IS THE TEA PARTY TAKING OUR NATION TO THE EDGE OF A DANGEROUS CLIFF?

Ever since the Tea Party movement swept Republicans into virtual control of Congress, I’ve been praying for what I call “The Schwarzenegger Swoon.” The Tea Party claims they stand for fiscal responsibility, limited government, and Free Markets.  In reality, they want to oust President Obama and permanently control Congress. 

Time after time they’ve taken our nation to the brink of an economic disaster to pursue their ideological agenda.  They’ve delayed economic and job recovery and are targeting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other vital programs that promote independent living. 

If you remember, after Governor Schwarzenegger was elected following the recall of Governor Davis, Democrats trembled in fear that Californians supported his “blowing up the boxes” to radically change state government.  The new Governor repealed a Vehicle License Fee increase, even though California lost $4 billion annually in state  revenues which, combined with interest payments from billions of borrowing, contributed to future budget deficits.  He also forced Democrats to enact insurance industry-backed workers’ compensation “reforms” that harmed injured workers, including me, just to increase industry profits.

In 2004 the Governor had a 65 percent approval rating.  Then the “swoon” began after Republicans blasted his “moderate” ideas.   In 2005 voters overwhelmingly rejected in a Special Election his four initiatives designed to increase his powers.  His poll numbers continually fell amidst a declining state economy and endless budget battles.  By 2010, his job approval ratings were only 22% with 70% disapproving.

Will there be a “Tea Party Swoon” in the next elections? There should be one because they’ve caused divisive, partisan Federal budget and deficit reduction battles that have threatened the nation’s and world’s economies.  In August, polls showed 43 percent of respondents believe the Tea Party has too much influence over Republicans and those identifying with them changed from 31% to 18%.

Middle class families, seniors, and people with disabilities have been under constant attack.  Average Americans are mystified why Tea Party Republicans ignore their needs, but fight to lower taxes for the wealthy.  The Occupy [BLANK] movements send conflicting messages, but they do ask why the top 1% should accumulate wealth at the expense of the remaining 99%.

This week the Tea Party took another hit over the payroll tax extension issue when they forced the House to reject a bipartisan Senate agreement to extend it for 2 months.  They’re scheduled to pass if by a voice vote today, but once again ideology is taking precedence over our economy.  This cliff walk could cause 160 million workers to lose an extra $40 in each paycheck.  Its passage extends unemployment benefits for 3 million and avoids a 20% cut in physician Medicare reimbursements.

The payroll tax fiasco backfired and angered constituents when Republicans returned home.  Even the conservative Wall Street Journal criticized Tea Party Republicans over their strategy and called for the extension.

How many times will Americans accept being brought to the edge of disaster?  Will they finally lose patience with the Tea Party as Californians did with Arnold?  Let’s hope so.

Our community must mobilize as never before during the 2012 elections to protect our entitlement programs.  Lawmakers should protect us, not exploit us.

MY DISABILITY LEARNING TREE

I became disabled relatively late in life and didn’t fully appreciate the ways people with disabilities are discriminated against.  That changed when I acquired a chronic pain disability that radically changed my life.  During that lonely and difficult transition I learned how uncomfortable non-disabled people are even talking about disabilities, seemingly thinking they are somehow contagious.

Shortly after joining CFILC, I met with the Executive Director of the State Independent Living Council.  After listening to my disability story she told me:

“Be aware that people with hidden disabilities can find adjusting harder if people don’t believe they are actually disabled.”

I was puzzled by her words.  Managing my disability is a daily challenge. Yet, I couldn’t see how my life could be “harder” than wheelchair users or those with other disabilities.

My first hidden disability experience showed me that such prejudice and discrimination comes in many manifestations.  The common thread is ignorance or the public’s perception we enjoy special protections and “privileges” they are denied.

It occurred on a recent Hawaiian vacation.  Travelling always aggravates my pain, especially sitting in airport lounge chairs or prolonged standing waiting to board flights.

I’ve learned that early boarding to be seated and avoid passenger jostling helps.  So, I always check in to request pre-boarding.  Airlines are always accommodating and never ask for “proof,” although I always keep my Morphine prescription bottle handy.

