eligibility requirement. A small group of individuals (about 6 percent of those born in 1950) would gain eligibility for Social Security retired-worker benefits. The increases in benefits would often substitute for means-tested SSI benefits. Much of the new benefits would flow to immigrants who are not otherwise eligible for Social Security.

IMPROVING BENEFITS FOR WIDOWED SPOUSES OF LOW-EARNING COUPLES

Social Security is especially important to older women, particularly widows. Most poor elderly women are widows. Social Security survivor benefits help to bridge the transition to widowhood, but the benefits are less adequate when both the husband and wife had worked at low pay. In Strengthening Social Security Benefits for Widow(er)s: The 75 Percent Combined Worker Benefit Alternative, Joan Entmacher proposes to increase benefits for widowed spouses of low-earning dual-earner couples. The new widowed-spouse benefit would be 75 percent of the combined retired-worker benefits of the husband and the wife, but would be capped to not exceed the benefit for one person who had earned the average wage over a career.

INCREASING THE SOCIAL SECURITY SPECIAL MINIMUM BENEFIT AND UPDATING SSI

A special minimum benefit was added to the Social Security program in 1974, but few receive it today because it does not keep up with wage growth. In Enhancing Social Security for Low-Income Workers: Coordinating an Enhanced Minimum Benefit with Social Safety Net Provisions for Seniors, Laura Sullivan, Tatjana Meschede and Thomas M. Shapiro examine ways to update the special minimum benefit so that individuals with 30 years of work covered by Social Security would receive benefits that meet the updated poverty measure of the National Academy of Sciences, which is about 125 percent of the current official poverty threshold. They also propose to update SSI to reflect inflation since the program began – that is, increase the asset limit for individuals from $2,000 to $6,700 and increase the general income exclusion from $20 to $89.

A NEW SOCIAL SECURITY MINIMUM BENEFIT FOR LOW LIFETIME EARNERS

Despite a lifetime of hard work, many workers end up poor or near poor in
retirement. In A New Minimum Benefit for Low Lifetime Earners, Melissa Favreault examines a new minimum benefit that targets workers with long careers and low lifetime earnings, along with a modest credit that compensates for up to three years of low (or no) earnings due to caregiving, unemployment, or poor health. The benefit at the full retirement age would pay 60 percent of the poverty threshold for a worker with 20 years of Social Security covered work and increase to 110 percent of the poverty threshold for a worker with 40 years of work. Caregiver credits would be available only in years when a child is under age 4 and only to one parent. The credit
would be 60 percent of the average wage in the first such year, 50 percent in the second year and 40 percent in the third year.

A SOCIAL SECURITY SUPPLEMENT FOR LOW-INCOME WORKING PARENTS

Social Security provides benefits for spouses and widowed spouses, but does not provide credit for raising children. A growing portion of retiring women will not qualify for spousal benefits because they are divorced (with less than 10 years of marriage) or never married, yet will have earnings records that are limited because of time spent caring for their children. In Crediting Care in Social Security: A Proposal for an Income-Tested Care Supplement, Pamela Herd proposes to supplement Social Security benefits for retirees who have raised one or more children. The supplement would be an additional 75 percent of the worker’s benefit (80 percent if two or more children were raised) but would be capped to not push the retiree’s household income above 125 percent of the poverty threshold. The benefit and income testing would be administered through individual tax returns, similar to the Earned Income Tax Credit.

INCREASING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR FAMILY ELDER CAREGIVERS

Informal care provided by family members improves quality of life for frail elders, allows them to remain in the community instead of in nursing homes, and saves Medicaid dollars. Providing the care also imposes opportunity costs on caregivers that weaken their own retirement security. In Retirement Security for Family Elder Care Givers, Shelley I. White-Means and Rose M. Rubin propose to provide up to four years of Social Security credit to individuals who provide care to elders. The elders must be certified to need levels of care that would qualify for Medicaid coverage. The value of the credit would be the caregiver’s average wage in the three years before caregiving interrupted earnings. The authors suggest the credit could be financed based on the reduction in public spending for nursing home care.

INCREASING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR LOW-WAGE SINGLE RETIREES

Single retirees (that is, never married, divorced or widowed) are at high risk of being poor in old age. The decline in private pensions, rising out-of-pocket health costs, and declining housing values can be expected to make the already precarious financial situation of unmarried retirees even worse. In Restoring Old Age Income Security to Low-Wage Single Workers, Patricia Dilley proposes a change to the basic Social Security retired-worker benefit formula that would increase benefits for single retirees with at least 30 years of covered employment and low lifetime earnings. A second change would target single beneficiaries over age 85. Those who had at least 30 years of covered work, and received relatively low benefits (less than 75 percent of the average benefit), would receive a 10 percent benefit increase at age 85.

INCREASING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS AT ADVANCED AGES

People who live into their 80s and 90s face a growing risk of becoming poor. They rely more and more on Social Security because their other sources of income decline as they age: private pensions, if received, are eroded by inflation; income from work is very rarely an option; and financial assets may have been spent. In Longevity Insurance, Strengthening Social Security at Advanced Ages, John Turner proposes increasing benefits at age 82 (about the average life expectancy at age 65) for beneficiaries with low Social Security benefits and long work histories. This longevity insurance would improve financial security for individuals who live longer than the
average life span.

