Social Security: Congress just doesn't get it
Congressman Thomas M. Reynolds is "representative" (no pun intended) of a lot of congressman. And here's what I mean. The social security administration has a pilot project slated to begin in various areas of New York (Buffalo, Amherst, West Seneca and Niagara Falls). The project calls for closing social security field offices in these areas for up to three hours per day to allow workers to catch up, something they desperately need as increasing workloads and continued declines in the social security administration's workforce continue to make the job of field office workers untenable.
Congressman Reynolds opposes the project because he believes it would unfairly impact senior citizens and the disabled. And, yes, of course, it would. But how does it affect seniors and individuals with disabilities if social security claims reps continue to be buried under piles of work that only get bigger and bigger?
Reynolds points to the fact that SSA received a $451 million funding increase for budget in 2008. But anyone with any clue whatsoever knows that that amount is barely a drop in the budget. Were SSA given a real budget, one that would allow them to replace workers lost to attrition and retirement (which would have the effect of allowing the agency to retain their existing workers--by keeping workloads from continually rising), then the agency would not have to look for ways to jerry rig the system.
But that's not the case. The simple fact of the matter is, you can't keep an agency running and working properly when you don't even take the trouble of replacing workers who quit and retire. And crying about the "unfairness" of a cutback in public hours when the problems within the social security administration "lie" squarely at the feet of Congress (they, after all, fund the social security administration) is nothing less than disingenuous. And a lie.
Return to:
Social Security Disability Secrets
Congressman Reynolds opposes the project because he believes it would unfairly impact senior citizens and the disabled. And, yes, of course, it would. But how does it affect seniors and individuals with disabilities if social security claims reps continue to be buried under piles of work that only get bigger and bigger?
Reynolds points to the fact that SSA received a $451 million funding increase for budget in 2008. But anyone with any clue whatsoever knows that that amount is barely a drop in the budget. Were SSA given a real budget, one that would allow them to replace workers lost to attrition and retirement (which would have the effect of allowing the agency to retain their existing workers--by keeping workloads from continually rising), then the agency would not have to look for ways to jerry rig the system.
But that's not the case. The simple fact of the matter is, you can't keep an agency running and working properly when you don't even take the trouble of replacing workers who quit and retire. And crying about the "unfairness" of a cutback in public hours when the problems within the social security administration "lie" squarely at the feet of Congress (they, after all, fund the social security administration) is nothing less than disingenuous. And a lie.
Return to:
<< Home