Who Will Get the Lifeboats?  Potential SSI Cuts Target Nation’s Most Vulnerable

By Sarah Walz, Iowa Policy Project



There
used to be an expression that went, “Women and children first.” The
idea was that in a disaster, those who were weakest or most vulnerable
should receive whatever assistance is available — lifeboats or ladders
or speedy access to the nearest exit.



Feminism
dispelled the myth women are innately weaker. Some of us gals of the
right age and constitution can tread water, fight a fire, or put bread
on the table along with the men. But age and infirmity, injury,
disability, and other circumstances of life make escaping a sinking
ship or simply surviving day-to-day more difficult for others.



In a
civilized society, and a wealthy one such as ours, you might think that
compassion for the least fortunate or less able would be unquestioned.



Not so.
Many services that help the less fortunate have been targeted for cuts
during congressional budget negotiations, including Supplemental
Security Income (SSI). Though removed from the budget resolution that
passed last week, SSI cuts still could happen. House Ways and Means
Committee Chairman Bill Thomas said in a news conference that he
intended to look at the House’s previous budget plan that ordered $18.7
billion in cuts from programs under his committee’s jurisdiction, which
would include SSI.



If you
are young, lucky and healthy you probably don’t know what SSI is. SSI
was signed into law by President Nixon — not a much admired president,
but apparently a fellow who was not utterly lacking in compassion.
Nixon received bipartisan support for the bill in a Congress that was
then controlled by Democrats. So we might call them compassionate guys
and gals all around. Those were the days!



SSI was
designed to aid low-income blind, disabled and elderly people by
helping pay for food, clothing and shelter. The program, which is
administered by the Social Security Administration, requires a means
test for eligibility, including a limit on current assets. That means
you only qualify for SSI only if you are blind, disabled, or both
elderly and poor. The money comes from the general budget, the taxes
most of us pay — not our Social Security contributions.



Seven
million Americans receive SSI (that’s around 2 percent of the
population). Of those, 43,000 are fellow Iowans. More than 80 percent
of those Iowans are people with disabilities, the rest are elderly. SSI
recipients aren’t getting rich. The maximum monthly benefit for an
individual living alone is just $579 — 25  percent below the
poverty line. You see, SSI is designed to work with other benefits like
Food Stamps and Medicaid to lift these folks above the poverty line.
Qualifying for SSI helps to establish eligibility for Medicaid.



In
general, the argument for cutting spending is that the cost of
government programs places a strain on the economy. In theory, this
money could otherwise be used to create jobs, invest in the stock
market or in capital for industry, promote entrepreneurship, etc. Those
are good things, and even more so if you subscribe to the notion that a
rising tide lifts all boats.



In
essence, what those who propose cuts to SSI are saying is that the
blind, the severely disabled, and the elderly who have found themselves
in the added situation of being in poverty are a drag on the economy
and we need to cut them off like so much dead weight. This seems to
ignore the fact that in order to benefit from the rising tide of a
healthy economy you must first be in a boat, or at least have access to
a boat.



For a
society that would begrudge such minimal aid to those who are least
able to fend for themselves, an appropriate motto might be “sink or
swim.” So much for compassion!