Before publishing proposed new regulations in the Federal Register for public comments, agencies must obtain the approval of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On February 8, some seven months ago, Social Security asked OIRA for approval of proposed regulations that would omit food from consideration as in-kind support and maintenance in computing Supplemental Security Income benefits. This is a not insignificant proposal. The proposal is still pending. That's a long time for a proposed regulation coming from Social Security to stay pending at OIRA.
I have no idea what is causing the delay. I don't think this would be a complicated proposal. Anything that would help SSI claimants would be a big deal, though. For decades, Congress has failed to update SSI income and resource limitations.
8 comments:
I agree that is may be a complicated proposal. I also agree that in-kind food (or food of any kind) should not be used as "income", to put it simply. They don't use Food Stamps as income, why would ones' mother feeding them be used as income? Shelter, clothes...sure. FOOD? That's just silly, feeding your disabled children, of any age, should not be held against the person!
Well it doesn’t count if they’re minors. If they are adults and get food stamps as an individual we have the option not to count it as well.
Generally speaking, this change would have little to no effect of most cases regarding in-kind support and maintenance. Shelter is by far the bigger cause of a reduction in benefits.
@1:20
Funny thing is, last I checked, clothes would clearly fall under household goods and not countable anyways.
If you work for the agency, “clearly” and SSI almost never work together.
@2:37 I would consider clothing personal, since clothing is used to clothe a person, and not a household (but I guess if one shares clothes....), but that's just my opinion, I will trust you on that one, being that you checked. @7:55 OH BOY, how right you are!
We should get out of the ISM business anyway. Pay everybody the federal rate, subtract for unearned income, treat earned income the same way you treat Title 2 with SGA. We waste so much time policing people for their roommates and split bills, the administrative savings will probably even out or come ahead of the increased outlays.
Right now an SSI recipient has their check reduced if they make any more than $65 in wages in a month, and it doesn't matter how hard SSA tries to flog those "you still get ahead by working!" charts, it will discourage SSI recipients from attempting to return to work.
Charles, next time you're on the phone with a Title 16 rep ask them how they feel about CCE. It's the web-based program SSA is migrating all Title 16 stuff too, and they just made a major change that is universally hated, as it destroys everyone's productivity. There's definitely a column there about how our automations department is making our software less productive with every update.
Agree with 9:13, we aren't talking about lots of money and we nitpick with everything SSI and food stamp recipients get. I get even madder when I see how cavalier the state of Mississippi is about shoveling out welfare money by the millions to Brett Farve.
Eliminating food from ISM comps may eliminate a few questions (that many employees ignored anyway - earmarked food and shelter???). But the biggest value is usually shelter over food. So this falls under revenue neutral, not costing the government any more money than it saves. It's a good idea, but not really a major change that helps SSI recipients. Getting rid of nearly all ISM rules; large increase in resource limit; large increase in earned income exclusion. Both are looooong overdue to be increased. Couple FBR twice the individual FBR. Those would help recipients and make the job easier to administer.
Post a Comment