 |
| This is the beginning of my Shirking Work days March 8, 1996 |
So last night I was doing exactly what I shouldn't have been doing, which was scrolling through emails and Facebook. I was already in an agitated state over the National Prayer Breakfast and some un-bloggable things, but when I read the following article from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), I thought I might combust.
I'm going to cut and paste the entire thing in red because it deserves the coverage, especially to those of you who put us in this position and who might be reading here:
Eliminate Supplemental Security Income Benefits for Disabled Children
| Billions of Dollars | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2017-2021 | 2017-2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change in Mandatory Outlays | 0 | -10 | -11 | -11 | -11 | -12 | -12 | -11 | -13 | -13 | -42 | -104 |
| Change in Discretionary Spending | 0 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -4 | -9 |
This option would take effect in October 2017.
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides cash assistance to people who are disabled, aged, or both and who have low income and few assets. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 15 percent of SSI recipients in 2016 will be disabled children under age 18, receiving an average monthly benefit of $664. Those children must have marked and severe functional limitations and usually must live in a household with low income and few assets.
This option would eliminate SSI benefits for disabled children. CBO estimates that making that change would reduce mandatory spending by $104 billion through 2026. Also, because annual discretionary appropriations cover SSI’s administrative costs, this option would generate $9 billion in discretionary savings over the same period so long as total appropriations were adjusted accordingly.
One rationale for this option is that providing SSI benefits to children may discourage their parents from working. Unlike Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a welfare program that aims to help families achieve self-sufficiency, SSI imposes no work requirements on parents and does not explicitly limit how long they may receive benefits as long as the child remains medically and financially eligible. Furthermore, SSI benefits decrease by 50 cents for each additional dollar parents earn above a certain threshold, depending on household size and other factors. (For example, in calendar year 2016, for a single parent with one child who is disabled and with no other income, SSI benefits are generally reduced after the parent earns more than $1,551 per month.) Those program traits create a disincentive for parents to increase work and thereby boost earnings.
Another rationale for this option is that, rather than provide a cash benefit to parents without ensuring that they spend the money on their disabled children, policymakers could choose to support those children in other ways. For example, states could receive grants to make an integrated suite of educational, medical, and social services available to disabled children and their families. To the extent that funds that would have been used to provide SSI benefits for children were instead used for a new program or to increase the resources of other existing programs, federal savings from this option would be correspondingly reduced.
A rationale against this option is that this program serves a disadvantaged group. SSI is the only federal income support program geared toward families with disabled children, and SSI benefits reduce child poverty rates. Families with disabled children are typically more susceptible to economic hardship than other families because of both direct and indirect costs associated with children’s disabilities. (Direct costs can include additional out-of-pocket health care expenses, spending on adaptive equipment, and behavioral and educational services. Indirect costs for the parents of disabled children can include lost productivity and negative health effects.)
I'm calling out not just Drumpflanders, but Republicans, because literally the second you can, you go for the jugular. I don't give a flying foo-foo about reaching across the aisle or even trying to understand why the sick, the disabled and the most vulnerable bear the brunt of your political machinations, even as your precious corporations are allowed to poison our air and water, exploit workers, avoid taxes, make war and billions and billions of dollars in profits for an ever-shrinking group of people.
Am I enraged? I am.
First of all, the rationale for "this option" is that providing SSI benefits to children may discourage their parents from working. Sophie gets a bit more than $640 a month in SSI benefits. This proposal would eliminate that benefit. As you know, I have been shirking work for more than two decades and would have to go out and get a real job.
Even the rationale "against" that option is ridiculously simplistic, stripping everything but economics, the bottom line and the commodification of our children.
The Nazis came first for the disabled. Did you know that? This isn't rhetoric.
Let's say this doesn't happen. What you've done, Drumpflanders and Republicans, is inject the most intense panic and worry, on top of everything else that we have to deal with, into our bodies. Sit with that. You are indecent, immoral human beings if you support this.
*This is a clarification. I am grateful for the SSI money that Sophie receives every single month and use it to pay for unreimbursed medicine, therapies, clothing and incidentals for her. We receive that amount, thanks to a federal waiver that has deemed her care "institutional" -- meaning were I not to care for her at home, she would be institutionalized. In addition to SSI, Sophie qualifies for IHSS or In Home Supportive Services. I am paid minimum wage to care for her at home. I have no idea whether these funds will also go by the wayside, along with the Affordable Care Act. In addition to the entitlement programs, my parents help me by sending me money to help with childcare. They are in a position to do so, and I am beyond grateful and at once cognizant of how privileged I am. I manage to get freelance writing and editing work, as well as have my book salon and other entrepreneurial things. So, what I'm saying, is that I am panicked about the Repubs removing all these safety nets, and I am a fortunate person, at least for now. I worry about the long term future, though, and how I will continue to do what I do. It would be unethical and immoral of me not to use my talents and ability to articulate these things and to advocate for the tens of thousands of families less fortunate than mine. So that's what I'll continue to do.
*This is a clarification. I am grateful for the SSI money that Sophie receives every single month and use it to pay for unreimbursed medicine, therapies, clothing and incidentals for her. We receive that amount, thanks to a federal waiver that has deemed her care "institutional" -- meaning were I not to care for her at home, she would be institutionalized. In addition to SSI, Sophie qualifies for IHSS or In Home Supportive Services. I am paid minimum wage to care for her at home. I have no idea whether these funds will also go by the wayside, along with the Affordable Care Act. In addition to the entitlement programs, my parents help me by sending me money to help with childcare. They are in a position to do so, and I am beyond grateful and at once cognizant of how privileged I am. I manage to get freelance writing and editing work, as well as have my book salon and other entrepreneurial things. So, what I'm saying, is that I am panicked about the Repubs removing all these safety nets, and I am a fortunate person, at least for now. I worry about the long term future, though, and how I will continue to do what I do. It would be unethical and immoral of me not to use my talents and ability to articulate these things and to advocate for the tens of thousands of families less fortunate than mine. So that's what I'll continue to do.
