SSI - Some Suggestions to Improve the Lives of 7 million people.

By Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues A recent report from the bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board (Issue Brief #4) raised some important issues regarding Supplemental Security Income, the federal grant program that provides monthly grants to at least five million very low-income people with disabilities and nearly two million older Americans. SSI is a poverty program, and many of its provisions make sure people stay in poverty! Here's what the Advisory Board presented to improve SSI: First, in order to receive the full federal SSI grant, a person currently may keep only $20 of any income (a "general exclusion") and may also have an "earned income exclusion" of only the first $65 of earnings and half of the amount above $65 a month. These "exclusions" were in the original legislation more than 30 years ago and have never been increased. If advocates had successfully organized and demanded that these exclusions keep up with inflation, then they would be up to $87 a month for the general exclusion and earned income exclusion would be $284. Using the Average Wage Index, instead of the general inflation index, the general exclusion would now be $105 and the earned income exclusion would be $342a month. Until Congress increases these exclusions, people on SSI have tremendous disincentives to work and will remain far below the federal poverty level. Second, in 1989 the asset limit was increased so that an individual could have no more than $2,000 in assets and a couple only $3,000. Remember,these assets were supposed to help SSI recipients cover emergencies that a monthly SSI grant could not cover, e.g., a broken chair lift, car repairs,broken dishwasher, uncovered medical costs. If these 1989 costs had kept up with inflation, an individual would be able to keep $3,500 and a couple$5,250. If they were adjusted to the Average Wage Index, they would now be$4,200 for an individual and $6,300 for a couple. Third, when SSI was originally enacted, a married couple on SSI was presumed to be able to live more economically than two people living alone. That's why a SSI grant for a couple is only one-and-a half times the individual rate. As the Social Security Advisory Board stated, "two single adult SSI beneficiaries who live together are each eligible for a full individual benefit, while each member of a married couple is eligible for three-fourths of the full benefit amount." What an incentive to get divorced or not marry another disabled person, or maybe disabled people are not supposed to marry at all. Fourth, SSI does not recognize the "additional household costs caused by the disability of a beneficiary." These additional costs include ability to pay rent for an accessible unit, for a reasonable accommodation, or higher utility bills or to meet special dietary requirements. People with disabilities have higher out of pocket health expenditures than non-disabled persons. SSI benefit rates do not reflect these additional needs. These four issues do not address the fundamental problem that the federal SSI grant levels are currently and have been historically far below the poverty level.(See Information Bulletin #197A). Despite we're dealing with seven million people on SSI, it's amazing that these issues do not seem to be on the radar of national disability advocates or national disability organizations. What would it take to have a coalition that could convince Congress to make statutory changes that would significantly improve the lives of the five million poorest people with disabilities and two million older Americans? Where are our Congressional leaders? Where are our DC disability and elderly leaders? Where are our national disability organizations? To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@cs.com