The era that launched a generation determined to change the world is now being blamed for resisting change — especially the kind that saves taxpayer money.
That’s the lens through which Michael J. Astrue, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration, views some critics. During a recent visit to The Globe to discuss flaws with the $10 billion children’s disability program, he addressed advocates who oppose what he considers necessary changes to an admirable, but flawed, program.
He described them, generally, as people “older’’ than he and went on to label such reform-resisters as “old-line left-wingers’’ with “a ’60s mentality.’’ Their opposition to change, he said, is “ideological and philosophical:’’ They believe in shifting economic and income distribution, he explained. As a result, some of those he sees as aging flower children look at people who might be abusing the system, and conclude, “These people are poor … it doesn’t really matter how they get the money,’’ he said.
I don't think you have to be an "old-line left-winger" (not that that's a bad thing) to think that the criticism of the SSI child's disability program is greatly overblown. Determining disability in anyone is inherently difficult and especially so in children. It's easy to take shots at the SSI children's program. It's vastly more difficult to propose improvements. I doubt that Astrue comprehends just how long and how hard the folks he blithely characterizes as having a "60s mentality" worked to get us to the SSI children's system we have. The system we have now isn't perfect but it's a lot better than what preceded it. People such as Richard Weishaupt don't deserve to be dismissed like this any more than Michael Astrue deserves to be dismissed as a right-wing nutjob.
10 comments:
Criticism of SSI, especially the children's portion, is far from overblown. The entire program, especially for children, is a complete shambles. If the public really knew how out-of-control it is, the outcry would make the "Arab Spring" look mild by comparison. You have to be inside it and worked with it to comprehend what a disaster it has become.
I believe the true question is whether children should receive cash benefits?
When do the parents take responsibility for their creation?
Unless some child meet the listings or was once gainfully employed and now would have difficulty with sga,such child should not receive cash benefits,but maybe receive health insurance.
SSA must save money and i beleive this is the area to start in.
If children with problems need extra assistance, it doesn't have to be in the form of cash handed to parents to do whatever they want with it. There are other ways to get disabled children the services/procedures/care/education that they need.
If many of these parents were realize that they get vouchers for their children instead of cash, there is no doubt that the number of children on SSI would drop because there are many parents who do see their children as a cash cow, or at least as a way to improve the family's standard of living on the back of the SSI child, would no longer bother with SSI. There are not just isolated incidents or anecdotal stories.
If they hadn't tried so long and hard, the states would be handling SSI, as they should be, instead of SSA being forced to handle an onerous workload that has nothing to do with Social Security benefits.
Comment overheard..."I can't stop having children, that's how I get paid."
Sadly, that's a REAL comment and indicates the mentality of many people receiving child SSI. Until that type of thing is stopped, the outrage cannot be classified as overblown.
"Comment overheard..."I can't stop having children, that's how I get paid."
Sadly, that's a REAL comment and indicates the mentality of many people receiving child SSI. Until that type of thing is stopped, the outrage cannot be classified as overblown."
I will assume for the sake of argument that there are parents out there like this and I will assume further, again for the sake of argument, that there are so many of them that the SSI payments involved threaten the financial security of the richest nation on the planet. The question I then have is: when you seek to curtail the behavior of the parent by denying benefits to the child, what do you do with the child? Isn't our concern for the child? Shouldn't our concern be for the child?
As noted in the comments above...concern for the child does not mean that cash must go to the parent.
Some sort of system that helps the "disabled" child get better through rehabilitation and medical treatment would be a more appropriate way to show our concern (in my opinion).
The cash payment for kids is a joke, esp. in ADHD cases. Biggest fraud and waste of money EVER in the history of this program.
Welfare payments to entire families are only a few hundred dollars a month. SSI checks top out at $674 per child. Do the math. If there are three family members (individuals) getting SSI, that's more than $2K every month, tax-free, plus (in many cases) automatic qualification for food stamps, Medicaid, free school lunches, free cell phones, energy assistance. Some families have many more family members on SSI.
Agree with A4:09. Hopefully, the new medical insurance law will help these disabled children with medical care/therapy etc.
SSI "disability" for children is a joke. Who gets the money and how is it used?
Post a Comment