When you rip a giant hole in the safety net. Read the whole thing and weep:
America’s social safety net, such as it is, has recently come under some scrutiny. Chana Joffe-Walt’s in-depth exploration of the increase in people getting Social Security Disability benefits at NPR got many listeners buzzing. Then in The Wall Street Journal, Damian Paletta and Caroline Porter looked at the increase in the use of food stamps, called SNAP. All three journalists look at the increasing dependence on these programs and come away puzzled: Why are so many people now getting disability and food stamp payments?
The answer is twofold. Recent trends give us the first part of the explanation. Yes, as Paletta and Porter note, the economy is recovering and the unemployment rate is falling. But, as they recognize, the poverty rate is also rising. And therein lies the rub: people are getting jobs but staying poor. The available jobs are increasingly low-wage and don’t pay enough to live off of. And the big profits in the private sector haven’t led to an increase in wages.
GDP and employment may be doing well, but that hasn’t done much for those at the bottom of the totem pole. As the WSJ article points out, 48.5 million people were living in poverty in 2011, up from 37.3 million in 2007, a 30 percent increase. This is despite an unemployment rate that’s fallen off its peak. Some of the fall in the unemployment rate has been driven by people simply giving up on looking for a job altogether. But those who do get jobs are likely trading their once middle-class employment for low-wage work. The National Employment Law Project has found that mid-wage jobs have been wiped out during the recovery in favor of low-wage work: low paying jobs grew nearly three times as fast as mid-wage or high-wage work.But there’s a deeper explanation that goes beyond the current economic picture. Aren’t there other programs for the increasing ranks of people living in poverty to turn to? Unfortunately, we’ve worked hard to weaken key parts of the safety net by changing how programs operate and then cutting back on their funds. Consequently, the number of people who are reached by programs for the poor has shrunk. But when you take away someone’s lifeline, they don’t stop needing it. So they either suffer hardship or find support elsewhere. What disability insurance and SNAP have in common is that they are fully funded by the federal government, which also can set the eligibility requirements. While states narrow eligibility requirements for TANF or unemployment insurance, the federal government can leave them (relatively) more open for SNAP and disability. That leaves them absorbing those who we’ve thrown off the rolls of other programs.
Unemployment benefits are where people turn when they lose a job and need income before getting back to work. But due to financial and other requirements, not everyone gets them. These rules vary state by state because states are in almost complete control of the program. They set their own eligibility criteria and benefit levels and are also on the hook for most of the funding for the benefits. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, “the federal government pays only the administrative costs.”
Read on…
Isn’t slavery a situation of full employment? Of course it was only two hots and a cot with no money left over for the movies. But what the hell. It could’ve been worse. Right??
“All three journalists look at the increasing dependence on these programs and come away puzzled.”
I love it. I wonder if they’ve also tried pushing things off cliffs and been puzzled by the way all of them wind up smashed at the bottom. All of them! Must be some unexpected internal quantum irregularity weakening the thrifocohesiveness bonding, right?
All three journalists look at the increasing dependence on these programs and come away puzzled: Why are so many people now getting disability and food stamp payments?
um, i don’t know about the WSJ piece, but chana joffe-walt did address that question in the TAL piece. just as the commondreams article concludes, joffe-walt noted that displaced workers who have trouble finding work in the current economy are using the disability program to survive. that was kind of the point of the piece, and she calls for a program to address displaced workers rather than forcing them to use a system that wasn’t originally intended to help people like them.
my problem with the piece is that joffe-walt is closing her eyes to political reality. the likely reaction to her piece will be outrage about the misuse of the SSI/SSDI program and a tightening up of those standards, not a new program to address the people who get thrown off by the reforms.
if you are curious, my longer rant is here.
Snuzy — good points, good read.
I need to check your site more often, so thnx for the link.
Noz, I know people who were disabled all along, but had jobs in which they managed to function. They collected disability when they couldn’t find new jobs, but they’re still disabled.
Noz, I know people who were disabled all along, but had jobs in which they managed to function. They collected disability when they couldn’t find new jobs, but they’re still disabled.
in theory, social security disability is only supposed to be for people who can’t do any job. so some would argue that they people you mention were not really disabled. however, i also agree that there are disabled people who do work. people often endure pain or otherwise perform work that jeopardizes their health. you can say they shouldn’t be doing that job because of those health concerns, but many people don’t have many options.
what i was trying to say really comes from one portion of the TAL piece. at one point joffe-walt goes to this town where 25% of the population is on social security disability. it turns out that a mill closed a few years ago and some of the recipients of disability admitted that they would not be on disability if the mill had not closed. i personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with what they did. when faced with a community with no jobs, they pointed to the ailments they had and used them to apply for disability. people do what they need to do to survive. i have no doubt i would do the same thing if i were in their position. but it would be nice if we had an actual safety net in this country, one that was capable of helping displaced workers who don’t have to have a serious health ailment as well as those who do.
i’m not accusing anyone of faking a disability. i’m just saying that once we “changed welfare as we know it” in a lot of places social security disability has become the only option for people. and so it’s not surprising that people who have something wrong with them are going to resort to a disability program when they might do something else if they had other options.
I didn’t think you were accusing anyone. I just think it skews the numbers.
Safety net. What exactly is a “safety net” again?
Yes, I’m sorry. I’m being obstreperous.
I always think, in particular, about Native Americans. Oops, that’s just me.