Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wrote a column in December attacking Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for children. Jonathan Stein and Rebecca Vallas of Community Legal Services in Philadelphia sent a memo to the Public Editor of the Times complaining that Kristof's column was inaccurate and unprofessional. Kristof has responded, publishing the Stein and Vallas memo. I find that memo devastating. You can judge for yourself how well Kristof responds but I think one point needs to be made. Kristof asserts that he talked with proponents of SSI benefits for children. However, if you talk with those proponents, you're almost certain to be referred to Jonathan Stein. He's the one person you need to talk with if you want to talk with a proponent of SSI child's benefits. That's just a fact. Stein has done other things but SSI childs' benefits has been his beat for decades. Clearly, Kristof never talked with Stein before publishing his column. For that reason alone, I have to call Kristof's research shallow.
22 comments:
Neither party comes off particularly well, here's a quote from the memo:
" Firstly, illiteracy is not now and has never been a basis for qualifying for SSI disability benefits. Nowhere does Mr. Kristof seek out or cite a Social Security Administration source regarding the role that school academic performance may or may not play in qualifying for SSI child disability benefits, or make reference to any relevant SSI child disability law or policy."
Hmm...I work in ODAR, school records form the primary basis for SSI grants for at least 75% of child beneficiaries that I see.
I have not read the article yet. I have not read the child medical listings. But these child listings should be extremely strict because it's my belief parents should bare the responsibility unless a child meets some listing where the minor is nearly 90% incapacitated. This is an area that could save SSA some money.
I work for SSA and you can skew number any way you want. I work in a low income, inner city area and if you think for one second parents aren't trying to "cash in" on their children's problems rather than be a responsible parent, you're sadly mistaken. I'm sure in other areas, that's not the case.
I read the articles and I tend to agree with the NY Times writer. Fear is a huge factor with SSI. Parents will lie, mis-report and just plain withhold information to keep the checks coming. When the child turns 18 and benefits are not continued into adult hood, that make the child file appeals and hearing requests along with benefit continuation requests often time racking up HUGE overpayments trying to keep the checks. The program is sorely in need of reforms.
SSI is for food, clothing and housing. Why is the federal government resposible for providing this, instead of a parent? If an adult were to receive the same benefits that children do (free rent, food, clothing) from a third party we reduce their checks by 1/3. If we decided that it is still a good idea to pay SSI benefits, then we should subject them to the same reduction. I am all for medical care for children, but their parents need to support them!
The SSI program does require that parents support their children. The income and resources of any parent living with their child is deemed to belong to the child, making them ineligible if the parent has too much. Only the poorest of the poor qualify for SSI to begin with. The question is, should society offer any support when a parent can't support their disabled child.
Society should offer some support but I disagree with providing cash payments.
Poor is a relative term. When I see mothers with iPhones and their kid(s) on SSI, I question how poor they are. When they explain how they can't pay their cable bill, I question how poor they are.
Look at census statistics and most households I'm America considered poor have central air, more than one tv, video game consoles, etc. There are poor people in America, but most are considered poor if they don't gave the luxuries the rest of us work very hard to get.
The new normal, live off your children one way or another. Exploit the good intentions to help a disabled child and twist it to give more to the parent. If someone questions this, just begin the name calling and class warfare. Of course, the needs of the child are forgotten. And when all children (disabled or not) grow up, they have to pay the debts (financial and otherwise) of the well-meaning (?) fools that brought them the new normal.
"The poorest of the poor"? Not even close. you have no idea how high the parental deemed income limits are. Plus, there is no limit on the amount of SSI that can be received by one family. I worked in SSI for over 35 years. It got to the point where parents stopped working as soon as they had a couple of kids on SSI, because the whole family qualified for Medicaid, food stamps, fire school breakfast and lunch, etc. These are not anecdotal outliers--these are commonplace. And the main disabilities for these children are ADHD, Oppositional defiant disorder, learning disabilitiies, and other similar subjective, non-life threatening conditions. There are a hundred of those for every child with cancer.
