New Budget has drastic effects on the Lower Class

Obama’s proposal hurts people with disabilities

 By Mike Ervin, April 12, 2013
http://www.progressive.org/obama-social-security-
Topic: The article discusses how Obama's budget proposal will hurt government programs that many people in the lower class rely on as a primary source of revenue. By accepting the new Consumer price index's method of calculation there will undoubetdly be discrepencies in the code that the author has identified as social security supplemental security Income, which has always had a strong relationship with the OMB. "For example, more than 8 million Americans with disabilities, including more than 1 million disabled children under age 18, depend on Social Security Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The average monthly SSI payment is $520, which is a meager $6,240 a year. For more than 57 per cent of those receiving SSI, this is their only source of income." When doing that math, the amount of many that would be saved if this budget were to be accepted as is rounds out to $10 Billion a year. The author recognizes that the impact on the 57% individuals  who rely on this form of welfare would be significant. Using the chained price index, those receiving SSI payments would begin to see a drastic decline in monthly payments. According to the Arc, an advocacy group for people with disabilities. In 20 years it would be $341 less, and in 40 years it would be $680 less. For those who are already struggling to the point where they are capable of qualifying for SSI payment, these decreasing payments will take a massive toll on them. Obama has made it clear that he is in full support of a growing middle class, but it seems that he forgets so often that there are people below it.

Opinion: This is one of the issues that I discussed in my last post. Obama has created a budget that is based on compromise and therefore, he had to make cuts where he believed they would go most unnoticed by the republican party. I'm not saying that the Obama administration did the wrong or right thing, but I would advice the President to keep the lower class in mind, becaus there are powerful interest groups out there who carry more influence than one might think. Their power lies not in their size, but their sentimental value. This is one of the few times in politics where we should remember that we are human beings and we are compelled to feel for one another. When the lower class and disabled, as small of a demographic they may be, is constantly bulldozed over in legislation, the press will take notice. While this story in particular, regarding the indirect cut of funding to a single program may not be pressing news, it speaks volumes about the current financial urgency that congress and the Obama administration are in. The issue with the budget is that there is simply not enough to go around. Clearly and reasonably, the largest programs will not have any funding cut and may even receive more funding. However, this leaves no funding left for the smaller programs that may need it more than the others. When the DOT is so pressed for cash that they are forced to cut welfare and social security programs, subsequently ensuring the loss of livelihood for millions of Americans, we can confidently say that the deficit is in pretty terrible shape. Obama wants to institute this policy because he believes that welfare is too generous. However, it would be much more effective to make sure that these SSI payments are implied on a case-by-case basis, that gives the people who need it most the proper amount and those who are taking advantage of the system less.

Conclusion: I see the socialism in the idea that I am trying to defend, that programs should be given money based on their needs, not on their importance to the political scheme, but there is some validity to it. The federal government cannot simply push these issues on the carpet. This is simply because the effects of the change in the CPI will be so noticeable and drastic that someone will be forced to answer at sometime. Telling an entire class of Americans that they must accept 1/3 of the payments they began with by the end of the decade because some people took advantage of the system is simply unethical and unconstitutional. Obama should be focusing on how we determine who receives SSI and other forms of welfare, not just cutting the program as a whole to fit the budget. This would be what I consider a  "blanket-action" because it does not take those who really NEED it into consideration.