Neg - SSI Puerto Rico - Michigan 7 2023 CPSW

Neg — SSI PR — CPSW
1NC — Case
1NC — Adv — Inequality
1NC — CT — Poverty
Programs to “solve” poverty only reproduce structural violence by perpetuating colonialism and reliance on the government.
Padilla et. al 21 [Mark Padilla; assistant professor in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education in the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan; Sheilla L. Rodríguez-Madera, Nelson Varas-Díaz, Kevin Grove, Sergio Rivera, Kariela Rivera, Violeta Contreras, Jeffrey Ramos, and Ricardo Vargas Molina; 11-21-2021; "Red tape, slow emergency, and chronic disease management in post-María Puerto Rico"; PubMed Central (PMC); https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9481060/; Accessed 7-21-2023; AW]
For all Puerto Ricans, but perhaps especially persons with chronic conditions, the consequences of the collapse of the island’s health care system contributed to an ongoing fragility that has been long rooted in colonial governance, economic extraction, and bureaucratic mismanagement (Bonilla, 2020). In practical terms, post-hurricane journalistic and scholarly reports told of the historic scope of the collapse of the Puerto Rican health care system, which included: 1) all 69 hospitals left without electricity (Zorrilla, 2017); 2) drug shortages and bureaucratic barriers to dispatching medications to patients (Thomas & Kaplan, 2017); 3) major hospitals unable to operate for extended periods (Michaud & Kates, 2017); 4) patients with common chronic illnesses (e.g., renal disease, cancer, HIV/AIDS, drug addiction) unable to access services for weeks (Alcorn, 2017), resulting in many of the country’s approximately 4,645 estimated deaths attributed to Hurricane María (Kishore et al., 2018).1 The impact of this catastrophe on morbidity, mortality, adherence to treatments, and medical complications for individuals living with chronic conditions is only beginning to be documented (Abbasi, 2018; Michaud & Kates, 2017; Roman, 2018). Social scientists and scholars in allied fields have been quick to emphasize that the crisis of María did not emerge sui generis from this singular “natural” event. Rather, the storm’s devastating impacts have accelerated a decades-long series of neoliberal policy reforms and dehumanizing colonial governance strategies that privatized critical infrastructure and weakened social safety nets (García-López, 2018; Garriga-López, 2020). One of the means through which these governing logics are manifested is through the formation of bureaucratic institutions that are the interface between the public and forms of government assistance, which become visible ethnographically through federal, municipal, and local procedures, forms, applications, the proliferation of low- and mid-level technocrats, and “approval processes.” As anthropological scholarship on “red tape” and the quotidian practices of aid bureaucracies demonstrates, the provision of “aid” alone may not function to alleviate suffering among the most vulnerable. Indeed, in his classic ethnography of “red tape,” Akhil Gupta (2012) attributes the persistence of poverty in India despite the proliferation of poverty alleviation programs to the corruption and fundamental arbitrariness of these programs, offering a corrective to the presumption of a benevolent or merely benign aid bureaucracy. Indeed, he argues that poverty alleviation programs reproduce structural violence through the arbitrary nature of their effects, trapping individuals in endless transactions that ultimately reproduce the mortal levels of inequality they presumably are designed to address (see also Auyero, 2012).
1NC — Alt Causes
Tons of alt causes to Puerto Rico poverty- population loss, overspending, credit vultures.
Franco 17 [Tea, writer based out of Indianapolis, has work published in Barrelhouse Magazine, Barren Magazine, Foglifter Press, and others, received a B.A in journalism from Winthrop University, “5 CAUSES OF POVERTY IN PUERTO RICO,” The Borgen Project, 08/31/2017, https://borgenproject.org/5-causes-of-poverty-in-puerto-rico/ ] cjtz
Puerto Rico’s population has fallen by 400,000 since 2004
When Puerto Rico’s economy initially began to decline, many islanders left for the mainland U.S. as a way to make a better life for them and their families. Employment has reached 11.8 percent, which is more than twice the unemployment rate in the U.S., so many skilled workers do not see the use of staying on the island.At least one doctor leaves the island per day. The loss of skilled workers negatively affects the economy and is one of the contributing causes of poverty in Puerto Rico.
