To appear in tomorrow's Federal Register:
We propose to update our regulations to remove food from the calculation of In-Kind Support and Maintenance (ISM). We also propose to add conforming language to our definition of income, excluding food from the ISM calculation. Accordingly, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) applicants and recipients would no longer need to provide information about their food expenses for us to consider in our ISM calculations. We expect that these changes will simplify our rules, making them less cumbersome to administer and easier for the public to understand and follow. These simplifications would make it easier for SSI applicants and recipients to comply with our program requirements, which would save time for both them and us, and improve the equitable treatment of food assistance within the SSI program. The proposed rule also includes other, minor revisions to the regulations related to income, including clarifying our longstanding position that income may be received “constructively” (we will define this term below).
Remember, this is only a proposal. At best, it will be many months before this comes into effect.
A step in the right direction. Having to list food expenses was unnecessary and degrading.
ReplyDeleteI don’t ask where they get their food from now. Where a claimant gets food is so far from helping streamline anything to do with SSI as a whole.
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, let’s nuke ISM entirely - if someone wants to help out an SSI recipient, let them. That, however, would require legislative political will rather than new rule-making. Given that legislative political will does not exist to fix more serious problems, I am not holding my breath.
ReplyDeleteAgreed
DeleteCorrect a step in the right direction. except that SSI is needs based and if one gets food from and non-excludable source does that not reduce their need? Does not state/local assistance programs use food expense in budget calculation? ISM is one of the most complex and payment error prone elements of SSI.
ReplyDelete9:39 is right. ISM is complicated and rarely charged as CRs work around it. That is how so many parents and relatives end up "renting" a room to recipients...
ReplyDelete@11:05
ReplyDeleteIt does reduce SSI recipients' needs, to a minimal degree, but imposing ISM discourages friends and family from assisting SSI recipients. It's also inconsistent with the fact that SSI excludes personal effects and household goods from consideration. Dishes, appliances, carpet; these relatively permanent things do not reduce need, yet a sandwich does? It's silly. It's a waste of administrative resources even to look into it.
SSI eligibility needs to be considerably streamlined. The $2K resource limit is completely untenable. Reporting requirements are overly burdensome for both recipients and the Agency alike. Any Congressional aides reading this... This is an easy legislative fix for your employer, red state or blue state alike.
ReplyDeleteThe US should just move to socialism. That way we would have the structure in place to actually care for those who can’t care for themselves.
ReplyDeleteIt does not stop friends and family from assisting, it encourages the claimant to lie to keep maximum benefits. They have no choice, it is understandable.
ReplyDeleteI worked for Social Security until I took early retirement a number of years ago. I finished as Claims Authorizer a Program Service Center but I started out as a Claims Representative working mostly with SSI applicants and recipients. It was ridiculous to me and most of my co-workers then (1976!) that counting food as in kind income was ridiculous.
ReplyDelete