Oops--"free" school breakfast,etc.
Well, fortunately for all those parents with children on SSI (legitimate, deserving or not). Mr Obama was re-elected and there will be no reform for four more years.
"Well, fortunately for all those parents with children on SSI (legitimate, deserving or not). Mr Obama was re-elected and there will be no reform for four more years."
That's the people that got him elected.
"Well, fortunately for all those parents with children on SSI (legitimate, deserving or not). Mr Obama was re-elected and there will be no reform for four more years."
That's the people that got him elected.
8:38 PM, January 23, 2013
Those statements sounds to me like a priviledged person who earns $100,000+ and probably,in an equal fashion suck milk from the taxpayer.
I voted for mr obama and i'm glad mr obama got re elected. I do disagree with the current use of the minor child ssi program as i stated earlier.
I'm very disturbed that he got re-elected. Don't get me wrong, I understand why, but it doesn't bode we'll for the future of hard working Americans. However, if SSI is your meal ticket, saddle up!!!
Don't forget that many families on SSI also qualify for free pre-school, free childcare, free (or greatly subsidized housing), free cell phones and transportation to medical appointments.
As noted above, SSI does not result in a luxurious lifestyle, but it sure beats working at a minimum wage job for 40 hours per week.
Let's talk dollars and cents here to see if your assertion is correct that SSI recipients are living high on the hog and fare much better than someone working full time. The 2013 federal payment amount for an individual on SSI is $8520 per year. That is less than half of a minimum wage job and far below the poverty level. All those free things that these people get has nothing to do with SSI, but they get them because they are the poorest of the poor. I can't believe that wealthy people would begrudge this little bit of assistance to those who are disabled and have special needs.
9:36 nailed it
umm, if you knew even a bit about functional equivalence, the most commom means by which children are found disabled and get SSI, you'd know that school performance is pretty much the entire basis for domains I and II, and most of domains III and VI. But alas, nobody in the world, even those "experts" who are tasked with debating the program on a national stage, know crap about social security law...
as you mention, SSI payments are less than minimum wage...however, many recipients also receive free healthcare, free housing and free food. Therefore, that $8520 goes a lot farther than someone who is working. Additionally, MANY SSI recipients live in households with other SSI recipients, when combined with the ancillary benefits, their "income" (from all sources) is MUCH greater than the poverty level.
Again, it's not a great lifestyle, but it sure beats working for minimum wage. That's the point, SSI incentivizes NOT working.
You have to take into account more than just the SSI dollar amount received. As the person above you pointed out, SSI recipients also usually qualify for other help like food assistance, housing assistance, utility subsidies and medical. I read an article last year about a woman in Charlotte, NC. They totaled everything she received in the way of assistance and it came to just over $30,0000.00 annually.
I don't begrudge anyone needing some help from time to time. And by no mens do I think anyone on SSI lives a "lavish" lifestyle. My only objection comes when they feel they are "entitled" to the same luxuries I work hard to acquire. No one on public/federal assistance needs any "extras" - food/shelter/medical - that's it. No cell phones, cable tv, Internet etc.. As I stated in a previous post, "poor" is very relative term.
The disability program is supposed to replace lost wages. Children do not have lost wages. A school-aged child with ADHD or learning disabilities usually gets special education services at school. There is no reason to pay the family a cash benefit in these cases.
There is no payment to the family, and we are not talking about the social security disability program -- the one designed to replace lost wages. We are talking about SSI which is a welfare program designed to provide a minimal base of support to the most disabled among us regardless of age.
It sounds like most posters here are objecting to benefits other than SSI since they keep referring to medical, housing, food stamps and other types of benefits that some poor people receive depending on the state of residence.
Nope, referring specifically to SSI. There is no need for "cash support". That is the point.
Also pointing out that, in many cases, SSI is redundant in that the things that it would pay for (food, shelter and healthcare) are covered by other programs. Thereby, essentially resulting in discretionary income.
Post a Comment