On a recent inter-island flight, my wife and I arrived just as pre-boarding was ending.  The flight attendant waved that we could pre-board, but a man waiting for standard boarding loudly complained that I was cutting in and should get back in line. 

I ignored him.  However, my wife told him I pre-board because of a back disability. 

“Oh, please.  Maybe next time I’ll pretend I have a bad back too.”

Hearing this, she glared and told him I had experienced 10 years of constant nerve pain.  What did it matter to him if the only benefit of pre-boarding was to sit in my pre-assigned seat? His face turned red and he didn’t reply.  Checkmate.

These reactions are typical of the lack of public awareness about what it’s like living with hidden and visible disabilities.  Many of us have heard complaints whenever people park in disabled parking spaces and walk into a building.  They presume they are not “really disabled” if they can walk, ignoring the fact they may have a respiratory or mobility disability.  Not every disability is visible.

Of course, my insignificant airport experience pales in comparison to horror stories I’ve heard from friends in wheel chairs.  Airport physical accessibility remains a problem and many are mishandled or dehumanized going through security screening.

We must continue to educate people that disabilities are not stigmas.  Anyone can acquire a disability, and if they do, they are entitled to the hard-earned civil rights protections that promote equal opportunities and living productive lives.  As our population ages, even more people will acquire hidden and visible disabilities.

This is one reason why we must continue the struggle to protect our rights.

CALIFORNIA MUST EXAMINE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF STATE HEALTH CARE BUDGET CUTS BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

On November 3^rd, the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services convened a hearing to review the cumulative effect of California’s health and human services budget cuts.  Assembly Member Holly Mitchell, who chairs the subcommittee, said that legislators need to critically examine the actual impact of the cuts made in 2011, as well as those from previous years.

California is waging a multi-front war in the Federal courts and is seeking approval from the Federal government to slash state health care spending.  Although the state is offering “evidence” that the cuts won’t negatively impact state health care services, the real casualties will be the seniors, the poor, and people with disabilities who unquestinably will be denied access to adequate health care and supportive services.  At the hearing, Assembly Member Wes Chesbro criticized the rush to judgment in cutting primary care and supportive services programs that save long-term costs.

On the day of the hearing, the developmentally disabled community protested outside the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) about cuts it negotiated with the Federal government that are being challenged in the courts.  Advocates for seniors and the disabled are also participating in a possible settlement over the denial of Adult Day Health Care as a Medi-Cal benefit. 

Most recently, the Federal government approved DHCS’ request for a 10% cut in provider reimbursements for a range of Medi-Cal services.  As expected, multiple lawsuits have been filed to halt the provider cuts that are also a core issue being considered in a related case before the U.S. Supreme Court.  The cuts would further reduce California’s provider rates that already are among the lowest in the nation. 

The harsh reality is that the additional rate reductions will really affect patients, not doctors.  They will force providers to decide how many Medi-Cal patients they are willing to see.  The current rates actually cause providers to lose money in treating these patients and an additional cut will mean that fewer providers will agree to treat them.

This outcome causes a ripple effect in the overall health care delivery system.  Patients without access to primary care providers inevitably become sicker by postponing treatment.  In turn, Federally-qualified health centers and hospital emergency departments will be forced to absorb these patients and the state will also pay more costs if they are institutionalized.

In addition, the Federal government will also soon announce whether California can limit doctor and clinic visits to achieve additional Medi-Cal savings.  DHCS claims that they will not negatively impact access to care.  However, advocates know that more providers will refuse to treat Medi-Cal patients, that emergency room visits will require longer waiting times, and that there will be a significant reduction of providers in rural areas.

Assembly Member Mitchell is correct.  The inevitable cumulative ripple effect means that the denial of access to adequate health care will occur downstream after the cuts have been made.  Under this scenario, California’s health care safety net may never recover, let alone meet the challenges of an aging population and the growth in public assistance caseloads.

THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET DEFICIT REDUCTION "SUPER COMMITTEE" MAY NOT BE SO SUPER AFTER ALL

The disability community is justifiably concerned about the ultimate fate of Medicare and Medicaid.  These programs are at serious risk of additional cuts and spending caps as the Federal budget deficit reduction fight plays out. 