Government Overspending
The Puerto Rican government has been continuously spending more money than it collects in taxes, in part because it is not required to create a budget like the states do since it is a territory, and also due to a translating error.The error was in the 1952 constitution with a phrase that said “recursos totales” that could be translated into total revenue or total resources, and it was interpreted as total resources. This allowed the territory to have a huge range of options when it came to issuing debt to fund activities, putting it into deeper debt. National debt has increased from $43.5 billion in 2006 to more than $70 billion presently.
Congress changing laws
Although Puerto Rico is a territory, it is still under the control of the U.S. Congress, so when the Congress changes laws it can contribute to the reasons that Puerto Rico is in poverty. At one point in time, Puerto Rico was a place where many businesses wanted to because there were huge tax breaks on the island, as Puerto Rico was not required to pay federal tax. The government started phasing out the tax breaks in the late 1990s, and by 2006 the breaks were nonexistent, causing businesses to go elsewhere.
No Bankruptcy rights
Congress also took away Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy rights in the 1980s, which means that the country is not entitled to Chapter 9 bankruptcy rights like the states are. It can only declare bankruptcy with the approval of Congress, and Congress has yet to give that approval.
Credit vultures
A vulture fund is a hedge fund that buys the debt of a struggling company, or in this case, an entire country, to make a profit. The companies buy the debt for a fraction of the cost and then make sure that they get paid back the original value of the debt plus interest. There are at least 14 hedge funds in the United States holding about $3 billion of Puerto Rico’s debt.
Puerto Rico continues to be in need of help, with unemployment and debt at an all time high. The government’s overspending and congressional unwillingness to change laws to benefit the island are the main causes of poverty in Puerto Rico.
Other US policies have stifled Puerto Rican participation -- the aff can’t solve decades of harmful policies
Pedro A. Malavet 02 (University of Florida Associate Director and Director of the LL.M. in Comparative Law program. Taught civil procedure, evidence and comparative law courses; seminars on the civil code and U.S. territorial possessions; and comparative procedure for J.D. students as well as Introduction to the Legal System of the United States. Most of his scholarship focuses on critical race theory and the legal treatment of Latinas/os in the United States “proper” as well as in its territorial possessions and on the intersections of race, culture and citizenship, especially how these affect the legal relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. “Reparations Theor ations Theory and P y and Postcolonial Puer ostcolonial Puerto Rico: Some o Rico: Some Preliminary Thoughts”, https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1156&context=facultypub)AC
The United States has continuously used Puerto Rico for various military and private economic purposes during the more than one hundred years of its second colonization.' 5 Nevertheless, in spite of United States citizenship, and because of our social construction as a single non-white race, 6 all Puerto Ricans (on the island or in the United States "proper") are considered too inassimilable 17 to become fully "American."' 8 Moreover, the Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico, in spite of their United States citizenship, are deprived of full participation in the U.S. political process. The island Puerto Ricans lack a congressional delegation and are not allowed to vote in presidential elections.' 9 This lack of political participation and power within the federal government-which I label a "democratic deficit"--leaves the residents of the island relegated to a political and economic underclass within the United States. This article primarily focuses on the plight of the Puerto Ricans on the island because, in addition to their flawed social construction by the United States and lack of national political power, they are also legally constructed as second-class citizens. In defining the legal rights of Puerto Ricans, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that territorial citizens are entitled to fewer constitutional protections than U.S. citizens residing in any of the fifty states.2 0 The racist and essentialist 2 1 social construction of the Puerto Ricans as inassimilable, the denial of legal rights by the courts, along with the democratic deficit which deprives those Puerto Ricans presently living on the island of participation in national elections, constitute the obstacles to full participation within United States society or to the establishment of their own independent sovereignty.
