Congress Must Raise the Bar on Supplemental Security Income

Seven years ago, Representative Raul Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, introduced the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Restoration Act of 2013. The bill sought to increase the asset limit for SSI recipients up to $10,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a married couple.

People who live off of SSI must make sure they remain almost completely broke, or else see their benefits eliminated or reduced. 

SSI is the main source of income for more than eight million disabled people under age sixty-five. They are among the poorest of the poor, receiving an average monthly SSI payment in January of $574.83. And people who live off of SSI must make sure they remain almost completely broke, or else see their benefits eliminated or reduced. 

At the time Grijalva introduced his bill, the asset limit was $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a couple. That meant that anyone with more than that in his or her bank account was considered too wealthy to remain eligible to receive SSI.

Grijalva recognized this restriction as absurdly paltry, so this was his way of making SSI a little less oppressive and punitive. At a Congressional briefing that day, he said his legislation “begins the process of bringing this program into the twenty-first century.”

And Grijalva wasn’t alone in thinking that raising the asset limit was a great and long overdue idea. Organizations that supported the bill included the Arc of the United States, the National Council on Aging, the National Down Syndrome Society, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

Nevertheless, the bill died in committee. So Grijalva followed up by introducing the Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2015 and the Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2017. Those both died in committee, too. 

Meanwhile, the SSI asset limit remains unchanged from the day he began his effort: $2,000 for an individual, $3,000 for a couple. That’s not much of a nest egg.

Some might blame the inertia on the fact that Republicans controlled the House. Now we’ll get a chance to see if that’s true, because last fall Grijalva introduced the Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2019. So far, it has sat stagnant in the House Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support.

If Grijalva doesn’t make any progress this time, I am not sure what strategic advice to give him. I guess I’d just tell him to keep running and keep re-introducing the bill. And maybe he’ll be re-elected forty more times and he’ll still be in the House eighty years from now. 

Perhaps by then, Congress will be ready to pass the Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2100—just in time to begin the process of bringing the SSI program into the twenty-first century.