You’ll recall that Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 in August.  It imposed caps on future discretionary funding and created the Congressional Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction to offer additional deficit reduction recommendations.  Entitlement programs survived major cuts in the initial rounds, but the future is precarious.

The Joint Committee has a November 23^rd deadline to agree upon recommendations to cut the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the next ten years.  If Congress fails to act, an automatic “trigger” mechanism would make $1.2 trillion in evenly divided defense and non-defense spending cuts starting in 2013.

Republicans strongly oppose the defense trigger cuts.  They claim that the military would lose its competitive edge in weapons technology and they would require reinstating the draft.  Democrats counter that these are scare tactics to garner public support for deeper entitlement program cuts.

So far, the media and government watchdogs have complained about the secrecy surrounding the Joint Committee’s work.  Open hearings and public testimony were promised, but it appears that the real decisions are being made behind closed doors.

It’s becoming apparent that deficit reduction is merely a political pawn being manipulated for the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.  A Washington Post article revealed that powerful Washington D.C lobbyists have been briefed by Republican Leaders that the bipartisan effort is a sham.  They have no incentives for compromise.

[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/64949.html ].

Why? 

The first reason is that Republicans are not really interested in deficit reduction.  Instead, their goal is to keep taxes as low as possible, especially for the wealthy.  The second reason is they know that they can repeal the trigger if they win the presidency and control of Congress since those cuts won't be triggered until 2013.  If they prevail, they will continue to drastically shrink the Federal government.

The trigger was designed to make bipartisan compromise preferable to deadlock.  Theoretically, Democrats would cooperate to avoid deep cuts in domestic spending.  Republicans, in turn, would be pressured to strike a deal to avoid defense cuts. 

In reality, the Republican strategy is to use the deficit reduction rhetoric to inflame voter dissatisfaction over the economy and convince voters to sweep them into power.  If so, they will eliminate many existing programs and impose permanent cuts and entitlement program spending caps. 

This explains why Republicans may be content to allow the Joint Committee to fail.  They are betting all of their chips on winning the elections. They want to convince voters that cutting programs for seniors, the poor, and people with disabilities is a necessary trade off to protect their economic self-interests.

The disability community must mobilize in the upcoming elections because nearly everything we have won to support independent living is in danger.  A reinvigorated coalition of Republican Conservatives and Tea Partiers would make the horrific budget cuts proposed over the past two years seem tame by comparison. 

This is getting serious.

POLICE BRUTALITY RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF A SCHIZOPHRENIC HOMELESS MAN RAISES PUBLIC ANGER

For many years, the mental health community and homeless advocates have justifiably criticized local law enforcement agencies for failing to properly train peace officers in responding to situations or crises involving the mentally ill.  Crisis intervention teams with specially trained officers are a proven way to defuse problems without unnecessary force whenever mentally ill suspects may appear to threaten public safety.  In too many cases, preventable tragedy ensues if untrained officers respond with excessive force or needless shootings.   

Persons with mental illnesses who do not take medications controlling their conditions or who otherwise may become homeless are particularly susceptible to police brutality.  Many wander aimlessly or fail to respond to commands and are targeted by rogue officers who believe it’s their duty to remove them from their communities. 

There is even a phenomenon known as “suicide by cop,” where distraught individuals approach officers seemingly pleading to be killed. Others may throw or brandish non-life threatening objects when officers arrive at the scene. 

We know that peace officers have difficult, stressful jobs.  Yet, we also know that police brutality does occur and that law enforcement and local elected officials close ranks when these incidents occur.

The nation is closely watching a shocking police brutality case in Fullerton, California.  Yesterday, following an intense investigation, Orange County’s District Attorney filed second degree murder and manslaughter charges against two police officers who beat and killed Kelly Thomas, a 37-year old schizophrenic homeless man.  Its heinousness is reminiscent of the infamous Rodney King beating. 

On July 5^th, police routinely investigating reported automobile break-ins approached Thomas at a bus stop.  The victim who refused medications ran away.  He was chased and thrown face down in a defenseless position surrounded by six officers. 

Witnesses were horrified watching Thomas hit repeatedly in the face and head and attacked with a stun gun six times.  He begged for life, crying “Dad, Dad!” Thereafter, one of the suspects used the butt end of the stun gun to hit him numerous times even after he was subdued and seriously injured. 

