From a notice that Social Security will publish in the Federal Register tomorrow:
We are finalizing our proposed rule to expand the definition of a public assistance (PA) household for purposes of our programs, particularly the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, to include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as an additional means-tested public income-maintenance (PIM) program. We are also revising the definition of a PA household from a household in which every member receives some kind of PIM payment to a household that has both an SSI applicant or recipient, and at least one other household member who receives one or more of the listed PIM payments (the any other definition). If determined to be living in a PA household, inside in-kind support and maintenance (ISM) would no longer need to be developed. The final rule will decrease the number of SSI applicants and recipients charged with ISM from others within their household. In addition, we expect this rule to decrease the amount of income we would deem to SSI applicants and recipients because we will no longer deem as income from ineligible spouses and parents who live in the same household: the value of the SNAP benefits that they receive; any income that was counted or excluded in figuring the amount of that payment; or any income that was used to determine the amount of SNAP benefits to someone else. These policy changes reduce administrative burden for low-income households and SSA. ...
This is so overdue. However, the idea of in-kind support and maintenance is absurd and should be done away with altogether. Saying that because you were lucky enough to find a couch to sleep on while you await appoval of your benefits instead of sleeping on the streets means you get a 1/3 reduction in past-due benefits is absurd. What about if the couch was lumpy? What about if the couch was on the porch? Is that still a 1/3 reduction? What about if the couch alternated being moved daily between the front lawn, the porch and the living room? Is that a 1/3 reduction?
ReplyDelete@242 SSI is a needs based program. People who pay rent and buy their own food need more money to live than couch surfers.
Delete@10:50 People who pay rent and buy their own food have income and/or assets and thus won't qualify for SSI anyway.
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about people who are impoverished and couch surfing and then are reduced by 1/3 because they weren't actually homeless. If they were living in the streets then they get the full amount. Truth is theses couch surfers do have rent obligation because their "sponsors" will undoubetedly want reimbursement of some kind, once (and if) they actually get any benefits. Sure you can say "oh, but they have a loan obligation so will get full benefits", but the reality is that the byzantine rules to prove a loan are very difficult for the claimant's and the vast majority of loan claims are discredited; as a result, once they get their past-due benefits and they begin paying people back, their benefits are quickly gone, and even much faster because they were reduced by 1/3 of because they couldn't prove all the BS loan rules. That's why the only fair thing is to do away with the ridiculous 1/3 reduction rule for in kind food and housing.