The Supplemental Security Income program: the welfare state's black hole

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Nov, 1995 by Christopher M. Wright

Negative publicity in recent years has triggered proposals to reduce program abuses. In August, 1994, Congress passed and Pres. Clinton signed into law several SSI reforms, most of which took effect in February, 1995. They attempt to deal with some of the more notorious problems that have arisen in the SSI program.

* The law imposes a lifetime cap of 36 months on recipients whose substance abuse is material to their disability. Yet, nothing prevents substance abusers from returning to the rolls as mentally impaired after the 36-month cap. That loophole looms as a real prospect because it is undisputed that substance abuse can induce brain chemistry changes and, furthermore, that many addicts have mental problems. Substance abusers who are on the rolls by reason of mental impairment are not necessarily subject to the payee and treatment requirements.

* It requires SSA, in the next three fiscal years, to re-evaluate the eligibility of at least one-third of all SSI children who reach the age of 18. The law also establishes the Commission on Childhood Disability to study, among other matters, the definition of disability as it relates to children under the age of 18.

* Three major provisions designed to fight fraud and abuse include stricter control of translators, tougher criminal and civil penalties, and a requirement that SSA redetermine eligibility in cases of suspected SSI fraud. Given SSA's sorry record of disinterest and inaction, it remains to be seen just how effective the new fraud provisions will be.

Although well-intended, these reforms merely tinker at the edges, leaving intact a program that is fundamentally flawed. Two examples underscore just how narrow the scope of the reform package really is. First, a proposal to study the reasons disability costs are exploding was scrubbed in the House-Senate conference. Second, the Commission on Childhood Disability will not be studying whether a cash benefit program makes any sense in the first place, which is the real question about that part of the program.

More substantial reforms of the SSI program are working their way through the committee process in the House. Among the ideas under consideration are putting SSI under a flexible ceiling allowing for inflation and growth in the poverty population; specifying a fixed amount of money and sending SSI to the states as a block grant; terminating eligibility of non-citizens and drug addicts; and limiting eligibility of children, restricting cash benefits to preventing institutionalization, and providing services by way of block grants to the rest. While these are meaningful reforms, there are still others, not currently under consideration, that should be implemented:

* Congress should have to vote on every proposed increase in benefits. All should be subject to the pay-as-you-go requirements of the Budget Enforcement Act, meaning they have to be paid for by cuts in other mandatory spending or by explicitly voting for a tax increase.

* Large payments generated by the delay between initial application and approval of a claim should be eliminated. Such retroactive lump sums draw people to the program and lead to fraudulent and abusive use of taxpayer funds.