Kelly Thomas died five days later.

Cell phone and squad car cameras recorded the entire incident.  Thomas’ father, a retired deputy sheriff, said the attack was nothing short of cold-blooded murder. His photo of Thomas’s grotesquely damaged face and other videos have circulated world-wide on You Tube and social media. 

Local residents made it clear that they were holding Fullerton’s Police Chief, City Council, and District Attorney fully accountable for investigating the case and pressing charges. Protests and vigils were held and city council meetings were flooded above seating capacity.  The filing of the criminal complaints was universally applauded.

The disability community should closely monitor this tragic case.  It underscores the need for training officers to interact appropriately with people with all types of disabilities.

We’ll never know what made Kelly Thomas flee, but peace officers must be instructed whenever interacting with our community that disabilities or medications can create unanticipated communication barriers.  It’s critical for them to actively consider that such reactions do not necessarily equate to guilt or culpability and to respond accordingly.     

AMAZON OFFERS A NEW DEAL ON THE SALES TAX ISSUE DISCUSSED LAST WEEK

I now appreciate the power and influence of Blogs, and know that consecutive ones on the same issue are not recommended, but….

In my last one I wrote about a friend being paid to collect referendum signatures to repeal the “Amazon tax.” The Legislature enacted this law requiring the collection of state sales taxes on California resident purchases from out-of-state online retailers like Amazon. 

My friend was unaware it would generate $200 million annually to help offset budget cuts in programs serving seniors, the poor, and people with disabilities, including her and her family.  To her, it was a paycheck.

Amazon was willing to spend millions to sue the state and fund the referendum. Yet, the very next day after my Blog was posted, they offered a deal.  I was amazed that Amazon read it and was convinced to broker a deal.

But seriously, they offered to drop the referendum and create 7,000 California jobs if the law was postponed until July 2014. The deal was quickly rejected by Governor Brown and the Democratic leadership because the state sorely needs the revenue.  A major referendum opponent, the California Retailers Association, asserted it was not a serious, acceptable compromise.

However, another tentative agreement has been reached.  The Legislature is close to accepting a deal delaying the law until July 2012 if the referendum is dropped and  Amazon has time to lobby Congress. 

They will seek a nationwide solution to the contentious issue of how to tax online retailers.  If Congress doesn’t act, the collections would renew September 2012 and provide a steady stream of annual revenues.

To date, Amazon has not complied with the law, so California faces risks if the deal is not accepted.  Legal costs to defend the lawsuit would be expensive and would further delay collections.  There’s also the danger of voters agreeing to repeal the tax. 

The Legislature tried to enact legislation invalidating the referendum, but Republicans failed to vote for it.  Like me, are you sensing a pattern of endless Republican “No” votes?

Governor Brown has not indicated if he will accept the deal.  He’s rightfully leery of losing any revenues in our fragile economy.  After all, the last state budget forecasted the infusion of these revenues. 

The deal needs to be made before the Legislature adjourns this week.  Republican votes are needed, but California retailers are pressuring them to solve what they view as Amazon’s unfair competitive advantage.

Where does this leave the disability community?  We certainly will face more budget cuts next year without those revenues.  How will that $200 million gap be filled and where will cuts be made?  No one knows.

Yet, it can be argued that providing new guaranteed revenues to offset future health and human services budget cuts is a “victory,” although a delayed one.  Reaching compromise often requires painful choices for both sides. 

The disability community has no real say in the deal’s final outcome, but two things are clear:

First, I should have written my Blog sooner.  Second, my friend will probably lose her job.

SHOULD AN OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATION DICTATE CALIFORNIA TAX POLICIES THROUGH A REFERENDUM?

Recently, I was food shopping and saw an old friend collecting referendum petition signatures. Her hand-scrawled sign read: “STOP POLITICIANS FROM TAXING US.” Her elderly mother sat nearby holding her granddaughter.

Seeing her was surprising because she “hates” politics.  I discovered that the referendum would repeal the so-called “Amazon tax” statute requiring out-of-state online retailers to collect California sales taxes.  Taxpayers are required to report these purchases and pay sales taxes, but few do. 

