9 votes
The form SS-5 should be phased out and replaced by a website that allows you to electronically submit your Social Security Card application and gives the applicant a printout with their license information to temporairily replace their driver's license while they are mailed to their respective field office for verification.
9 votes
Another way the government can save money is by purchasing some vehicles that are one to two years old with low miles that usually in almost like new and are slightly cheaper than their newer counterparts.
8 votes
There should be a government owned mechanic shop in each state staffed with certified mechanics repairing government owned vehicles. Also each vehicle that the government buys should be used until the cost of repairs outweighs the value on a replacement vehicle. In that situation the vehicle would then be repaired and sold to reclaim lost money.
18 votes
How much of our tax payer money is wasted on fraud? Billions of our hard earned dollars go out to people defrauding Social Security and Medicare as an example. Create new systems to identify fraud, move analysts to work in identifying and stopping fradulent payments. The work of these individuals would pay for itself!
19 votes
It costs the government more money to pay out the lump sum death payment than the $255.00 payout to the widow(er) - if she/he is eligible. This money use to be paid to the funeral home many years ago. This $255 has never been increased. It would save the government millions of dollars per year to stop paying this out. This amount doesn't even begin to pay for a funeral, and many of the claimants think it's a joke to ...more »
It costs the government more money to pay out the lump sum death payment than the $255.00 payout to the widow(er) - if she/he is eligible. This money use to be paid to the funeral home many years ago. This $255 has never been increased. It would save the government millions of dollars per year to stop paying this out. This amount doesn't even begin to pay for a funeral, and many of the claimants think it's a joke to pay the $255.
« less full details »
11 votes
Social Security should stop the continuing disability reviews for patients that are at Rainier State School, and the like. The patients at Rainer have down syndrome, and/or mentally retarded, they will NEVER get better. It costs the government approximatly $1,000 or more per person to have their disability reviewed to see if they still meet Social Security requirements in order to continue receiving disability benefits. ...more »
Social Security should stop the continuing disability reviews for patients that are at Rainier State School, and the like. The patients at Rainer have down syndrome, and/or mentally retarded, they will NEVER get better. It costs the government approximatly $1,000 or more per person to have their disability reviewed to see if they still meet Social Security requirements in order to continue receiving disability benefits. Once they are approved and have medical evidence in file that they are mentally retarded or have down syndrome, they shouldn't have their medical reveiwed every five to seven years. There are many other disabilitites out there that the people will NEVER get better, but have their medical reveiwed every five years.
« less full details »
14 votes
People who collect unemployment must certify they are ready willing and able to work. To qualify for SSA Disabilty you must certify you are disabled and unable to do any type of work. Since these certifications are completely contradictory, once an applicant certifies they are disabled and unable to work, their unemployment should be ceased or their disability claim should be denied.
7 votes
Currently SSA utilizes a payment center staffed by Benefit Authorizers (BA) who manually authorize payments on approved Title II claims while SSI claims under Title XVI are automated. By automating the authorization of Title II claims, BA could be retrained to assist in the processing of Teleclaims and Internet applications reducing the workload of SSA District Offices while decreasing the lag in claim processing and ...more »
Currently SSA utilizes a payment center staffed by Benefit Authorizers (BA) who manually authorize payments on approved Title II claims while SSI claims under Title XVI are automated. By automating the authorization of Title II claims, BA could be retrained to assist in the processing of Teleclaims and Internet applications reducing the workload of SSA District Offices while decreasing the lag in claim processing and eliminating human error from benefit calculations.
« less full details »
19 votes
Why kill trees? Paper eliminates forests and costs alot of money to produce. Social Security Administration is wasting millions of dollars sending annual statements to everyone. Although the earnings records and future projections of Retirement Benefits, Disability Benefits, and Survivors Benefits are informative, it is wasteful to prepare, print and mail individual statements every year. In addition to the retirement ...more »
Why kill trees? Paper eliminates forests and costs alot of money to produce.
Social Security Administration is wasting millions of dollars sending annual statements to everyone. Although the earnings records and future projections of Retirement Benefits, Disability Benefits, and Survivors Benefits are informative, it is wasteful to prepare, print and mail individual statements every year.
In addition to the retirement projections, another objective for SSA was to be "customer friendly" and allow participants to review their earnings data to determine its accuracy.
The earliest retirement benefit commences at age 62. Disability or survivors benefits are available in certain circumstances, but annually the projections do not materially change.
