New IRS CEO is also head of the Social Security Administration. Here’s why that dual role worries some experts – CNBC

Report on U.S. Treasury Leadership Changes and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

• The U.S. Department of the Treasury has announced a new leadership structure for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), appointing Frank Bisignano, the current Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), to the role of IRS CEO.
• This appointment establishes an unprecedented dual mandate, with one individual leading two critical and distinct federal agencies responsible for tax administration and social insurance benefits.
• The restructuring raises significant concerns regarding institutional stability, the effective delivery of public services, and the nation’s progress toward key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to strong institutions, poverty reduction, and reduced inequalities.

Analysis of Institutional Stability and Governance (SDG 16)

Leadership Volatility at the Internal Revenue Service

• The IRS has experienced considerable leadership instability, with six different individuals having served as Commissioner or acting Commissioner since January.
• This high turnover rate occurs during a critical period of implementing major tax law changes and preparing for the national tax filing season.
• Such volatility directly contravenes the principles of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, which emphasizes the need for effective, accountable, and stable institutions to ensure fair and efficient public administration.

Impact of Staffing and Operational Capacity

• A September report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration noted that the IRS has lost 17% to 19% of its workforce in key operational areas.
• These staffing reductions, combined with leadership instability, threaten the agency’s capacity to serve taxpayers effectively and could undermine public trust in a foundational government institution.
• The lack of a permanent, dedicated leadership team is viewed by policy experts as an unusual interim arrangement that fails to provide the stability required for a complex organization like the IRS.

Implications for Social Protection and Inequality (SDG 1, SDG 10)

Concerns Regarding the Social Security Administration

1. Divided Leadership: The dual appointment effectively creates a “part-time leader” for the SSA, an agency that provides essential benefits to approximately 74 million people, including seniors and individuals with disabilities.
2. Risk to Service Quality: Advocacy groups express concern that a leader divided between two major agencies could result in slowed decision-making and a degradation of services, potentially harming beneficiaries who rely on timely support.
3. Data Integrity: The leadership merger raises critical questions about maintaining the strict separation of sensitive taxpayer financial data (IRS) and personal medical and disability records (SSA).

Connection to Poverty and Inequality Reduction

• The SSA is a cornerstone of the nation’s social safety net, directly contributing to SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities by providing a reliable income source for vulnerable populations.
• Any disruption to the SSA’s operations, which has already faced staff cuts and new rules affecting benefit access, could jeopardize the economic security of millions and exacerbate inequality.
• The IRS’s function in collecting revenue is fundamental to funding the social programs that advance these goals, making its stable and effective operation a national priority.

Broader Economic and Well-being Considerations (SDG 3, SDG 8)

Economic Stability and Public Trust

• An efficient and predictable tax administration system is a prerequisite for achieving SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, as it underpins public finance and fosters a stable economic environment.
• The ongoing leadership challenges risk eroding public confidence in the government’s ability to manage its core financial and social responsibilities.

Health and Well-being

• The SSA’s administration of disability benefits is a vital function supporting SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being.
• Potential administrative strains resulting from the leadership changes could create barriers for individuals seeking access to benefits crucial for their health, welfare, and financial stability.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article discusses the Social Security Administration (SSA), which provides benefits to “approximately 74 million individuals.” Social Security is a critical social protection system aimed at preventing poverty, particularly among the elderly and people with disabilities. Concerns about the SSA having a “part-time leader” and the potential for services to be hurt connect directly to ensuring the effective delivery of benefits that keep people out of poverty.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article highlights significant “IRS staffing cuts,” noting the agency “has lost 17% to 19% of workers covering ‘key IRS functions’.” It also mentions that the SSA has “cut staff.” These points relate to employment levels within major public institutions, which are a component of the overall employment landscape and affect the government’s capacity to support economic functions.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  Both the IRS and the SSA are key institutions for implementing policies that reduce inequality. The IRS manages the tax system, which is a primary tool for fiscal redistribution, while the SSA provides social protection to vulnerable groups like “Seniors, people with disabilities, and their families.” The article’s focus on instability and staffing cuts at these agencies raises concerns about their ability to effectively serve these populations and implement policies aimed at greater equality.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most central SDG in the article. The text is almost entirely focused on the effectiveness, stability, and accountability of key public institutions (the IRS and the SSA). It details issues such as “a lot of volatility at the top” of the IRS, with “Six individuals” serving as commissioner in a short period. The “unprecedented” dual-role leadership and the resulting “lack of stability” are presented as major threats to the functioning of these essential government bodies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Under SDG 1: No Poverty

  • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable. The article’s discussion of the 74 million Americans relying on Social Security and the concerns raised by advocacy groups like “Social Security Works” directly relate to the implementation and stability of this crucial social protection system.

• Under SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men… The article’s mention of the IRS losing “17% to 19% of workers” and the SSA having “cut staff” points to challenges in maintaining employment levels within these public sector institutions, which is a component of this target.

• Under SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality. The article focuses on the two primary agencies responsible for implementing fiscal (IRS) and social protection (SSA) policies in the U.S. The concerns about their leadership and operational capacity directly impact the country’s ability to use these policies to achieve greater equality.

• Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The entire article serves as a commentary on this target. Phrases like “lack of stability at the top,” “a lot of volatility,” and concerns that the new leadership arrangement “doesn’t sound like stability” all point to challenges in maintaining effective and stable institutions.
  • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article highlights a lack of responsiveness by quoting multiple external stakeholders—including a former IRS Commissioner, policy analysts (“Tax Foundation”), and advocacy organizations (“National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare”)—who express deep concerns about the leadership decisions being made.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For Target 1.3 (Social Protection Systems):

  • Indicator (Mentioned): The number of people covered by the social protection system. The article explicitly states that “approximately 74 million individuals who rely on the SSA for Social Security or Supplemental Security Income benefits.” This figure serves as a direct measure of the system’s reach.

• For Target 8.5 (Employment):

  • Indicator (Mentioned): The percentage change in employment in key public institutions. The article provides a specific statistic that the IRS “has lost 17% to 19% of workers covering ‘key IRS functions’,” which can be used as an indicator of employment trends in the public sector.

• For Target 16.6 (Effective Institutions):

  • Indicator (Mentioned): The frequency of leadership changes in a key government agency. The article quantifies the instability at the IRS by stating, “Six individuals have served as IRS Commissioner or acting IRS Commissioner since inauguration day in January.”
  • Indicator (Implied): The quality of public services. The article implies this can be measured by taxpayer wait times and service quality. Former Commissioner Werfel warns that if leaders are not accessible, “it’s the taxpayers waiting in line that will pay the price,” suggesting that service delivery is a key performance indicator for institutional effectiveness.

• For Target 16.7 (Responsive Decision-Making):

  • Indicator (Implied): The level of concern expressed by civil society and policy experts regarding government decisions. The article documents strong negative reactions from multiple organizations, such as the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare calling the move “unprecedented” and “unwise,” which indicates a perception of non-responsive decision-making.

4. SDGs, Targets and Indicators Table

Source: cnbc.com