Online sales have grown by 496 percent since 2001 because prices are cheaper.  However, in 2010 alone California businesses lost $4.1 billion to online competitors. 

Amazon is suing California and eight other states with similar laws designed to generate new state revenues.  The Legislature estimates that $200 million would be raised annually from online collections. 

The lawsuits argue that a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision exempts online stores from collecting state sales taxes unless a “nexus” is proven.  This is defined as a physical presence in the state such as operating stores and facilities. 

Amazon’s business model intentionally avoids establishing any nexus by paying in-state affiliates to handle shipments.  This provides an immediate 11 percent cost advantage that is forcing California business closures and workforce layoffs. 

Their California distribution center has even been established in a city just across the California-Nevada border.  They can both reap Nevada’s corporate tax breaks and serve their largest customer base. 

Many argue it’s hypocritical for Amazon to claim no California nexus and yet spend millions to gather signatures and hire campaign and media consultants.  The disability community must understand that if these revenues are lost, there will be deeper cuts in health and human service programs. 

Democrats passed this year’s budget without Republican votes, but included an automatic “trigger” making $2.5 billion in additional cuts if incoming revenues fall below $87.5 billion.  So far, revenues are lagging far behind.  Our community must mobilize to defeat the referendum because an uninformed electorate may be easily persuaded to repeal the taxes. 

My friend’s Mother is disabled and she and her daughter are enrolled in state assistance programs targeted for cuts.  I told her the referendum also sets a dangerous precedent to repeal appropriations protecting the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities. 

Some bystanders strongly supported internet discounts.  Others argued that it is just corporate greed. 

My friend was upset because she was unaware of these implications.  “It’s a job,” she explained.  “I need the money now.”

I apologized. She is merely a pawn in Amazon’s war to protect guaranteed profiteering.  Yet, it reflects how consumers are being swayed by corporate interests to vote against their economic self-interest and just how deep is the “no tax” outcry. 

How can we justify exempting these internet retailers and allow them to reap massive profits without investing in California?  They seize inordinate shares of the sales market because they pay no local property taxes or wages and benefits to California employees. Our consumer dollars are leaving California, never to return. 

We must stop this out-of-state corporate power grab.

WILL NEW REDISTRICTING MAPS ENABLE THE LEGISLATURE TO PASS TAXES AND CLOSE TAX LOOPHOLES IF DEMOCRATS WIN A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY?

In 1990, California voters grew weary of “career politicians” in the Legislature who often held office for decades with little competition and enacted the term limits initiative.  Opinions differ about whether it made legislators more or less responsive to the public.  Nevertheless, it radically shifted the balance of power in the legislative process and turned the institution upside down and inside out.

The public will soon learn if another reform empowering a voter-created panel of citizens, instead of the Legislature, to draw new congressional and legislative districts will end partisan gridlock.   After the 2000 census, Republicans and Democrats drew maps creating “safe seats” for incumbents and their party’s successors. 

There were unintended consequences.  The gerrymandering of district lines widened the ideological divisions between the parties.  Safe districts gave Republicans cover to oppose any tax increases in recent budget negotiations without risking re-election.  The disability community knows that hard-line stances led to “cuts only” budgets that are undermining California’s health and human services safety net.

Is there hope for change?  This week the California Citizens Redistricting Commission released new district maps after the 2010 census.  Some analysts believe Democrats could win two or more seats in both the Assembly and Senate.  If so, they would achieve the two-thirds majority needed to raise revenues and close tax loopholes without Republican votes.

Immediately afterwards, civil rights organizations filed lawsuits alleging that the maps violate Federal law by diluting the minority vote.  Republicans are also seeking a referendum overturning the maps if they gather 505,000 signatures.

However, raising revenues may also be altered by Proposition 14 of 2010 that requires the top two finishers in Primary Elections to compete the General Election, regardless of party. Reformers believe that candidates will be forced to be more moderate to attract voters. 

So, there are uncertainties whether a Democratic super-majority gives the disability community hope that future budgets could include revenues to offset cuts.  Voter initiatives often produce unexpected outcomes, as evidenced by the lack of experienced legislators and cohesive leadership term limits caused. 

It’s likely that Republicans will mobilize their base and entice Independents to support maintaining the same “no taxes” stance.  If both candidates in a runoff are moderates, they could also waver on tax increases out of fear losing votes. 

