Arthur S. Flemming August 24, 1992 Gwendolyn S. King Commissioner of Social Security Baltimore, Maryland 21235 Dear Commissioner King: I am transmitting to you the report of the experts who served on the Supplemental Security Income Modernization Project. In submitting this report, I want to express our deep appreciation to you for establishing this project and for providing us with a farsighted mandate which constitutes a basis for the study. I also want to express our gratitude for the part played by Rhoda Davis, the Associate Commissioner for Supplemental Security Income, and Peter Spencer, the Executive Staff Director of the project. They, and many of your associates, traveled the second mile in rendering us services. We want to pay tribute also to the other members of your career staff for their help and assistance and for acting at all times in accordance with the highest standards of the Federal career service. I want to make a few observations growing out of my participation in this study. I am struck by the fact that this nation does not have a well-coordinated policy for poor persons as individuals. I have been very much impressed by the following observation by Father Henri J. M. Nouwen in his book, "Aging: The Fulfillment of Life". The painful suffering of many old people cannot be understood by pointing to their mistakes, weaknesses, or sins. By doing so we might avoid the realization that the fate of many old people reflects an evil that is the evil of a society in which love has been overruled by power and generosity by competition. They are not just suffering for themselves but for all of us who are, knowingly or unknowingly, responsible for their condition. Page 2 I find no difficulty in substituting for "old people" the words "poor people". This then becomes an accurate portrayal of what is oftentimes our approach to poor persons of any age. We seem to be unaware of their suffering--suffering which grows out of starvation, lack of clothing, and lack of a home. We rationalize our failure to respond to this suffering by pointing to the mistakes, weaknesses, and sins of some. We fail to recognize that all are suffering and that the fate of many poor persons also reflects the evil of a society in which love has been overruled by power. We seem to forget that their suffering is taking place now and that, in many instances, compassion is overruled by what we are told is "practical". Therefore, we fail, for example, to coordinate SSI and AFDC in an effective manner in spite of the fact that they are both Social Security programs--both committed to lifting the poor out of poverty. President Nixon was right when he urged an income floor for all Americans. I believe that many of the changes supported by a majority of the experts point to a national policy in which today's suffering is recognized and compassion becomes a way of life for our nation. This is why the experts oppose those policies which would keep poor people under the guise of giving them help. A majority supports ending a policy which penalizes an SSI beneficiary because that person receives help in the way of food or shelter from family or friends. We also believe there should be significant upward revisions and simplifications in a resource requirement which makes it impossible for a person to save money and set aside a "nest egg" to meet the unknown hazards of the future. We also believe that we should strengthen immeasurably the provisions for work incentives--the provisions which permit and encourage an SSI recipient to leave the beneficiary rolls and enable him or her to live in accordance with his or her highest possibilities by becoming a member of the workforce. Our preferred options on benefits are geared to providing now what is needed today for food, clothing, andPage 3 housing. Unless we expedite this process, we know that many of today's poor people will suffer and die prematurely because we have failed to act as a compassionate society. Congress has lifted the criteria for program access for poor people to 120 percent of poverty, or more, under some fifteen programs. We believe that those people who are below 120 percent of poverty should become eligible for the Supplemental Security Income program. We recognize that, in suggesting that these benefits be phased in over a period of five years, we have made a concession to practicality. We feel, however, that we are supporting the right goal. We recognize that the overall price tag at the end of five years--$38.8 billion--is an expensive one. Nearly $28 billion of that price tag, or more than two-thirds, is attributable to benefit increases which are long overdue. We are, however, the richest nation in the world. I also recognize, as a recent Congressional Budget Office study revealed, that the after-tax income of the upper one percent of our population doubled in the period from 1977 to 1989 and represented 70 percent of the after-tax income increases received during that 12-year period. During that same period, the lower 20 percent of our population experienced a decline of nine percent in after-tax income. I believe that it is only fair to ask the upper one percent to share a small portion of their wealth with the poor. That is why your decision is welcomed to have a group of fiscal experts recommend "where, in the light of the fiscal situation over the next five years, we can get the money" to pay for the conclusions made by the experts. This group will report to you within six months as you have directed. Therefore, both the Executive and Legislative Branches will have both reports before them very early in the next session of Congress. Again, I appreciate very much the opportunity of developing, with the colleagues that you have appointed, a blueprint for action for the Supplemental Security Income program. Very sincerely yours, Arthur S. Flemming Chairman