ABLE Act of 2014 a bad precedent to follow as Social Security trust funds spend down

  Both parts of section 4 of the ABLE Act of 2014 are classist by favoring people who have more economic wealth at the time an ABLE Account is started and funded as well as ongoing continued private deposits made by relatives and friends of the beneficiary with a disability.


  Section 4 part a of both S. 313 and HR 647,

 SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF ABLE ACCOUNTS UNDER CERTAIN FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

    (a) Account Funds Disregarded for Purposes of Certain Other Means-
Tested Federal Programs.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal law that requires consideration of 1 or more financial
circumstances of an individual, for the purpose of determining
eligibility to receive, or the amount of, any assistance or benefit
authorized by such provision to be provided to or for the benefit of
such individual, any amount (including earnings thereon) in any ABLE
account (as defined in section 529(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) of such individual, and any distribution for qualified disability
expenses (as defined in paragraph (3) of such section) shall be
disregarded for such purpose with respect to any period during which
such individual maintains, makes contributions to, or receives
distributions from such ABLE account, except that, in the case of the
supplemental security income program under title XVI of the Social
Security Act, a distribution for housing expenses (as defined in
subparagraph (B)(ii) of such paragraph) shall not be so disregarded,
and in the case of such program, only the 1st $100,000 of the amount
(including such earnings) in such ABLE account shall be so disregarded.

 regarding the $100,000 exclusion for housing expenses is unrealistically low regarding cost of buying housing for person with a disability but realistic as an annual distribution to a checking account for monthly rent payments, for living alone without roommates, in a community setting in most cities and suburbs with adequate service provider communities (or enough other people with disabilities to operate consumer-survivor/peer support/self-advocacy organizations.  With varying degrees of effectiveness, peer support/consumer-survivor/self-advocacy organizations ’fill in gaps' in public/private (bid-down-payroll ‘bdp’) services.  Privatization of public services is mostly about using the competitive bidding process to lower payroll to people actually doing the work in benefit costs and/or pay for their time in salary or wages.  That is why I refer to privately delivered, publicly contracted public services as ‘bid down payroll’ or ‘bdp.’ 


  Section 4 part b


SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF ABLE ACCOUNTS UNDER CERTAIN FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

(b) Suspension of SSI Benefits During Periods of Excessive Account
Funds.--
            (1) In general.--The benefits of an individual under the
        supplemental security income program under title XVI of the
        Social Security Act shall not be terminated, but shall be
        suspended, by reason of excess resources of the individual
        attributable to an amount in the ABLE account (as defined in
        section 529(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) of the
        individual not disregarded under subsection (a) of this
        section.
            (2) No impact on medicaid eligibility.--An individual who
        would be receiving payment of such supplemental security income
        benefits but for the application of the previous sentence shall
        be treated for purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act
        as if the individual continued to be receiving payment of such
        benefits.












of both S.313 and HR 647, regarding suspending SSI payments, if ABLE Accounts have an excess over SSI asset limits is, in practical effect, a privatization of SSI to those individuals with a disability who are from upper income class top 1% income levels. At the very least ABLE Act is a privatization (or wealth-enabled opt-out) of SSI to individuals with a disability for people who identify economically as above working class such as upper middle class or middle class.   Money deposited into accounts is discretionary income for sole purposes of income support for relatives who are a person with a disability.  People funding the ABLE Accounts earning minimum wage or 200% of minimum wage (higher if Cost of Living in primary residence area is higher than national average COL) will not be ABLE to afford as much in contributions. 


  Because not all families and friends of every SSI beneficiary are equally able to contribute to accounts that provide a more decent living standard the ABLE Act represents neoliberal, incremental social security system privatization in the same way 75 year advance pension funding in USPS Postal Reform act of 2006 was used to incrementally delegitimize defined benefit pensions in favor of defined contribution retirement accounts.  The ABLE Act as a new way to help people ‘graded’ as the most vulnerable, as a manifestation of an ‘oppression Olympics/severity contest’ to justify inadequate levels of spending in the appropriation and authorization budget process, people with intellectual disabilities.  People with behavioral (mental illness) or developmental disabilities without intellectual disability are left out in the population served by the ABLE Act unless they can qualify for SSI.    Gradually lower incomes over time resulting from the share of income to the richest rising (productivity gains less equally shared between workers and owners) lowers the amount of total income at an individual level and corresponding ability to contribute to ABLE Account.  The social problem of income support is treated as an individual problem to reduce at least short term social costs as stated in the interview granted by Helaine Olen to promote her book Pound Foolish.  


   A better public policy choice is to ‘#scrapthecap' as Social Security Works is part of a coalition demanding to strengthen social security, medicare and medicaid.  As a real compromise between progressives and neoliberals and neoconfederate ‘taxed enough already’/‘freedom caucus’ Republicans incrementally raise the cap on income subject to FICA taxes by the 2011 term 'grand bargain,' or chained CPI, instead of raising the monthly benefit amount by a lower amount annually.  Use the 'chained CPI' inflation rate to restrain the FICA income tax cap rate of increase on taxpayers not to restrain the growth of spending on Social Security Act beneficiaries who need the income they cannot earn by other means, demonstrated by SSI means testing and SSDI disability qualifications as well as people being entitled to receive benefits after paying into system while working, to an adequate extent to pay their bills.