Opportunity is an entitlement, not SSI payments

When I read the article “On ‘spend’ when crying ‘tax and spend'” by David Gross (BDN, Nov. 13), I kept thinking “There is something very wrong here.”

I spent 32 years working for the Department of Human Services here in Maine. I began my career in state service making disability decisions under the rules published by the federal Social Security Administration. The later part of my career was spent as Director of Disability Determination Services. Over those 32 years I saw many changes in rules for allowances. When children began to be allowed under SSI (Supplemental Security Income), very few children met the standards for allowance. Gradually, as ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) became more involved, we saw many more allowances for children.

When I retired in 2002, many allowed cases were brought to my attention that were very questionable. Our society has produced an unintended consequence that destroys the chances of success for many children (mostly from single parent homes) whose overburdened mothers see SSI benefits as extra income and who cannot be blamed for seeing what was formally called misbehavior as a childhood disability. A lot of money – benefits and Medicaid costs – could be saved if childhood allowances were limited to cases where there are objective findings to support the allowance.

I grew up in poverty in rural Maine, and I had many classmates who would now be classified as ADHD. Those children were treated firmly and fairly by teachers and managed to not disrupt classes. I realize that there are now many more single parent homes and that the “good old days” were not that good. However, I believe that the money we give to children who have no objective evidence of impairment could be much better spent on after-school

programs that would help misbehaving children find constructive things to do.

If these children were not made to feel “disabled,” there would be a great dollar saving in both benefit payments and future incarceration costs.

I recently heard a woman say to a friend, “I got my disability, and now I am working for my dad.” She and several hundred others do not seem to know that disabled people are not supposed to be able to work. When claimants moved from applying for disability benefits to applying for my disability, fewer and fewer taxpayers were forced to support more and more non-productive people.

Maine is now listed as the state that has the highest percentage of disabled children in the country. I wonder how many of these children have the “disability” of attention deficit disorder.

We can save taxpayer dollars and still make life better for more people. We first must make children see a productive, interesting future rather than a dead end provided by people who want to take care of the poor.

The mid-coast region is taking steps to provide educational and employment opportunities for students of all types. This consolidation of schools at several academic levels on one campus will save money and provide opportunities for all types of students to earn a living and achieve a sense of accomplishment. This sort of innovation requires great effort and commitment by many people, but it is efficient and positive in the long

run. Simply spending money with no future plans is negative and hopeless.

Ann DeWitt is a resident of Friendship.