CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research


En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs CEPR Blog Nicholas Kristof Bravely Urges Congress to Cut Supplemental Security for Children with Severe Disabilities

Nicholas Kristof Bravely Urges Congress to Cut Supplemental Security for Children with Severe Disabilities

Written by Shawn Fremstad   
Monday, 10 December 2012 11:45

In Sunday’s New York Times, Nicholas Kristof tells us that he hopes “budget negotiations in Washington may offer us a chance to take money from SSI [Supplemental Security for low-income children with severe disabilities] and invest it in early childhood initiatives.” In essence, we need destroy an effective social insurance program for children with severe disabilities in order to … Save the Children!

In the real world, these two things — basic economic supports for low-income parents caring for severely disabled children and educational initiatives — are complementary. As Rebecca Vallas and I have documented, in papers for the National Academy of Social Insurance and the Center for American Progress, the data show that Supplemental Security reduces family economic insecurity and supports parents’ efforts to best care for their severely disabled children.

But in Kristof’s World, which based on his opinion piece, appears to be located in the small, all-white and staunchly Red-voter Breathitt County in rural Kentucky, economic support for parents caring for disabled children and early childhood programs only work at cross purposes. Citing anecdotal evidence from a sample of one person living there as well as the testimony of a long-standing critic of Supplemental Security who has proposed block granting it, Kristof sensationally claims that parents are “profiting from children’s illiteracy” and pulling their kids out of literacy classes in order to keep them disabled and eligible for Supplemental Security.

Of course, there is a venerable traditional of mainstream journalists spreading folkloric urban (and now rural) myths about Supplemental Security. The cycle is well-established—first, mainstream journalists claim that parents are “coaching their children” to appear disabled (prominent in the 1990s) or that parents are medicating their children to make them seem disabled (the most recent scare pre-Kristof), then investigators at GAO, SSA, and other places study the issue empirically rather than just relying on a few anecdotal tales and find that the claims are unfounded. So, for example, with the most recent medication scare, GAO found that children who took medication were actually less likely to qualify for SSI than those who did not. Meanwhile, resources and attention are diverted from focusing on the real-world ways we could make programs like Supplemental Security even more effective for disabled kids and their parents. And so it goes.

Journalistic myth-making about Supplemental Security takes particular aim at parents caring for kids with severe mental impairments. For some reason, there is incredible denial about the reality of mental impairments in 21st century America. Kristof demonstrates this denial when he downgrades the seriousness of mental impairments by calling them “fuzzy.” This might be called the optical definition of child disability. if you look like one of Jerry’s kids, you’re really disabled; if not, well we really can’t be sure, can we?

All of this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t be very proactive about ensuring that children meet literacy standards. But this isn’t a problem that is limited to the very small number of low-income children with severe intellectual disabilities who receive Supplemental Security Income. And in the real-world, parents aren’t able to ensure that their children take full advantage of after-school and other programs that might improve their literacy for a very long list of reasons, with “wanting to make sure their children look disabled so they can qualify for Supplemental Security” falling at most near the absolute bottom of that list.

So, instead of destroying effective social insurance programs that provide a foundation of basic economic security to disabled kids, maybe we should build on that foundation instead.

Comments (11)Add Comment
Lord of Rotterdam
written by Michael Maiello, December 10, 2012 11:31
Excellent analysis. I was surprised that the usually well-meaning Kristof let himself fall for this. And, the real issue with Social Security and other government benefits, by the way, isn't that they're for the most part abused by their recipients. It's that most people don't known enough to ask for what they're fully entitled to. Any waste and fraud is more than absorbed by that fact.
I Was Appalled When I Read Kristof's Article
written by John Glover, December 10, 2012 11:31
My immediate reaction to the example cited by Kristof was "those parents are trying to defraud the system." In other words, they are trying to get SSI benefits by having their kids fake a disability.

Now I'll be the first to admit there's probably fraud in the system, and that it's something that might need to be addressed (although the studies you cite would indicate this is a small problem relative to others). But if we're going to cut programs where fraud is rampant, maybe we should start with military procurement.
Let's extend this premise to the logical conclusion...
written by r€nato, December 10, 2012 11:51
Certainly, somebody somewhere is using our interstate freeway system for illegal purposes; to transport drugs or undocumented migrants for instance. Therefor, let's abolish the interstate highways!
even better
written by r€nato, December 10, 2012 11:55
there have been instances of military contractors ripping off the DoD with improper charges and overcharging. Therefore, let's abolish all military contracting!
Kristof's on to something
written by Harry R. Sohl, December 10, 2012 12:07
Bloated military budgets with "missing" pallets of cash, big Pharma give aways of $180 billion, unfunded illegal wars, $15 Trillion Wall St bailouts, and the real problem is one poor, disabled kid who's trying to maintain $637/mo. for her family (perhaps their sole income).

Keep your eyes on the prize!
written by ltr, December 10, 2012 12:33
Kristoff has been writing as though a moral monster for years, and not just about America but about issues all over the world the slant of the writing is morally monstrous.
written by pseudonymous in nc, December 10, 2012 12:42
Shouldn't Kristof be concentrating on "saving" prostitutes somewhere?
Don't forget...
written by Ron Carver, December 10, 2012 1:56
Don't forget Kristoff's ongoing attacks on anti-sweatshop activists for hampering economic development and, I suppose, the opportunity for workers to perish in garment factory conflagrations.
written by emptyfull, December 10, 2012 7:11
"if you look like one of Jerry’s kids, you’re really disabled"

I'm an adult with a form of muscular dystrophy. I use a wheelchair. I can't feed or wash or dress myself. And I have two letters from the social security system saying that I am not disabled.

Don't I wish they were right...
written by James, December 12, 2012 9:50
Let's not forget that it's the fault of women for being poor -- why can't they just submit themselves to the 'hard-working' man in exchange for his pay checks?
Zoals de waard is..
written by Dabbe, December 15, 2012 7:53
We've got a saying in the Netherlands which loosely translates to; the innkeeper trusts his guests like he'd trust himself.
If you suspect disabled infants of scheming the system, chances are good you're projecting your own evils upon them.

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

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


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