Sutich v. Callahan

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George once said, "A young man who isn't a Socialist hasn't got a heart; an old man who is a Socialist hasn't got a head." This celebrated European wisdom can be applied to America's political culture by substituting the word "liberal" for "socialist." Indeed, American political life since the 1930s has often been characterized as a battle between big-government liberals who are all heart and no head, and self-reliant conservatives who are all head and no heart. Though this is a gross oversimplification, it would not be recycled in so many campaign speeches if it did not hold some truth. Liberals tend to favor social programs more than conservatives. These opposing views have resulted in questionable policy making decisions: liberal spending has produced a bloated bureaucracy; and the conservative emphasis on fiscal responsibility has spawned reactionary legislation such as that challenged in Sutich v. Callahan.

The Social Security Administration was established in the 1930s as part of a larger initiative by President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration to make government more responsive to the needs of its citizens. Social Security is an extension of the provisions for retirement income established in Title II of the Social Security Act of 1972. However, Title XVI of the Social Security Act provides for a much smaller program of assistance to extremely needy persons--the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. This program was established to assist individuals who are either elderly, disabled, incapable of gainful employment in the United States, and who possess resources amounting to $2000 or less.

Clearly those eligible for SSI are an extremely unenviable class of people. The attorneys for the plaintiffs in Sutich described them as having "no buffer between them and destitution." The neediness of the recipients, combined with the modesty of SSI grants, would seem to make the system unassailable. But this was not the case highlighted by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, dubbed "The Welfare Reform Act." Section 402 of the act denied SSI benefits to noncitizens, with only a few exceptions, namely for those who could document 40 "qualifying" quarters of employment such as: refugees, asylums, veterans, their spouses, and their dependent children. The remaining group of noncitizen SSI recipients--by far the vast majority--would be left to fend for themselves.

Though liberal commentators describe the Welfare Reform Act immoral, conservatives insist that it grew out of a legitimate and widespread concern over the ever-inflating size of the federal government. Overworked taxpayers were weary of their hard-earned dollars being used "to pay others not to work." For some this concern was surpassed only by the idea of those dollars being used to pay foreigners not to work. Voters in California, for instance, became incensed at the idea of illegal aliens receiving welfare and food stamps, and passed that state's controversial Proposition 187, which denied such benefits to persons living in the United States illegally, during the 1994 elections.

Republicans may have initiated the sweeping cuts in federal spending that followed the 1994 "Republican Revolution," which brought their party to power in both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. However, many Democrats supported the change in policy which illustrates the broad-based acceptance for such measures. President Clinton, signed the welfare reform bill into law on 22 August 1996. Among its provisions was Section 402, which cut off SSI payments to noncitizens as of 22 August 1997. The elimination of SSI benefits for resident aliens was politically popular but it came at a high cost for those who relied on the assistance.