Comment from strauss, hazel, private citizen

I am writing as a private citizen, although I am also an Administrative Law Judge with the Social Security Administration (Agency) and am thus familiar with the entire administrative process and the negative effect the proposal to amend the rules under consideration would have. For decades, Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have had the responsibility of setting the time and place for a hearing that is scheduled pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, which protects the independence of ALJs to sort out the facts and law when individuals seek relief from the adverse ruling of the Agency. The ALJ has the duty to not only protect the right for due process in hearing and deciding cases, but must also guard the Social Security trust fund from being depleted due to payment of fraudulent claims. The importance of keeping the ALJ independent from the Agency and its political agenda, which is directed from those in power at any particular time cannot be over emphasized. Forcing cases to proceed in order to satisfy the particular Agency goal for closing an arbitrary number of cases does not serve the individual claimant or the general public well. The result will be to have cases come to hearing without the necessary development, particularly for those who are not represented in their claim, and to thus require supplemental hearings, perhaps with experts who should have been scheduled to testify in the first place. This delays the whole process, contrary to the Agency thinking that more cases will be heard and decided, I also want to emphasize the need for continued independence of the ALJ from pressure from the Agency to hear and decide cases in any particular way, which independence is set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act. Thank you