Therefore, I recommend that SSA prepare and mail these Statements less frequently, such as: for individuals less than 35 years old, every 5 years; for individuals between 35 and 55 years old, every 3 years; and then annually after age 55. Retirement planning is most relevant as one gets closer to this event. Also consider making this information available to beneficiaries electronically, in a secure way, similar to internet banking.
Recordkeeping may be important, but someone 25 years of age, who has a retirement horizon so far in the future, should be able to verify their earnings data once in 5 years.
This would benefit to the government greatly, in the form of savings for computer processing, paper, printing and mailing costs, in addition to the manpower costs.
Just imagine the millions of dollars that could be saved. The government will be more efficient, with no negative consequences to individuals, and at the same time we are saving trees.
« less full details »
9 votes
Social Security should have changed with the times. It hasn't. It could be the retirement answer for all, if done correctly. What if we made Social Security NOTHING more than a portable retirement system? What if we (a) fully funded it, (b) made it so it couldn't be borrowed from by the government without a guaranteed plan for repayment with interest in a responsible and timely fashion, (c) made it so you pay into it ...more »
Social Security should have changed with the times. It hasn't. It could be the retirement answer for all, if done correctly. What if we made Social Security NOTHING more than a portable retirement system? What if we (a) fully funded it, (b) made it so it couldn't be borrowed from by the government without a guaranteed plan for repayment with interest in a responsible and timely fashion, (c) made it so you pay into it for yourself, not for someone who never paid into it or someone who is drawing from it now (individual accounts), (d) had rate of return guaranteed by the government, and based on rates comparable to banking instruments, (e) could contribute more than the minimum mandated if we choose, and (f) could take payments from it far earlier than currently, and without penalty, but based on your account's value at the time? Maybe at 50 if we want?
Currently employers already match it at 100%. If it were a true retirement option and we weren't trying to pay for folks other than ourselves, we would be better off. There are other mandates to provide charity and wealth redistribution; social security should be portable retirement ONLY. Everyone would have the same mandated matching at their businesses. Employers could choose to offer additional options, but if we could all count on social security for portable retirement, how much better off would we all be at retirement?
Individuals would only have to be employed in order to (a) contribute and (b) be matched at 100%. We would all know that no matter where in the US we are applying for a job, they offer portable retirement matched at 100% to 6%+ and we are required to contribute a minimum of 6%+. With a mandate to participate and a guaranteed rate of return, individuals would not need to worry that suddenly their pension would go away, that they wouldn't be able to afford to contribute (we already do), or that they wouldn't have a plan at all.
Spousal social security should go away. If you don't pay into it, you don't get it. A spouse who doesn't work should instead be entitled, regardless of state law, to a portion of their spouse's social security rather than additional funds earned by neither party. In fact, it could even be averaged and split for couples with 2 earner (in case of later separation). Couples who have only one earner could choose to have additional retirement accounts outside of social security.
It would be portable retirement for all. You reap what you put into it, and your own interest on it. This would make the government more efficient and save money because it could be a truly dependable part of retirement for all and could eventually replace part or all of the FERS pension plan (if we actually got what we put in at a reasonable age, and if the aforementioned rules were followed). How much would that save?
We would all have contributions of a minimum of 12%+ from the time we start working until we retire with a guaranteed rate of return.
« less full details »
10 votes
As others have suggested we spend millions by people not reporting their earnings to SSA while they are receiving a SSA benefits and they end up overpaid. Why should we continue a work program at all? No one paid us till we found a job, so why pay someone else to do the same thing. The original intent was good but we see it every day where someone applies for dib because they "cant work" but as soon as its approved they ...more »
As others have suggested we spend millions by people not reporting their earnings to SSA while they are receiving a SSA benefits and they end up overpaid. Why should we continue a work program at all? No one paid us till we found a job, so why pay someone else to do the same thing. The original intent was good but we see it every day where someone applies for dib because they "cant work" but as soon as its approved they come in and say "when can I go to work!" They starting "milking" the system right out of the gate because it is such a prevelant practice.
« less full details »
57 votes
We take the time as employees to provide feedback on inneficiencies we see at work. We also take our time to tell you about fraud and abuse that may be taking place in our agencies. What is happening to these ideas that we submit? They should be provided to the corresponding agencies for review and action. The executives could obviously benefit tremendously by acting on our ideas on improving government.
