The bipartisan Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2009 (ABLE Act), H.R.1205/S. 493, was introduced in both the House and Senate on February 26. The bills would allow individuals and families to establish special accounts for meeting the future needs of children and adults with disabilities. Funds in the accounts and expenditures which meet the requirements of the bills would not affect the individuals' eligibility for federal benefits. Using these accounts, parents would be able to save funds for a child's future in a manner similar to the special "529 accounts" currently used to save for a child's future educational expenses. The House bill was introduced by Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) along with Representatives Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), and Kendrick Meek (D-FL). The Senate bill was introduced by Senator Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA) along with Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Richard Burr (R-NC), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Edward Kennedy (D-MA). The bills were referred to the House Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce Committees and to the Senate Finance Committee....This sounds like an excellent idea. Your heart goes out to parents who want to provide resources to sustain their disabled children. They need and deserve something better than current law.
Pages
▼
Mar 3, 2009
ABLE Account Legislation
From the Disability Policy Collaboration:
I being a claimant certainly agree.SSI resource limits needs reform as well.It's unfair or unreasonable to punish the disabled with such restrictions.Hopefully all representatives can champion such legislation through congress.
ReplyDeleteThis bill forgets that the purpose of SSI (Supplemental Security Income) was to provide a minimal income level to those disabled and elderly people who had no other recourse. SSI is a federal welfare program. It is not social security funds. While the resource amounts definitely need to be tied to inflation like the payments are, excluding unlimited amounts of money in trust is often just a way of families trying to protect heirs. I worked on SSI cases for years and saw many recipients living on a few hundred dollars per month while they had hundreds of thousands of dollars in trust funds. The trustees refused to use the money to provide for the recipient so that it "wouldn't reduce their payments". Then the recipient dies after living in poverty and the family received the money in the trust fund. This legislation would allow recipients (or their families) with means to live much better than other SSI recipients and still receive their welfare payments. How fair is that to those who truly have nothing and must live on SSI?
ReplyDeleteI shall make my statement again.It's unreasonable punishment for a person who could not work gainfully to have these resource limits placed on them.Only a priviledged conservative or republican would think otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe trust provisions of T16 are intended to preserve a family's capital, often at the expense of a developmentally delayed child or adult. The new proposal outined above would resolve this problem.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it runs into the same problem as existing law. If the child's support and maintenance is being provided for, s/he has no need as defined by T16 and is ineligible. Unless we expand T16 to include payments not based on need (income and resources) in specific situations, I can't see a way around this eligibility restriction. It is doubtful that provisions basing eligibility on disability alone would find the necessary support for passage.
Sorry--already tried, already failed--see"dedicated accounts"--anyone working SSI in an FO can explain.
ReplyDeleteSorry to disagree. They can't because most CR's (and other position in FO's) don't deal with this issue often enough to know about it. I think I may be too pessimistic on this, but I ended up doing the Trusts in my office, because no one else had time.
ReplyDelete