Opinion editor's note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I was hired by the Social Security Administration in 1973. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was going to be implemented in 1974, and Social Security needed a lot of employees to implement this legislation. I was hired using the "Outstanding Scholar" program. There were three women hired in my class using this program — the other 22 individuals were male Vietnam veterans. Using the current thinking, that would make me a DEI hire.

I went on to work for Social Security for 43 years, retiring at the end of 2014. For 38 years I was in supervisory, management or administrative positions. The last 24 years, I managed the only Social Security Appeals Office in Minnesota. If you or someone you know had a disability or other claim processed at the appeals level in Minnesota between 1991 and 2014, that claim would have been processed in the office that I managed.

I hired many employees, clerks, interviewers, paralegals and attorneys. I used many different hiring programs over the years. Regardless of the program, the one constant was veterans' preference. At a minimum, a veteran was awarded an additional five points in evaluation of applications. In the extreme, the only list I would get was a list of veterans, and I was required to select a veteran if I wanted a new employee. But always, my goal was to hire the best I could hire from the available candidates. And my employees were smart and professional and faithfully discharged their duties.

I helped to process the hiring of many administrative law judges as part of my work at the headquarters in Falls Church, Va. I designed and delivered training courses on local, regional and national levels. I testified before Congress about the Social Security appeals process as a representative of the Federal Managers Association.

As a new employee in 1973 I took the oath of office swearing to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." I administered that same oath to countless federal employees. That oath meant something to us.

In my 43 years of service, I worked under at least 10 administrations. The beauty of the professionalism of the federal workforce is that we provided seamless continuity from one administration to the next. Regardless of agency, we knew our job and how to do it. We didn't make the laws; we didn't judge the laws; we just "faithfully discharged the duties of the office."

Politics was never the controlling force.

I am watching the current administration with disbelief. Federal employees have become the scapegoat for a president who is demanding loyalty, not to the Constitution, not to the offices they entered. In the oath, the employee pledges to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, not to the president. And yet employees are being fired for doing the very job they were directed to do.

I watch with growing concern as Congress abdicates its oversight role and blindly pledges allegiance, not to the Constitution but to the president. I watch as agencies and programs are stripped of their funding on nothing more than one man's belief that the people, the agency and the programs do not fit his agenda.

I am wondering when the citizenry will become concerned enough to call a timeout. At the end of December 2023, there were 1,123,666 Social Security beneficiaries in Minnesota, according to the Social Security Office of Retirement and Disability Policy. That's one agency, in one state. Do you think what is happening isn't going to affect you and the ones you love? It won't be long.

Kathy Meinhardt, of Bloomington, is retired.