I had earlier posted the names of the members of the House Social Security Subcommittee. However, it's unlikely that that Subcommittee will advance any significant legislation in this Congress or, at least, that it could be passed. It would take 60 votes in the Senate to overcome filibuster and pass such legislation. It's hard to imagine any significant Social Security bill garnering 10 Republican votes in the Senate. Specifically, the Byrd Rule prevents budget reconciliation bills (which don't require 60 votes in the Senate) from containing provisions that affect Title II of the Social Security Act.
Legislation affecting Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a different story. My understanding is that SSI legislation could be passed as part of a Budget Reconciliation bill. However, the budget reconciliation rules do forbid anything that extends beyond 10 years so anything affecting SSI would have to include a 10 year sunset provision. That's not a complete bar. Much tax legislation including 10 year sunsets has been passed as part of budget reconciliation bills. It's basically a challenge to future Congresses to re-up the provisions. Would that happen with SSI legislation? I don't know. The Biden campaign released an ambitious SSI plan but I've heard nothing about SSI since the election.
I do know that the Social Security Subcommittee lacks jurisdiction over SSI. That's under the jurisdiction of the Worker and Family Support Subcommittee. It could be the more important subcommittee in this Congress. Here are the Democratic and Republican members of that Subcommittee:
Worker and Family Support Subcommittee
Chair: Rep. Danny K. Davis
- Democrats
- Rep. Judy Chu
- Rep. Gwen Moore
- Rep. Dwight Evans
- Rep. Stephanie Murphy
- Rep. Jimmy Gomez
- Rep. Dan Kildee
- Rep. Jimmy Panetta
- Republicans
- Republican Leader Tom Reed (R-NY)
- Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC)
- Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX)
- Rep. Ron Estes (R-KS)
- Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK)
That puts Rep. Gwen Moore on both subcommittees, which can be a useful bridge.
ReplyDeleteSeeing the Congressional resistance to Stimulus as of late, changes to a welfare program for individuals with no work history is going to be a real Sisyphean task.
ReplyDeleteIf they cannot increase the SSI benefit amount, at least do away with the 1/3 reduction to the benefits because Uncle Fred is nice enough to let you sleep on his couch.
ReplyDelete@11:24 AM
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you regarding the probability of SSI reform, not all individuals on SSI have NO work history. There are some who just don't have enough recent work history and/or enough work credits.
if you havent worked in a decade you havent worked.
ReplyDeleteConservatives always go after the most vulnerable first. In disability circles, this is SSI claimants. Then, it will go after the SSD claimants. And so on. Low hanging fruit.
ReplyDelete@10:20
ReplyDeleteI've always found it odd that logic applies to DLI, but AIME is based off top 35 years of earnings. Also PRW is 15 years.
Just seems arbitrary. I get the 10 years insured formula (specifically earnings in 20 quarters out of the prior 40 quarters) is statutory, so not really SSA's fault, just weird.
yeah when even the centrists are taking serious pause on child benefits because it might result in single mothers working a whole 1.2 hours less per week (the horror! The disruption to the labor market! Oh no, the sky is falling!!!) I wouldn't be too confident that out and out welfare like SSI is going in any better direction anytime soon.
ReplyDelete@109 I think the 20/40 DLI issue is because the program is intended to replace lost earnings. If a person stopped work 20 years ago (say to stay home w/ the kids, care for elder, etc) and then becomes disabled way after their DLI, what earnings would SSA be replacing. The person hasn't worked in 20 years. Unfortunately, they would have to wait for retirement or widow(er)s benefits.
ReplyDeleteIn that respect it's similar to unemployment.
@10:28
ReplyDelete1:09 here. Interesting. Had not considered it from that perspective. That does make some sense. Thanks!
Eliminate couples cases. Why reduce benefits to two SSI claimant's because they are married? Also FO's could actually have time to work integrity workloads instead of Manually Start Dating records which takes significant time over multiple days.
ReplyDelete