I didn't get SSI until I was hospitalized for clinical depression. That's just one way the State of California wasted funds. When it comes to certain conditions the bar is set too high.

There is also the fact the amount of money a person can earn outside of his SSI payment actually went down from $75.00 to $65.00 a month, while the savings one can have hasn't been adjusted for inflation. Ever. The way I figure it, an amount that may have carried an SSI recipient through a year of non-payments now barely suffices for three or four months, and only if you scrimp and do without.

The fraud that is the Consumer Price Index is another matter.

Farber and I know clinical depression, it's not something you just "get over". Gary also knows about conditions I should hope I never come down with. Had we any choice in the matter, we wouldn't have our common disability. But we have it, treatments are not always reliable or effective, and without the monthly stipend I'd be out on the street being an even bigger burden on society than I know am.

I'm doing okay. I could use a little extra money for things like a new iMac, but I'm getting by with what I have now. Gary's the one who needs the real help. Five dollars from one person helps, Five dollars from one hundred people helps a lot. (And you help support PayPal too. :) ) So contribute what you can.

So it's no one's job, I guess, and the disabled should just die and get out of the way.

There are countries exactly like that, Boyd - you can pack up & move there any time. America chose a different path.

If you're genuinely concerned about this issue, I suggest writing your Congressman. The lack of pending legislation suggests that this isn't a pressing issue for either party at this point. I hope we're not so simplistic as to think that, of course, a Democratically-controlled Congress will take care of stuff like this. It just doesn't work that way.

Even the most libertarian among us think government has a role in helping those who truly can't help themselves. If you won't work, it's one thing; if you can't work, it's quite another.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that, James. There are obviously a lot of anarcho-capitalists and minarchists who don't agree with that.

I'd like to see some sort of breakdown of how many “small government conservatives” believe in some sort of safety net and how many don't. I suppose that kind of information would be impossible to come by.

When your colleagues said they wanted to starve the government you didn't think they meant they would begin with the bits that serve big business, did you?

Most small government conservatives want to end most "corporate welfare," including subsidies for big agriculture. I think government has a role in promoting international commerce, funding certain types of R&D that aren't commercially feasible, and the like, though.

Even the most libertarian among us think government has a role in helping those who truly can't help themselves. If you won't work, it's one thing; if you can't work, it's quite another.

When your colleagues said they wanted to starve the government you didn't think they meant they would begin with the bits that serve big business, did you? For many in the GOP, so many "nanny-staters" having to wait years or having their claims denied is a feature, not a bug.

Regards, C

(The feds in some or all states, I dunno which, farm out this function to state agencies that are 100% federally funded. That may well be part of the problem right there -- I suspect there'd be a better workforce handling these applications if the agency were actually federal.)