A U.S. District Court judge has found that it is unconstitutional to deny Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to Guam residents while allowing them to residents of the 50 states or the Northern Marianas.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has already ruled that SSI benefits can’t be denied to residents of Puerto Rico. The Solicitor General will soon have to decide what to do about the Puerto Rico case. At least, I guess so. I haven’t heard that the Puerto Rico case is being reheard en banc. The government has only 90 days to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case or, at least, to ask the Court for more time. The Puerto Rico case was decided on April 10.
The only other U.S. territory where there’s no court order is the Virgin Islands.
Emergency legislation will be needed unless the Supreme Court holds that the denial of SSI in territories is constitutional. I’m not completely sure the Supreme Court will even agree to hear it. Social Security is not prepared to adjudicate what will probably be hundreds of thousands of SSI disability claims, primarily in Puerto Rico. I’ll post more on this later but what will have to be done is to grandfather in the current recipients of territorial permanent and total benefits These are paid for with federal money. These benefits were paid in every state prior to the implementation of SSI. Those benefits were ended when SSI was implemented but continued in the territories. By statute the recipients were grandfathered onto SSI. These were called conversion cases. That’s what will have to be done.
13 comments:
For The Record—The extension of SSI to the Northern Mariana Island was negotiated by DOD and the White House as a bargaining chip for continued DOD presence in the NMI when it changed from a United Nations Trust Territory governed by the US to a mostly self-governing commonwealth. All this occurred in 1976 and 1977. Many members of Congress opposed the deal. HEW (then SSA’s parent agency) also opposed the extension but DOD carried the day. The legislative history of the originating SSI law shows Congress considered but rejected extending SSI beyond the 50 States and DC. Proponents of SSI extension to areas outside the US often point to the NMI situation as precedence. It should be noted that over the past 45 years Congress has considered extending SSI to folks living outside the country but (so far) has only passed laws extending SSI to disabled children of military personnel housed overseas and certain World War II veterans living in the Philippines.
@6:03
For the record, withholding a federal program individuals who are United States citizens based on them residing in territories doesn't make sense.
do they pay federal income taxes?
nope
Can you link to the actual order?
@12:40 AM
Okay, that's not really accurate. And it's extremely misleading. Most residents of Guam don't pay income tax to the federal U.S. government. However, they do pay an equivalent tax to the government of Guam (much of which finds its way back to the federal coffers anyway). And this arrangement makes a lot of practical sense given that that they're quite far from the mainland and don't have voting representatives in Congress. Also, most do pay FICA taxes just like residents of the 50 states.
12:40, lots of people who get SSI while residing in the 50 states + DC + Northern Marianas don't pay income taxes either. Some of them never did. SSI is not tied to whether someone pays income taxes.
@12:40
Do you need to pay federal income taxes to be eligible for SSI?
Nope.
You don't need to pay federal income tax to receive SSI but since it is a welfare program, it's not unfair to require the state or district you live in to be a payer of federal income taxes since that is the method SSI is financed.
Is it fair that a resident of California receives a higher SSI benefit in the form of state supplement and a resident of most other states doesn't? No, because the state supplement is paid for by income tax from the state of CA.
@918--If they pay FICA, they would receive SSA benefits just like anyone else.
@2:26 AM
"If they pay FICA, they would receive SSA benefits just like everyone else."
This comment betrays so many layers of ignorance that it's hard to unravel them all. But I'll try. First, most residents of Guam do pay FICA taxes on their earnings from employment. Second, they do, as a result, receive "SSA benefits just like everyone else." But until this court weighed in, those were limited to disability insurance and retirement benefits, which leaves out a whole lot of people whose options are limited to SSI due to lack of adequate past earnings or insufficiently old age to qualify for retirement benefits.
8:11/11:18 here.
@2:26
Districts and States don't pay federal income tax, residents sometimes do. Others don't (stay-at-home spouses, children, retirees, unemployed, etc.). As to whether the individual paying FICA taxes, residing state-side would make them eligible for "SSA benefits," yeah as to DIB, no as to SSI which is what we are talking about here.
As to whether California supplementing their SSI benefit because they paid income tax in the state of California is fair, you are wrong again. You are eligible for the California enhancement based on being a California RESIDENT. An SSI recipient residing in California would be eligible for the enhancement, even if they paid NO INCOME TAXES to the state.
@9:14
I know many Guam residents do pay FICA taxes on their earnings, but that's a can of worms and the objectors here don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept of a federal program that isn't contingent on paying into the program (not to say that plenty of SSI recipients did pay in during their working life, and some still do).
Perhaps to make it simple, why should a US citizen that is not in a state or district that pays US federal taxes receive SSI (fed tax supported)? If Guam, why not US citizens in Mexico, France, anywhere else? They are US citizens! Actually, why limit it to US citizens as permanent residents can receive SSI? We could do that for any permanent resident that leaves the country as well.
SSI people do not have to pay federal income tax to qualify. But right now they have to live in a jurisdiction that has people that pay it.
@914 Not sure what the ignorance is when you agree that Guam residents who pay FICA receive SSA benefits but don't receive SSI. FICA, which they pay, supports SSA benefits. US income tax which supports SSI is not paid by them.
@1115 Residence doesn't matter much as to paying out SSA benefits. There are a handful of countries where benefits aren't paid but I'd venture to say very few US citizens or permanent residents live in those countries. Not sure who they are now but used to include North Korea.
And yes CA residents are eligible for the SSI supplement whether they paid CA taxes or not, but Montana residents who don't pay CA taxes aren't eligible because Montanans don't pay CA income tax. If one wants the CA supplement, they have to reside in CA. If a resident of Guam wants SSI, move to a state.
@11:15 AM
Hey, I'm on your side of this issue (at least I think I am).
@12:28PM
To address your absurd false equivalency: Because Mexico and France, unlike Guam, are not U.S. states or territorial holdings.
11:15 here.
@12:28
SSI is already available to non-citizen legal residents assuming they are living state-side. As to extending the benefits to those not residing within the United States, I assume the logic there is that Congress expected those living in foreign countries to rely on those countries' programs. As to requiring an SSI recipient reside in a jurisdiction in which people pay federal income tax, yes and that's unfair and arbitrary.
Your false equivocation as to the distinction of a state supplement not extending to non-residents of the state, versus a federal program not extending to residents of Guam, a federal territory of the United States is specious.
@2:10
I didn't mean to be offensive, just frustrated. You're great.
Post a Comment