Why Biden Fired the Head of Social Security

By Yuval Rosenberg

Why Biden Fired the Social Security Commissioner

President Joe Biden on Friday fired Social Security
Administration Commissioner Andrew Saul, a Trump appointee who had
drawn criticism from Democrats and advocacy groups for seeking to
restrict benefits and taking a staunch anti-union stance in dealing
with the labor groups that represent the agency’s 60,000
employees.

Saul, whose six-year term was set to end in January 2025, was
reportedly fired after refusing to a White House request to resign.
Deputy Commissioner David Black, also appointed by President Trump,
resigned Friday upon request. Kiloko Kijakazi, the Biden-appointed
deputy commissioner for retirement and disability policy, will
serve as acting head of the agency.

Biden’s move came a day after the Justice Department issued a
memorandum opinion that said the president could legally remove the
Social Security commissioner “at will” in light of recent Supreme
Court decisions. Under the Social Security Act, a new president can
fire the commissioner only for cause, but Biden last month quickly
removed the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the
regulator of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, after the
Supreme Court ruled he could do so. The high court also
ruled last year that restrictions on the removal
of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were
unconstitutional.

“Since taking office, Commissioner Saul has undermined and
politicized Social Security disability benefits, terminated the
agency’s telework policy that was utilized by up to 25% of the
agency’s workforce, not repaired SSA’s relationships with relevant
Federal employee unions including in the context of COVID-19
workplace safety planning, reduced due process protections for
benefits appeals hearings, and taken other actions that run
contrary to the mission of the agency and the President’s policy
agenda,” a White House official told
The Washington Post.

A target for Democrats, labor and advocacy groups:
Democratic lawmakers, federal employee unions and advocacy groups
for the elderly and disabled had long called for Saul and Black to
be removed from their positions overseeing Social Security.

Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) in March called for Saul and
Black to be fired, saying that they used their offices for
“destabilize and actively harm” Social Security. Pascrell’s release
at the time accused Saul and Black of “seeking to boot elderly and
disabled Americans out of the program, blocking access to
non-English speakers, removing due process protections for the
disabled, and trying to union-bust SSA employees.”

Under the pair’s leadership, independent arbitrators had
repeatedly ruled that the agency violated federal labor law in
union negotiations. Unions also accused the agency of stalling
implementation of a Biden order undoing a number of the Trump
administration’s anti-union policies,
Government Executive
reports.

Democrats also blamed Saul and Black for delaying millions of
stimulus payments this year as the IRS was left waiting for payment
files from the Social Security Administration.

Pascrell and other Democrats cheered
Friday’s firings. “Saul and Black acted as foxes in the henhouse,”
he said in a statement, according to
Politico. “Their agenda was not to protect Social
Security but to impose cruelty on America’s seniors and disabled.”
On
Twitter, he added: “Good riddance to bad rubbish.”

Republicans warn of ‘dangerous politicization’: A number
of Republicans slammed Biden’s move.

“This removal would be an unprecedented and dangerous
politicization of the Social Security Administration,” Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tweeted.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said in a statement that Saul and
Black had both been confirmed by wide, bipartisan margins. “Saul
and his team have admirably focused on service to beneficiaries,
and steered the Social Security Administration through the pandemic
with success,” he said. “Their terms didn’t expire until 2025, and
there was no reasonable justification for these removals. President
Biden is overtly politicizing the SSA. People don’t want their
retirement and benefits politicized, they just want an agency that
works. We had that under Commissioner Saul.”

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), the ranking member on the Senate Finance
Committee, and Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), the top Republican on the
House Ways and Means Committee, also called it a partisan political
move. “It is disappointing that the Administration is injecting
politics into the agency, given that Commissioner Saul was
confirmed with bipartisan approval, worked closely with both
parties in Congress, and provided smooth benefit and service
delivery during the largest management challenge ever faced by the
agency,” they said in a joint statement. “We are concerned that
this politicization of the Social Security Administration is just
the beginning of efforts to raise payroll taxes and seriously
undermines bipartisan efforts to save Social Security for future
retirees.”

Saul called his firing a “Friday Night Massacre” in an interview
with The Washington Post. The former commissioner — who attended
the University of Pennsylvania with Trump, was a prominent
Republican donor and had been a trustee at the Manhattan Institute
for Policy Research, a conservative think tank that has called for
trimming some Social Security benefits — said he felt he was doing
“an excellent job” and would fight his removal. "I consider myself
the term-protected Commissioner of Social Security," he
told the Post.