Moreover, the post-election results of President Obama’s ambitious campaign promises for reform shows that “HOPE” alone does not produce change.  The disability community must launch aggressive voter registration, education, and election day  turnout campaigns. 

We must convince the public that independent living achieves costs savings reducing states costs.  Equally important is the message that protecting the health and well being of our neighbors and communities reflects the best qualities of American society. 

Our fragile economy makes this a challenge.  People still expect government services, but don’t want any more taxes.  Yet, they need to understand it just doesn’t work that way in the real world.

IS PUBLIC OPINION TURNING AGAINST THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT?

Now that the long, protracted and bitterly partisan battle over the Federal deficit reduction act has been signed into law, it appears that the public has not been fooled by all of the rhetoric that the Tea Party wing has forced upon the Congressional Republicans and the nation as a whole.  Rather than focusing on legislation to create jobs and business opportunities by stimulating our declining economy with programs such as those to repair our crumbling infrastructures, the Republican strategy is to distract public attention by demanding that the nation’s deficit should be the highest priority.

While that message may resonate with their own constituencies, reducing government spending is the last thing leading economists have called for again and again.  The “austerity” message is being seen as a slight of hand maneuver to lock in massive spending reductions and entitlement program cuts with a deficit reduction package that, for the first time in American history, did not include any revenue increases. 

In fact, economists cannot point to a single instance in world history where an austerity program has brought a nation in economic crisis back from a declining economy.  Mostly recently, Great Britain moved in that direction and has suffered through three straight quarters of zero growth—that is how well their austerity program is doing.

The American public has not been fooled.  Shortly after the deficit reduction act was signed into law, a record 82 percent of those surveyed in a New York Times/CBS poll disapproved about how Congress is doing its job.  This is the lowest approval rating since the Times began posing this question in 1977.

More than four out of five of those polled said that the debt ceiling debate was more about gaining political advantage than doing what is best for the nation.  Nearly three-quarters said that the debate has harmed the United States’ image in the world.

The public’s opinion of the Tea Party movement has now soured.  The party is now viewed unfavorably by 40 percent and favorably by just 20 percent.  Forty-three percent now think that the Tea Party has too much influence over the Republican Party, up from 27 percent in mid-April.

The Times speculated that perhaps shortly after the party won congressional seats, many people did not know who they were and what they were all about.  Now, it is clear what they are seeking to do in pushing their agenda forward and it is creating public angst about our nation’s future direction.

As the second phase of the debt reduction process moves forward, the issue will be whether voters, especially Independent voters, want Congress and the President to compromise and find solutions.  The House Republicans may the gloating over the “victory” they achieved in bringing the nation to the precipice of a default, but it is clear that the voters have little respect for Congress and the major influencing factor may be whether the Tea Party will still drive the debate.

As we continue our fight, we need to educate voters about this ugly wedge and motivate them to vote.

IS CALIFORNIA'S ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE PROGRAM "A BRIDGE TOO FAR?"

It’s sometimes difficult to remember that there actually was a time in our state’s and nation’s history when citizens and government collaborated to build bridges.  These were not just brides over waterways, but also symbolic links to a better quality of life. 

They included programs to offer bridges to a college education; bridges from poverty to employment; bridges to affordable and preventative healthcare; bridges to move people from nursing homes to independent living; and bridges to reward a lifetime of work with a secure retirement.

Today, these bridges to a better future are crumbling just like our transportation infrastructures.   Rivet by rivet, beam by beam, lawmakers are making budget cuts or eliminating these programs.

They are under constant attack and raising revenues is summarily rejected out of fear of the growing “no tax” mindset.  We forget that these programs were viewed as investments that reaped cross-societal and economic dividends.

Every engineer knows that there comes a point in time when a bridge's decaying structure cannot be saved.  A case in point is California’s Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) that provides center-based health and nursing care, therapies, transportation, and other services for low-income seniors and people with disabilities. 

California's 300 ADHC centers serve 37,000 people and give partial respite to family caregivers from their costly and time-consuming daily home care obligations for their relatives. However, advocates believe its foundation has been undermined by Governor Jerry Brown’s June 25^th veto of AB 96.

