Troubling SSI changes

The rapid expansion of services provided under the federal Supplemental Security Income program came to a halt under the welfare reform act of 1996. Given the costs of the programs, this was probably inevitable. What was surprising, however, were the harsh and destructive regulations drafted to carry out the reforms.

The budget for SSI, a program designed to help support disabled children, tripled in size during the 1990s to $5 billion annually. Much of the new money came after court rulings that allowed more children with mental rather than physical disorders into the program. The expansion made SSI an easy target under reform. Few people expected, however, that the Social Security Administration, which oversees the program, would write rules that threatened the benefits of 260,000 children — 30 percent of the program.

So far, more than 95,000 children have been informed they no longer qualify, and that number may double. In Maine, 530 of the 2,700 children receiving SSI will have their eligibility reviewed. According to the The Washington Post, advocates for these children say children with major disabilities, some with IQs in the 60s, others with AIDS or uncontrolled diabetes have learned their benefits would be dropped.

If this is an example of the success President Clinton recently claimed in the reform of welfare, the president has capitulated even more than his detractors imagined. Already, senators who drafted the final language of the welfare reform say the Social Security Administration has devised much tougher standards than they had intended. Given that the government is dealing with the nation’s most vulnerable children, the decision appears as reckless as the program’s rapid growth in the 1990s.

Critics further charge that the denial of benefits has not been carried out uniformly across the states and that worried parents who questioned the decision to deny benefits have been put off by administrators. This describes work done in haste and defensively. It calls for a congressional review of the regulations to ensure that they are no harsher than the spirit of the welfare agreement passed last year, which was plenty harsh enough.

If the country is going to have any long-term benefit from overhauling its welfare system, lawmakers must do everything they can to protect the truly vulnerable and keep the administration of programs fair. The public deserves a program in which it can have confidence.