11 votes
Currently, much of the SSA policy is extremely complicated and in many times confusing. There are clearly policies that are not necessary and that cause inneficiency in operations. Considering the increase of applications operations is seeing while having to continually do more work with less staffing. SSA should focus on how policy can be made so that operations is more efficient and less complicated. There are numerous ...more »
Currently, much of the SSA policy is extremely complicated and in many times confusing. There are clearly policies that are not necessary and that cause inneficiency in operations. Considering the increase of applications operations is seeing while having to continually do more work with less staffing. SSA should focus on how policy can be made so that operations is more efficient and less complicated. There are numerous systems limitations that could be eliminated. This should be a high agency priority that would provide for tremendous benefits with employee work satisfaction in operations and in significanlty increasing operations work productivity. All policy components should be focusing on finding ways on how operations should be run more efficiently. Considering the budget shortfalls, lack of hiring, retirement wave, this should be the #1 priority of policy components.
« less full details »
12 votes
In offices where the work performance cannot be measured, the work overtime ought to be eliminated. Unfortunately I see this being abused often. It is bad enough that in operational offices that provide for overtime, employees work to ensure that they work as many hours of overtime as possible. Because the work can be measured in operations, it is much easier to justify the extra hours put in (more processed cases). In ...more »
In offices where the work performance cannot be measured, the work overtime ought to be eliminated. Unfortunately I see this being abused often. It is bad enough that in operational offices that provide for overtime, employees work to ensure that they work as many hours of overtime as possible. Because the work can be measured in operations, it is much easier to justify the extra hours put in (more processed cases). In a policy component or in a training facility, that is not the case. There is no reason GS-13 and GS-14 employees should be allowed to work overtime, especially when the work cannot be measured and the employee is more than adequately compensated for the work being performed.
« less full details »
7 votes
Currently various components provide policies that at times comflicts with other policies or provides for inconsistencies in operations. As an example; we are discussing whether to provide only certain operations offices or payment centers, access to certain approved documents. Hence, if a claimant took those same documents to other offices, they would not necessarily be allowed to be used by that SSA component or office, ...more »
Currently various components provide policies that at times comflicts with other policies or provides for inconsistencies in operations.
As an example; we are discussing whether to provide only certain operations offices or payment centers, access to certain approved documents. Hence, if a claimant took those same documents to other offices, they would not necessarily be allowed to be used by that SSA component or office, the claimants would then need to provide further or different evidence. Hence, providing only certain offices or sections of the agency with permission to use specific documents or in issuing separate procedures for certain offices to process cases we are developing a bias in our operational process. The issue of concern to me is regarding the assurance of due process of law which as you know is central to preserving the public’s trust in the Social Security programs. Under the law, beneficiaries have the right to be treated equally and fairly by the government. Since we are a Federal agency, decisions ought to be uniformly applied on a national level, this would also go along with providing all of operations with access to approved documentation to be used for enumeration or benefits. Due process is served by ensuring that every claimant is provided with a thorough and impartial review of their case, received notice of our actions, is informed of their rights under the law, and is assured that we follow the same procedures for all claimants. I believe that we may be deviating from this by allowing only certain offices to allow specific documents while others not, thereby creating a biased operational process.
On a side note with this same issue in mind, I have been pondering why SSA follows state laws when deciding whether to use certain marriage or name change documents for enumeration purposes. Since SSA is a federal agency, does it not have to apply federal laws above all state laws? As an example, a name change document was denied for use by OGC for the state of Texas because OGC indicated that the state of Texas does not allow same sex marriages, hence the document could not be used for an SSN name change. However because California does allow same sex marriages, if the claimant had brought that document to that state, SSA would have approved the use of that name change document (the document was actually from Germany where it is legally valid). I hope you see where I am going with this.
« less full details »
10 votes
Currently SSA sends out questionnaires to people living outside the U.S. to determine whether they are still alive or whether the address is still valid. Unfortunately the system does not work. On a recent study where we conducted face-to-face interviews, we learned from one country, that hundreths of forms were being completed by family members for SSA beneficiaries that had died years before. So our "enforcement" by ...more »
Currently SSA sends out questionnaires to people living outside the U.S. to determine whether they are still alive or whether the address is still valid. Unfortunately the system does not work. On a recent study where we conducted face-to-face interviews, we learned from one country, that hundreths of forms were being completed by family members for SSA beneficiaries that had died years before. So our "enforcement" by sending out a questionnaire is not working. There is little recourse for the agency to take if the people that were receiving money were not U.S. citizens. The U.S. cannot collect those over payments so we could be losing millions a year on this.