AB 96 would have created an alternative to ADHC after it lost funding in this year’s budget.  It established the Keeping Adults Free from Institutions (KAFI) program as the new bridge program.

Supporters of AB 96 believed that a deal had been made to eliminate ADHC, but to replace it with KAFI at half the cost.  The Governor stated that he vetoed it because KAFI would duplicate the exact program model he had eliminated and that made no sense. 

The Governor did sign SB 91 allowing ADHC centers to operate without Medi-Cal licensing.  There are no guarantees, but state agencies reportedly are working to keep the basic model alive for those who can pay privately.  In theory, centers could be folded into HMOs or health plans as part of a continuum of care, assuming they survive.

Yet, ADHC providers, patients, and families feel betrayed.  Most centers face closure and up to 7,000 jobs are at-risk.  Experts predict that if recipients lose ADHC services that at least 4,000 prohibitively more expensive nursing home admissions and thousands of emergency room visits will result.

The Federal government approved extending ADHC's targeted elimination date from September 1 to December 1 to help keep recipients out of institutions.  Meanwhile, a Federal lawsuit has been filed alleging that  eliminating ADHC violates Federal law and would cause irreparable harm by placing recipients at-risk of institutionalization, hospitalization, injury, or death.  

The final outcome of this bridge closure is unclear.  Yet, once dismantled the ADHC infrastructures local communities created over decades probably cannot be restored in our fragile economy.

"We Must Destroy Federal Government Spending In Order To Control It"

Seeking to avoid accountability for the Federal budget deficit they created, today Congressional House Republicans are debating and voting upon an even more ideologically extreme budget proposal.  It is called the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.” 

The White House's reaction has been to label it as an “empty political statement.” Many see it as a political ploy to give Republican incumbents public cover for their refusal to vote for raising the Federal debt limit. 

Fiscal analysts say it is so extreme that even the so-called Ryan Budget released earlier this year to heavy public criticism wouldn't satisfy its mandate.  Those proposed reductions would not be severe enough.

The bill would require total Federal spending to shrink to less than 20 percent of the national Gross Domestic Product by 2018 and permanently cap it there.  It would cut $111 billion commencing October 1st with the new Federal Fiscal Year and $400 billion more each year over the next decade. 

The bill would prohibit any increase in the debt limit until both houses of Congress approve a constitutional amendment for ratification by the states.  The constitutional amendment would prohibit Congress from raising any taxes without a two-third vote in both houses. 

Does the two-third supermajority vote requirement sound familiar?  Yes, as has been the case in California, it would be virtually impossible for Congress to ever raise any revenues or close special interest tax loopholes.

Republicans would also eliminate protections utilized over the past 25 years that exempt core basic assistance programs for the poor from across-the-board cuts.  Instead, it would make all programs subject to them if the spending limit is exceeded.

Supporters falsely claim that they are protecting Social Security and Medicare.  And it is partially true because it doesn’t cut either program in 2012 and does not explicitly subject them to automatic cuts. 

However, lawmakers facing the challenges of cutting trillions of dollars to meet annual spending limits would have no choice other than to make those reductions.  Otherwise, key government operations simply could not function. 

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the largest programs in the Federal budget and they could not escape massive reductions.  The math does not add up.

By 2021, combined expenditures for these programs will be 45 percent greater than all other programs combined, apart from interest payments.  They would be drastically cut under any scenario.

President Obama has vowed to veto the bill and his spokesman calls it “the Ryan plan on steroids.”  Furthermore, it is unlikely to pass the Senate. 

Yet, the real story is that the endless, aggressive political assault on programs for seniors, the poor, and people with disabilities will continue throughout the 2012 election year.  The Republicans will seek to demonize Federal spending programs.

The core strategy is to generate public fear in campaign ads and Republican congressional candidate talking points by pitting middle-income Americans against the poor, elderly, and disabled:  “Cut spending for them, but don’t cut anything affecting me or raise my taxes” will be the message.

A Good Idea Gone Bad

Competitive bidding sounds like a good idea, right? Get the lowest price and the best deal. Save money. What could go wrong?

Plenty, especially when it's Medicare running the process and durable medical equipment (DME) vendors doing the bidding. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Competitive Bidding Program for certain Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) is causing havoc in the home healthcare industry.

