What about non-working poverty?

The New York Times has a distressing story out today on the backlog at the Social Security Administration vis-a-vis disability claims. It is a story of struggling individuals and a shameful national response. It's a story of how we often force people to pauperize themselves before providing public assistance; of how we approach the most vulnerable with skepticism rather than compassion; and of how we allow people to fall into isolation and depression--and even die--before we reach out to them.

We often talk about eliminating working poverty, and it's absolutely something we ought to do as a nation. But what about those who cannot work and have no adequate source of income? Is it acceptable to us that they be poor? I would hope not. Fortunately, we as a country have come together to create national programs, including by spending about one percent of our country's annual economic output through Supplemental Security Income (about $37 billion/year) and Social Security Disability Insurance (about $98 billion/year), to maintain some minimal, if meager and below-poverty, standard-of-living for those who simply cannot provide for themselves. Our response to the most disadvantaged among us--a group that could include any of us--is as much about who we are and hope to be as a people, as it is about who is disadvantaged and why they are disadvantaged.