CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research

Multimedia

En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs CEPR Blog CBO's Curious Claims About Supplemental Security for Children with Severe Disabilities

CBO's Curious Claims About Supplemental Security for Children with Severe Disabilities

Print
Written by Shawn Fremstad   
Friday, 15 November 2013 00:00
In a discussion about the budgetary impact of cutting federal expenditures by roughly .26% of the federal budget by completely taking Supplemental Security benefits away from working-class children with severe disabilities, the Congressional Budget Office makes a couple of curious claims:
  1. "One rationale for limiting SSI to adults is to refocus the program on replacing earnings for people who cannot work, which was the objective stated in the legislation that established SSI in 1974"; and

  2. "because SSI benefits are reduced by 50 cents for each dollar of recipients' monthly wage and self-employment income after the first $65, the availability of SSI reduces the incentive to work." 
 
No evidence is cited by CBO in support of either of these claims, which is not surprising because they're both wrong.
 
On the first claim, according to the purpose section of the legislation signed by President Nixon in 1972, the objective of Supplemental Security was to establish a "national program to provide supplemental security income to individuals who have attained age 65 or are blind or disabled...." See Section 301 of Public Law 92-603 (October 30, 1972).  SSI's purpose language remains unchanged to this day. It's been a long time since I graduated from law school, so my statutory interpretation skills may be a bit rusty, but I don't see anything in this language supporting CBO's claim that SSI's purpose is limited to replacing earnings of unemployed adults with disabilities.
 
On the other hand, there is some specific legislative history on the original decision Congress made to not restrict SSI benefits to unemployed adults. In its report on the legislation, the House Ways and Means Committee explained the legislative purpose behind providing SSI benefits to children: "Disabled children living in low-income households are among the most disadvantaged of all Americans and are deserving of special assistance in order to help them become self-supporting members of our society... [P]oor children with disabilities should be eligible for SSI benefits because their needs are often greater than nondisabled children."  See U.S. House of Representatives, Social Security Amendments of 1971, Report of the Ways and Means Committee on H.R. 1, H. Rept. No. 92-251, pp. 146-148. 
 
On the second claim, I'm not aware of strong empirical evidence to support CBO's unqualified statement that "the availability of SSI reduces the incentive to work." In fact, the leading published work on this question, by economists Mark Duggan and Melissa Kearney, concluded that a child's receipt of SSI had "little [negative] impact on parental labor supply." In December 2011, despite near record-high unemployment (8.5 percent), nearly 40 percent of children receiving SSI lived with a working parent, and a decade earlier, when we were near full employment, it was 55 percent of SSI children. In reality, as federal means-tested benefit programs go, children's SSI actually does a pretty good job of limiting work penalties on parents. Yes, it could do better, but I'd argue that SSI's penalties on family savings and holding even modest assets are a much more pressing immediate issue. For more on issues related to work and savings, see my NASI policy brief with Rebecca Vallas. 
Comments (3)Add Comment
...
written by Carol, November 15, 2013 9:42
They must have read Kristof's column and mistaken his opinions for fact
Community Legal Services, Inc., Philadelphia, PA
written by Jonathan Stein, November 15, 2013 10:38
Yes you are accurate about the early legislative history and the fact that for 40 years the SSI children's disability program as been supported by Congress. I really did not know that CBO has any authority to hypothesize the total elimination of a federal program in its budget musings.
You leave out the fact that a Republican Congress in the 1996 so-called welfare reform legislation (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193) reaffirmed the existence and purposes of the SSI child disability program, albeit tightening the disability test for children (requiring "marked and severe functional limitations").
It is ironic and short-sighted of that CBO staff person to use as main justification for having solely an adult SSI disability program, the "replacing of earnings for people who cannot work," as indeed that is one of the many salutary purposes of the children's disability program, i.e. replacing the lost or reduced earning of a working parent who must make her child's health and care her top priority. One wonders whether the closeted budget analyst who dreamed up this idea has any idea of why we have a safety-net program like SSI child disability.
...
written by PeonInChief, November 16, 2013 4:43
One of the reasons disabled children receive SSI is that it keeps them out of institutions. Low-income parents use this money to allow one parent to devote most of (mostly) her time to taking care of the child. This is good for the child. It is also less expensive than institutional care, although I'd frankly support it even if SSI cost more than institutional care. In addition, many low-income disabled children require a lot of medical care, and organizing that can be a full time job in itself.

Shouldn't these people be devoting themselves to getting rid of a worthless military system instead?

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

CEPR.net
Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613
budget economy education employment Haiti health care housing inequality jobs labor labor market minimum wage paid family leave poverty recession retirement Social Security taxes unemployment unions wages Wall Street women workers working class

+ All tags