About the acting commissioner: Before joining the Social
Security Administration, Kijakazi was a fellow at the Urban
Institute; a program officer for the Ford Foundation; a senior
policy analyst for the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities; a program analyst for the US Department of
Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service; and a policy analyst for
the National Urban League. She has a doctorate in public policy and

CNN reports that she has led and participated in
research regarding Social Security, racial equity, economic
security and retirement security.

Democrats Divided Over Size of Major Spending Bill

Democratic lawmakers plan to pass a massive spending
package via the reconciliation process this year but still have to
work out just how large that package will be.

In an
interview with Maureen Dowd of The New York Times
published Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said he wants the bill
to be as large as $6 trillion — enough to “address concerns
progressives have had for decades.”

Sanders also said he would not support a package worth $2
trillion or $3 trillion. “That’s much too low,” he told
Dowd.

But Sanders, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, faces
a tough battle ahead to convince allies to go that high. Other
Democratic committee members have settled on $3.5 trillion as a
topline number for the reconciliation package that will focus on
“soft” infrastructure such as child care and energy efficiency,
Hans Nichols of Axios
reports, though that number could well shrink once
centrists in the party such as Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten
Sinema (D-AZ) get involved.

Tax revenues are key: With Manchin
saying that he wants all spending paid for, the size of the package
is probably inseparable from the revenues the reconciliation bill
can generate.

Democrats in the Senate are reportedly considering about
$2.4 trillion in tax increases, as well as legislation that would
lower drug prices, for an additional savings of $600 billion over
10 years. That could give Democrats as much as $3 trillion to play
with, which is reportedly the size of the package being considered
by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), though even that
may be too large.

“They’re all trying to figure out what the bottom line
is,” a source
told The Hill. Schumer is “trying to figure out:
‘What can I get my caucus to support? What’s the revenue number?’
It’s not clear to me he can get $3 trillion."

Republicans will fight: If Democrats
stick together, the reconciliation process would require no support
from across the aisle. But that doesn’t mean that Republicans won’t
fight the tax and spending measures by seeking Democratic defectors
— a major risk in a Congress that is so closely divided.

“If you have 10 House [Democratic] members, you can stop
anything,” anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist told The Hill. “No
Republican in the House or Senate will vote for tax
increases.”

Tough battle ahead: Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell last week promised a “hell of a fight” over
the reconciliation bill, and that battle now kicks into a higher
gear with the Senate returning to town Monday.

For now, the White House is letting lawmakers work out the
details. Asked about Biden administration’s view on the size of the
reconciliation package, press secretary Jen Psaki was noncommittal
Monday.

“I will say that, as it relates to the budget
reconciliation process, that of course is for members of the Senate
to work through what they can all collectively support together to
get enough votes,” she told reporters. “We expect there to be some
significant ups and downs but we are ready for it — we’re bracing
for it,” she added.

Quote of the Day

“I don’t see that there’s any reason that Republicans would
be opposed to dealing with infrastructure separately. That makes
all the sense in the world, because we, for the most part, we
support infrastructure. President Trump had a $2 trillion
infrastructure package, but so did every president in recent
history, including Republicans.

“It’s been decades since we’ve actually acted on those
proposals. It’s time to do it. If anything, it takes something out
of reconciliation that would otherwise be attractive to more
moderate Democrats.”

– Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), in an interview with
The New York Times, explaining his willingness to
negotiate a bipartisan infrastructure package with Democratic
senators and the Biden administration. Portman rejected the idea
that Republican negotiators were opening a path for Democrats to
move ahead with a broader reconciliation package, arguing that by
taking some core elements out of that legislation, “it’s less
likely that reconciliation will pass at the level that Democrats
are talking about.”

Chart of the Day: A Mighty Spending
Surge

The unprecedented fiscal response to the Covid-19 crisis will
add about $5.2 trillion to the national debt, according to an
analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget cited by
Andrew Van Dam of
The Washington Post Monday.

Van Dam provides some context for just how large that sum is:
“During the pandemic, from February 2020 to May 2021, 7.6 million
existing homes and condos were sold in the U.S. according to
National Association of Realtors data. With $5.2 trillion, the U.S.
government could have bought every single one of them. Twice. And
the feds would still have had a bit left over to upgrade the
furniture in the den.”

While economists generally agree that the spending surge worked,
some charge that it was too big, risking inflation and waste. And
it sets up the conditions for a possible rough patch as the
spending comes to an end. “Without big changes, such as the passage
of Biden’s ambitious infrastructure and families plans, the economy
is set for a bit of a bumpy landing after the boom of 2021 and
2022, one that will likely come just as the 2024 presidential
campaigns are shifting into gear,” Van Dam writes.

News

Views and Analysis