1NC — SSI Fails
SSI doesn’t alleviate poverty -- Latest study proves that people who receive SSI experience less financial security and large amounts of the population aren’t able to even acquire benefits
Zachary Morris 23 (Assistant Professor of Social Welfare, Stony Brook University, 4/14/23, “Social Security may be failing well over a million people with disabilities – and COVID-19 is making the problem worse”, https://theconversation.com/social-security-may-be-failing-well-over-a-million-people-with-disabilities-and-covid-19-is-making-the-problem-worse-200158)AC
To learn if that is true for the disability programs, I analyzed data over time from a long-running survey of adults older than age 50 called the Health and Retirement Study. The survey included information on disabilities and finances for tens of thousands of people from across the country and was linked to disability benefit records from the Social Security Administration. As the disability programs primarily serve those in their working years, I only looked at people who hadn’t yet hit the full retirement age.
The data showed that the share of people with substantial work-limiting disabilities who received Disability Insurance, Supplemental Security Income benefits or both rose from 32% in 1998 to 47% in 2016, which was the last year the data was available. This is just a little above the average among 27 high-income countries I compared the data with.
Using the most recent Census data, I estimate that more than half of those with work-limiting disabilities between the ages of 50-64 — about 1.35 million people — likely need these benefits but aren’t getting them.
I also examined the generosity of disability benefits in the U.S. by using regression analysis, a statistical tool that allowed me to compare the relationship between multiple variables. This helped me identify whether disability benefit recipients experience greater difficulty achieving financial security compared with adults who are not on benefits but have similar social and demographic backgrounds.
I found that those receiving benefits, and particularly Supplemental Security Income, struggled more and experienced less financial security than their peers.
Why it matters
Nearly a quarter of U.S. adults who head a household will report a severe disability that limits their ability to work at some point in their lives.
Many will look for financial support from Social Security’s disability programs, which together provide benefits to more than 12 million people in 2023.
The Disability Insurance program, established in 1956, provides benefits to those who meet a specific definition of disability and have paid Social Security payroll taxes. The average payment as of February 2023 was $1,686 per month.
The Supplemental Security Income program, established in 1972, pays cash benefits to adults and children who also meet the definition of disability and who have financial need. The maximum payment as of 2023 was $914, though some states supplement this with their own programs.
My research suggests that well over 1 million people with disabilities who face substantial barriers to employment are not getting the assistance they need. But what’s more, even those who receive benefits are likely not getting enough. Past research shows that more than 20% of Disability Insurance recipients and 52% of Supplemental Security Income recipients live in poverty despite receiving these benefits.
SSI is structurally ineffective at resolving poverty
Will Raderman 22 (employment policy analyst, who works on employment and social insurance policy issues. Previously, as a research fellow at Boston University, he tracked and analyzed state policy actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on unemployment insurance and paid leave, 6/14/22, “Do not underestimate SSI’s means-testing mess”, https://www.niskanencenter.org/do-not-underestimate-ssis-means-testing-mess/)AC
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides cash benefits to nearly 8 million individuals with limited means and limited ability to work. Applicants must meet strict medical criteria to qualify, although no work history is required (unlike with Social Security Disability Insurance). Unfortunately, SSI has many long-running problems, including the fact that many recipients remain in poverty despite the support. While recent bipartisan efforts would help recipients by raising the program’s severe asset limits, the proposed legislation does not address another major problem: stingy benefit levels.
A primary reason SSI recipients are in poverty is that the largest benefit is below the federal poverty level. Increasing the maximum SSI benefit amount to the federal poverty level would theoretically solve the problem; it’s been proposed by Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and is popular with voters. Every recipient would be at the annual poverty line, or higher when combining the raised benefit levels with their other income, if any. Yet even with the increased benefit sizes, normal income volatility would continue causing problems month to month. Recipients could experience temporary, episodic poverty spells because of how SSI payments are determined.
