FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Supplemental Security

by SHAWN FREMSTAD and REBECCA VALLAS

For children with severe disabilities, parents are the “first responders.” It’s easy to forget that society didn’t always expect so much from these parents. In the early 1960s, some 70 percent of the public thought people with disabilities should be cared for in institutions rather than at home. Fortunately, public attitudes have changed and we have shifted to a system of family- and community-centered care for disabled children and adults.

But like all first responders, parents need support. To help parents provide their disabled children with the best care possible, we need to maintain and strengthen Supplemental Security Income.

There’s no dodging the reality that caring for children with disabilities can be an expensive undertaking. A recent report conducted for the Brookings-Princeton journal Future of Children found that parents caring for disabled children bear additional costs of approximately $6,000 per year, and up to more than $20,000 for the most impaired children.

Working-class families bear the heaviest costs as a share of household income, and face particular hardships. As Susan Parish and her colleagues have shown, among low-income families, those that include a disabled child are much more likely to experience material hardships.

The burdens of caring for a severely disabled child can also take their toll on the bonds that hold parents and families together, as sociologist Dennis Hogan documents in his important book Family Consequences of Children’s Disability. In the three years after the birth of a disabled child, married parents are more likely to separate or divorce.

Congress didn’t have this data when it established Supplemental Security 40 years ago this year. But lawmakers still knew then, as the original House Ways and Means Committee’s report on the legislation founding Supplemental Security stated, that “disabled children living in low-income households are among the most disadvantaged of all Americans and are deserving of special assistance.”

That’s why Supplemental Security is nothing short of vital to families caring for kids with severe disabilities. This is just as true today as it was 40 years ago.

Moreover, we know two very important things about Supplemental Security from careful research.

First, we have clear evidence for what we call the three R’s of Supplemental Security—it Reduces child poverty, Reinforces parental employment by providing the right incentives, and Reduces reliance on other means-tested benefits for families caring for kids with severe disabilities.

Second, when Supplemental Security benefits have been cut for children with intellectual and development disabilities – especially the kinds that one pundit recently downgraded to “fuzzy” disabilities – those children and their families suffer.

Like any successful social initiative, there’s room for improvement. But we should build on the solid foundation Supplemental Security – and related investments like Medicaid and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act – provides, not tear it down.

As we move forward, there are several points to keep in mind.

First, even with today’s polarized politics, there should be broad support for easing Supplemental Security’s penalties on savings, further expanding work and education supports for youth with disabilities, and providing the Social Security Administration (SSA) with the administrative funding it needs to conduct timely medical reviews of children. These improvements have upfront costs, but are wise investments that pay for themselves over time.

Next, we should resist calls for radical policy change based on stereotypes about parents in disadvantaged places or baseless claims that expenditures on Supplemental Security are rising at an unsustainable pace. In fact, both the Congressional Budget Office and SSA project that expenditures on Supplemental Security will soon begin to decline as a share of GDP.

Finally, beyond Supplemental Security, the United States needs to do much more to promote security and opportunity for parents and young people—with and without disabilities. Both paid parental leave and the EITC should be part of this effort.

At the end of the day, Supplemental Security makes an enormous difference in the lives of vulnerable families. Just take the case of Will Bentley of Covington, Kentucky. Will’s mother, Katie, left her job to stay home with him when it was discovered that Will had lesions on his brain. Caring for Will had become a full-time job. In Katie’s words, “SSI allowed me and my husband to focus on what Will needed. At one time Will was unable to do anything for himself. Now he can read, feed himself, and zip his own jacket. SSI was a vital part of making that a reality.”

The importance of this vital support is clear from stories like Will’s. This need was clear 40 years ago, and SSI’s value as a life-changing investment in our nation’s children with disabilities has only increased over time. Supplemental Security must be strengthened, or it is children and families who will suffer.

Shawn Fremstad is a senior research associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Rebecca Vallas is an attorney and policy advocate at Community Legal Services and co-chair of the national SSI Coalition for Children and Families.

This article originally appeared in Spotlight on Poverty.

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
December 02, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The CIA’s Plots to Kill Castro
Paul Street
The Iron Heel at Home: Force Matters
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Timberg’s Tale: Washington Post Reporter Spreads Blacklist of Independent Journalist Sites
Andrew Levine
Must We Now Rethink the Hillary Question? Absolutely, Not
Joshua Frank
CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post’s Shallow Smear
David Rosen
The Return of HUAC?
Rob Urie
Race and Class in Trump’s America
Patrick Cockburn
Why Everything You’ve Read About Syria and Iraq Could be Wrong
Caroline Hurley
Anatomy of a Nationalist
Ayesha Khan
A Muslim Woman’s Reflections on Trump’s Misogyny
Michael Hudson – Steve Keen
Rebel Economists on the Historical Path to a Global Recovery
Russell Mokhiber
Sanders Single Payer and Death by Democrat
Roger Harris
The Triumph of Trump and the Specter of Fascism
Steve Horn
Donald Trump’s Swamp: Meet Ten Potential Energy and Climate Cabinet Picks and the Pickers
Louis Proyect
Deepening Contradictions: Identity Politics and Steelworkers
Ralph Nader
Trump and His Betraying Makeover
Stephen Kimber
The Media’s Abysmal Coverage of Castro’s Death
Dan Bacher
WSPA: The West’s Most Powerful Corporate Lobbying Group
Nile Bowie
Will Trump backpedal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Ron Ridenour
Fidel’s Death Brings Forth Great and Sad Memories
Missy Comley Beattie
By Invitation Only
Fred Gardner
Sword of Damocles: Pot Partisans Fear Trump’s DOJ
Renee Parsons
Obama and Propornot
Dean Baker
Cash and Carrier: Trump and Pence Put on a Show
Jack Rasmus
Taming Trump: From Faux Left to Faux Right Populism
Ron Jacobs
Selling Racism—A Lesson From Pretoria
Julian Vigo
The Hijos of Buenos Aires:  When Identity is Political
Matthew Vernon Whalan
Obama’s Legacy
Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano
By Way of Prologue: On How We Arrived at the Watchtower and What We Saw from There
Aidan O'Brien
Fidel and Spain: A Tale of Right and Wrong
Carol Dansereau
Stop Groveling! How to Thwart Trump and Save the World
Kim Nicolini
Moonlight, The Movie
Evan Jones
Behind GE’s Takeover of Alstom Energy
James A Haught
White Evangelicals are Fading, Powerful, Baffling
Barbara Moroncini
Protests and Their Others
Christopher Brauchli
Parallel Lives: Trump and Temer
Joseph Natoli
The Winds at Their Backs
Cesar Chelala
Poverty is Not Only an Ignored Word
David Swanson
75 Years of Pearl Harbor Lies
Alex Jensen
The Great Deceleration
Nyla Ali Khan
When Faith is the Legacy of One’s Upbringing
Gilbert Mercier
Trump Win: Paradigm Shift or Status Quo?
Stephen Martin
From ‘Too Big to Fail’ to ‘Too Big to Lie’: the End Game of Corporatist Globalization.
Charles R. Larson
Review: Emma Jane Kirby’s “The Optician of Lampedusa”
David Yearsley
Haydn Seek With Hsu
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail