January 24, 2007

Social Security nominee warns furloughs may be imminent
By David Hess, Congress Daily

Facing what he called "significant operational distress" at the Social Security Administration, commissioner-nominee Michael Astrue told the Senate Finance Committee Wednesday that rolling furloughs of Social Security employees are imminent unless Congress restores about $200 million in cuts in the agency's budget.

During testimony at his nomination hearing, Astrue faced tough questioning about his views on partial privatization of Social Security payments and benefits, as well as large backlogs in processing claims for disability benefits.

On private accounts, Astrue promised the committee he will "stay out of that debate," particularly after Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., warned that the proposal, advocated by President Bush, was "a non-starter" in the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Astrue said 10-day furloughs of the agency's workers are inevitable if enough money is not added back to the agency's budget. The money apparently would have to be incorporated in the anticipated yearlong continuing resolution that the House and Senate is expected to approve by Feb. 15, when the current CR expires.

Baucus said he intends "to work with appropriators to restore the [SSA] cutbacks ... It is critical. It would be absolutely irresponsible not to do it." Astrue testified that the money pinch has undercut morale in the agency and remains a major distraction.

A furlough of all employees, he said, "would have a serious impact on service." And, he said, the agency's managers are trying to figure out how to do it with the least damage to providing services for the millions of recipients and claimants.

"Any way you do it will be ugly," Astrue said. "It will demoralize employees and lead to backups in handling claims."

Astrue also was sharply questioned by Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., who complained about the long delays in managing disability claims, some spanning four years, and delays of up to two years in checking out Social Security numbers submitted by employees to determine if new workers are using false or recycled numbers. Bunning said Astrue was simply citing long-standing problems at the agency, which appear to him to be getting worse rather than better.

"The agency has absolutely sat on its duff in our [congressional] efforts to accelerate the processing of disability claims. It's outrageous. Some people die before they get their hearings," said Bunning, who added that the problem is not simply a lack of funding. "The problem is internal to the agency and must be fixed within the agency. I am sick and tired of [SSA] appearing before Congress and saying, 'We've got this problem.' Don't tell me we need only more dollars to fix it."

On the privatization issue, Astrue acknowledged he had "huge difficulties with the transition costs" of shifting trust fund resources to help pay for private accounts.

Independent actuaries have estimated it would cost the government about $5 trillion over 20 years to cover the cost. As for making any far-reaching changes in the agency itself, Astrue told the committee: "I tend to be an incrementalist. ... I'm a highly unlikely candidate to do any sweeping reorganization."

January 22, 2007

House Members Fight for Pay Parity
By Stephen Barr


The annual jousting over federal pay has begun.

Nine Washington area House members, led by Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), plan to send a letter to President Bush today urging him to recommend equal pay raises for the civil service and the military in his fiscal 2008 budget.

Hoyer expressed disappointment in the 2.2 percent raise for civil servants. (By Jay Mallin -- Bloomberg News)

The House members ask the president to "embrace the principle of pay parity," which the letter describes as a bipartisan approach that has been followed nearly every year for the past two decades.

Hoyer, in a statement released with the letter, said he was "very disappointed" by this year's "inadequate raise of only 2.2 percent, the lowest increase in nearly 20 years," and suggested that Bush propose a more generous raise for next year.

"I would hope the president plans to include in his fiscal year 2008 budget an increase that will make up for last year's unacceptably low pay adjustment," Hoyer said. "Not only do our federal employees deserve fair pay, but with an aging population and a looming human capital crisis,
now is the time to deliver the message that this nation values its federal workforce and will commit to recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest."

The House members who joined Hoyer in signing the letter are Reps. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), John Sarbanes (D-Md.), C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), Albert R. Wynn (D-Md.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.).

That list of lawmakers underscores that the raise is an important ingredient in the local economy. The Washington-Baltimore region is home to about 11 percent of the 1.8 million civil service workforce. The federal payroll was about $19.8 billion in the region last year, or about $76 million per day.

The Bush administration has balked at providing equal pay adjustments to the civil service and the military, contending that across-the-board raises fail to properly reward high-performing employees and hinder agencies that need to pay more for difficult jobs and specialized skills.

But Congress has mostly adhered to its pay parity tradition for the two segments. Some members of Congress have indicated that they prefer to see how the new civilian pay-for-performance systems work out at the Defense and Homeland Security departments before giving more discretion to federal agencies.

Congressional committees considered giving the civil service a 2.7 percent raise this year, but the proposal faded in late 2006 when the Senate could not resolve numerous disputes over fiscal 2007 spending bills. At the urging of the Pentagon, Congress approved a 2.2 percent raise for the military with higher raises permitted for mid-career officers and enlisted personnel in certain occupations. Bush later issued an executive order providing the civil service with a 2.2 percent raise this year.

The president's recommendation for next year's raise will come in his fiscal 2008 budget, which is scheduled to go to Congress on Feb. 5.

Under a 1990 federal pay law, government employees would be in line for a 2.5 percent raise next year. But the formula, based on data from the Labor Department's employment cost index, which measures wage growth, is not always followed by Congress or the White House.

The size of the 2008 raise may hinge on efforts in Congress to hold down spending and reduce the federal deficit. Still, some members of Congress may recommend a bigger raise than usual for the armed forces to recognize the toll that the Iraq fighting has taken on the troops and their families.

The decision on the raise, which usually comes late in the year as Congress wraps up appropriations bills, also will ripple across the area's nonprofit organizations and companies that use the federal raise as a benchmark when setting salaries.

In their letter, the House members said they see pay parity raises as key to keeping federal compensation as competitive as possible with the private sector. In addition, they said, an equal pay raise will send the message that all government employees are highly valued.

"As we fight the war on terrorism at home and abroad, both the armed forces and the federal civilian workforce are integral to fulfilling the role of government for the American people," the letter said.