EASING THE IMPACT OF INCREASING THE RETIREMENT AGE: OCCUPATIONAL DISABILITY

Legislation in 1983 increased from 65 to 67 the age at which Social Security pays full retirement benefits. The change lowers retirement benefits at each age they are claimed. Disabled-worker benefits remain unreduced, but are not available to individuals who fail to meet a strict test – “inability to engage in any gainful activity” – yet are unable to continue in their jobs. In Strengthening Social Security for Workers in Physically Demanding Jobs, Eric Klieber proposes a benefit for such individuals based on an occupational disability test – “inability to perform the essential duties of one’s current occupation.” Making such an occupational disability benefit available at age 62 could protect recipients from retired-worker benefit reductions (or part of such reductions) due to increasing the full benefit age.

Letter On Social Security Funding

The undersigned organizations represent the millions of Americans with a stake in the efficient and effective operation of the Social Security Administration (SSA), including older Americans, people with disabilities, workers of all ages, and survivors of workers. We greatly appreciate the efforts you have made already this year to provide additional funding above the President’s Budget Request so that SSA may further address the unacceptable backlog of disability appeals hearings and other serious problems with service delivery to the public. We respectfully request that SSA’s final administrative funding for FY 2009 be no less than the House recommended level of $10.427 billion.

We strongly believe that any level of funding below $10.427 billion would exacerbate the massive backlog in disability appeals hearings. Currently a near record high of over 767,000 hearings are pending and the average wait for a decision in FY 2008 was 514 days. These enormous delays are in addition to the average time period of 250 days that most disability applicants must wait before even filing for an appeals hearing. An untold number of applicants are suffering severe financial hardships, including a rising number of home foreclosures. Many do not have health care, resulting in further deterioration of their conditions. Thousands of people have died before receiving a decision on their disability claims.

Even with the President’s proposed increase in funding for SSA in FY 2009 the agency does not expect the hearings backlog to be eliminated until 2013. Additionally, that date may be pushed back because there are now, and will continue to be, an increase in applications for disability benefits. This could be due to many factors including the economic downturn. We believe that it is absolutely imperative that SSA is funded at no less than $10.427 billion, providing at least an additional $100 million above the President’s Budget Request level.

Adequate funding for SSA is also needed to ensure that the agency is able to increase staffing levels in its Field Offices to improve some services to the public that are inadequate. As a result of insufficient Field Office staffing, customers in many offices are experiencing waiting times in excess of two hours. For those who try to reach their local SSA Field Office by telephone, busy rates are running at an unacceptable rate of an average of about 45 percent and disturbingly this figure pertains only to callers who ultimately get through to the local offices. It does not include all of those callers who never get through, even after making countless attempts. This problem results from the fact that Field Offices are receiving over 54 million business-related phone calls each year and do not have anywhere near the number of staff necessary to answer them.

As with disability appeals hearings, these inadequate levels of service in the Field Offices are being exacerbated by rising workloads in the agency’s Field Offices. For the current year, FY 2009, SSA actuaries now expect nearly 100,000 more Social Security retirement and disability claims than were initially projected in the President’s FY 2009 Budget Request. And as indicated above, these numbers may increase even further.

Funding above the President’s FY 2009 Budget Request will also help SSA to address the increased costs of its current personnel. In addition, SSA has an urgent need to improve its antiquated computer and information technology systems. SSA has a critical need for systems architecture improvements as well as a new data center. In addition, the agency’s ancient COBOL-based programming system needs to be replaced. Finally, the 54 Disability Determination Services (DDSs) need to be integrated into a single processing system. These computer and information technology costs total over one billion dollars. We must begin to address these critical needs.

Even though the President’s FY 2009 Budget Request for SSA is a step in the right direction, this level of funding will not fully address the problems we have described above. We respectfully request that the Social Security Administration’s final administrative funding level be no less than $10.427 billion for FY 2009. We realize the difficult decisions you must make regarding FY 2009 funding levels for many programs, and on behalf of our members throughout the country we appreciate your consideration of this request and your ongoing support for adequate funding for the Social Security Administration.

Sincerely,


AFSCME


American Association of Social Security Disability Consultants


American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities


American Association of People with Disabilities

American Foundation for the Blind


American Federation of Government Employees


American Federation of Teachers Program on Retirement and Retirees


Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law

Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation


Easter Seals


Epilepsy Foundation


Federal Managers Association


Lighthouse International


National Alliance on Mental Illness


National Association of Area Agencies on Aging


National Association of Social Workers


National Association of Disability Examiners


National Association of Disability Representatives


National Association of Professional Geriatric Care Managers


National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services


National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

National Council of Disability Determination Directors


National Council of Social Security Management Associations

National Council on Aging


National Disability Rights Network


National Down Syndrome Society


National Employment Network Association

National Multiple Sclerosis Society



National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives

National Respite Coalition



National Treasury Employees Union



Paralyzed Veterans of America



Research Institute for Independent Living


Social Security Section of the Federal Bar Association


Social Security Disability Coalition


The Arc of the United States


United Cerebral Palsy

ALJ Dispositions Per Day