A 2 year requirement for people to visit a nearby embassy to verify their existence is a much more effective method to ensure that we are paying people that are still alive. We do not always have a way to determine whether people living outside the country are still alive so by implementing a required face to face visit, we would ensure reliability in our payment process. The agency would save millions and hundreths of hours in operating costs by eliminating the current foreign enforcement questionnaire process.
« less full details »
18 votes
Eliminate Bonuses within the Government. They create bad feelings and are unfair. The workers will work with or without the extra money.
16 votes
Eliminate O/T permanently. Save major money and improve the health of your civil servants in order to do a more efficient job.
36 votes
Eliminate this pymt. Too much time & energy wasted on administering this money.
7 votes
In Social Security, there are Field Offices and Payment Centers. Most of the time, when a Claims Rep processes something in the Field Office, it has to be effectuated by the payment center. This can take anywhere from 60 days to months. Then, something may not be processed correctly by the Payment Center as they did not understand the request or because they did not get the information first-hand by being in the field ...more »
In Social Security, there are Field Offices and Payment Centers. Most of the time, when a Claims Rep processes something in the Field Office, it has to be effectuated by the payment center. This can take anywhere from 60 days to months. Then, something may not be processed correctly by the Payment Center as they did not understand the request or because they did not get the information first-hand by being in the field office. So the claimant then comes back into the field office and the process starts over. The delay in the processing often causes multiple recontacts by the claimant. All this recontacting and relaying of information to the Payment Centers is inefficent. I propose maybe not eliminating the payment centers all together, but employing 1-2 payment center technicians with Payment Center systems in the Field Office. This way, when a case is processed, we can see the entire case through effectuation the same day. When a claimant doesnt receivie a check they are due, we can correct the problem the same day instead of issuing a Critical Payment and waiting on the Payment Centers to take action. It seems like we are doing a lot of double work and revisiting the same issues over and over with multiple followups.
« less full details »
11 votes
Implementation of a new management headquarters directive would result in a more accurate reporting of positions in headquarters activities. At the same time, inconsistencies among the service components that currently overlap in work projects would decrease. There is a significant number of individuals that are not productive simply because there is not enough work to do (at least 40% over staffed). Many managers are ...more »
Implementation of a new management headquarters directive would result in a more accurate reporting of positions in headquarters activities. At the same time,
inconsistencies among the service components that currently overlap in work projects would decrease. There is a significant number of individuals that are not productive simply because there is not enough work to do (at least 40% over staffed). Many managers are continually forced to make up work to keep their departments alive and to get new staffing. Many hired contractors complain that they have nothing to do or that the productivity is extremely low because of lack of work. The number of incompetent managers is very high because there is little emphasis on ensuring that managers that are hired is based on competence and education. Many of us new employees are disselutioned at what we see every day. Our ideas to improve work efficiency and operations are turned down because of incompetent managers that are just not able to see the big picture or don't care to save tax payer money. There is a continual emphasis on adding more and more policy without justification and understanding of how much more money it will cost tax payers and further complicate our operations. Multiple suggestions that are provided to reduce operational policy that is useless and costly that would improve our work flow is continually turned down because "it would reduce our work in our office, thereby allowing for fewer future workers and less work for us to do here". Some policies in place have little value and it has been proven in studies that it creates unnecessary work, yet it persists. The "idea" website provided by the agency goes to the same managers that would turn down the idea if it was provided within the office, so the system is by itself an idiocy. Let's work together to not only save tax payer money but also to restore confidence in government. Few people know that we have more than 10,000 employees at HQ's.
« less full details »
9 votes
Identify those individuals who are receiving social security and also working. This can be accompolished by matching social security records with IRS othe othe wage reporting records. Many people who are working and collecting social security do not notify social security and are being overpaid.
10 votes
Social Security Disabilty needs major reform. Too many people play the system and it is costing millions! What am I talking about? Overpayment's being wavied for people who worked while getting benefits knowing that they couldn't go over certain limits. Criminals receiving benefits while in jail, people who receive their check then lie and say they never got it just to get another check in the same month. All true ...more »
Social Security Disabilty needs major reform. Too many people play the system and it is costing millions! What am I talking about? Overpayment's being wavied for people who worked while getting benefits knowing that they couldn't go over certain limits. Criminals receiving benefits while in jail, people who receive their check then lie and say they never got it just to get another check in the same month. All true things going on right now.
« less full details »