The administrative process
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has to collect and consider extensive information and documentation in order to means-test SSI benefits. Eligible individuals shown to have little or no income receive the maximum benefit. Once working recipients surpass $85 in monthly income, each additional dollar of earnings reduces the benefit size by 50 cents. Harsher rules apply to unearned income. After $20 in monthly income, each unearned dollar reduces one’s SSI benefit by a full dollar. The entire means-testing procedure is labor-intensive and inefficient, and it forces recipients to jump through complicated hoops. Notably, monthly benefits are based on income from two months prior.
Here’s how the SSA describes its method for calculating benefits:
…we usually base your SSI payment amount on your income from two months before. For example, a woman living in California gets a $500 Social Security widow’s payment and a $253 SSI payment. In June, she buys a lottery scratch off card, wins $200, and reports that to the Social Security office. That means in August, we’ll reduce her SSI payment…
Since the benefit determination process is retrospective, a lot of effort goes into playing catch up. The lag time causes overpayments and underpayments, which can hamper the anti-poverty effects of raising the maximum benefit.
The overpayment issue
In the SSA’s example, a woman ends up with more income in a month, so the SSI benefit is decreased two months later. The process seems simple enough but causes real harm to SSI recipients.
If a beneficiary does not realize there was an overpayment and spends the additional money, the subsequent payment reduction strains their monthly budget. Sometimes the consequences are more extreme. Overpayments commonly cause recipients to exceed SSI’s antiquated asset limits, resulting in the suspension or outright termination of their eligibility.
Raising the maximum benefit would ensure that recipients get more cash on average and would make a considerable dent in the amount of poverty they experience. However, overpayment issues would not be resolved by the larger overall payments. Income increases could still result in unexpected benefit deductions a couple of months later that would force recipients into a brief period of poverty.
The underpayment issue
The two-month calculation gap can also be immediately harmful when the benefit amount distributed is an underpayment. Underpayments can occur in various scenarios, like when SSI beneficiaries lose jobs (340,000 recipients were working pre-pandemic).
For instance, let’s say an SSI recipient earns $700/month from a job. According to current program rules, they are entitled to a $533.50 SSI benefit. The combined $1,233.50/month puts them above the poverty line. If the recipient abruptly loses their job and doesn’t get approved for unemployment insurance, their income falls to zero. But their SSI benefit will remain at $533.50 for two months. The recipient is now facing a stretch of poverty.
Sure, the SSI benefit will get corrected, but people with low income, low assets, and serious medical issues can’t wait two months for that correction. Elevating the maximum benefit size to the federal poverty line should ensure recipients are not in poverty, but the delay issue would remain. Sudden income losses could drop SSI recipients into poverty for a couple of months until the benefit levels were adjusted. With that risk looming over them, recipients might be reluctant to pursue a job even if they wanted one.
1NC — Extinction Outweighs
Extinction outweighs, it denies all future generations – that justifies re-allocation of efforts towards prevention of existential threats
Seth D. Baum & Anthony M. Barrett 18. (Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. 2018. “Global Catastrophes: The Most Extreme Risks.” Risk in Extreme Environments: Preparing, Avoiding, Mitigating, and Managing, edited by Vicki Bier, Routledge, pp. 174–184)AC
What is GCR and why is it important? Taken literally, a global catastrophe can be any event that is in some way catastrophic across the globe. This suggests a rather low threshold for what counts as a global catastrophe. An event causing just one death on each continent (say, from a jet-setting assassin) could rate as a global catastrophe, because surely these deaths would be catastrophic for the deceased and their loved ones. However, in common usage, a global catastrophe would be catastrophic for a significant portion of the globe. Minimum thresholds have variously been set around ten thousand to ten million deaths or $10 billion to $10 trillion in damages (Bostrom and C´irkovic´ 2008), or death of one quarter of the human population (Atkinson 1999; Hempsell 2004). Others have emphasized catastrophes that cause longterm declines in the trajectory of human civilization (Beckstead 2013) that human civilization does not recover from (Maher and Baum 2013), that drastically reduce humanity’s potential for future achievements (Bostrom 2002a, using the term “existential risk”), or that result in human extinction (Matheny 2007; Posner 2004). A common theme across all these treatments of GCR is that some catastrophes are vastly more important than ot

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.