The Medicare Modernization act of 2003 (MMA) required Medicare to replace the Home Medical Equipment (HME) payment fee schedule for certain items with a "competitive acquisition" or government contracting program. The program was implemented on January 1, 2011 in nine cities (including the Riverside/Bakersfield area) and will expand to 91 metropolitan areas later this year in round 2.

In California, round 2 cities include: Bakersfield, Fresno, LA-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Sacramento-Roseville, San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marco, SF-Oakland-Fremont, San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara and Visalia-Porterville.

So what's wrong with the competitive bidding program? Well, for starters it is driving suppliers out of business, limiting choice for consumers, lengthening hospital stays and causing much grief for consumers.

As a result of the bidding process, many vendors who provide a variety of home healthcare products and DME were awarded contracts to supply a single item or none at all. In some areas, out-of-state vendors won contracts to supply products, forcing consumers to drive long distances or rely on mail order to obtain supplies and products they previously purchased locally.

Hospital discharge planners are delaying releases because they cannot match patients to contracted providers with the appropriate products such as wheelchairs, oxygen equipment and sleep therapy devices.

One Medicare recipient was waiting for her diabetes test strips for more than two weeks and could no longer receive them from her original provider since the company was not contracted. Another patient needs oxygen 24 hours a day and relies on portable oxygen to visit her physician. Her HME company did not win a contract and the user needs physician approval to switch to a different company. She has no access to oxygen and cannot visit her physician.

So what can we do? For starters, Consumers in the Riverside-San Bernardino area who have been affected by this program need to tell their stories. At the AAHomecare’s website (http://www.aahomecare.org/) They can click on the ‘Competitive Bid Problems?’ button and provide feedback on how their access to home healthcare products and services has been affected by the program.

We also need to get behind HR 1041 and urge its passage before the program expands to round 2 later this year. HR 1041 would roll back the flawed pilot project and institute an up-to-date and fair pricing schedule defining what Medicare will pay for certain equipment. The bill has 132 cosigners, none from California. Advocates, consumers and others who are concerned, should write their representatives in Congress and urge them to cosign the bill.

A lot of Californians are already experiencing difficulties as a result of this program. Many more will unless we join the national effort to stop it. The time to advocate is now!

WRITE TO ASK GOVERNOR BROWN TO SAVE THE ADULT DAY HEALTHCARE PROGRAM

URGENT: ADULT DAY HEALTHCARE IS A VITAL AND COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND THEIR FAMILIES

California's Adult Day Healthcare Program serves the health, respite, social and nutritional needs of 35,000 California seniors and people with disabilities. It has been a model program replicated across the nation, and provides unique services that are not available through other programs.

California has a responsibility to provide cost-effective home and community-based services to its citizens with disabilities; it must not force people out of their homes and into nursing homes. In addition, the Lewin consulting group has estimated that cutting Adult Day Healthcare will directly cost the state $53 million more than it saves.

Eight centers that provide these services have already closed because of previous cuts to the program, turning the lives of people and families upside-down. Without action, all Adult Day Health programs will be forced to close their doors. The Sacramento Bee has called this program "Well worth saving," and the California Legislature has voted to restore part of the funding. The final decision now rests with Governor Brown.

Please join us in asking the Governor to take two steps to save the Adult Day Healthcare program:

• Sign AB 96 to Continue the Program
• Retain the Legislature's $85 Million Budget Appropriation to Fund the Program

Go to our website http://ab96.cfilc.org/ to Take Action and send a message to Governor Brown, urging him to save Adult Day Healthcare for the 35,000 Californians who depend on these services.

-Contributed by Laurel Mildred, MSW, CFILC Olmstead Advocacy Direct</span>

CFILC UPDATES ITS 2011 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

Following recent legislative deadlines for bills to be reported out of their policy and fiscal committees, CFILC’s 2011 Legislative Agenda has been updated.  The following are the ACTIVE and INACTIVE bills.  The 2-year bills remain active, but must be passed under an expedited schedule in January 2012.

The bills that are INACTIVE are shown in RED.   

ACCESS

AB 410 (Swanson) State Agency Regulations: Accessibility to the Blind and Visually Impaired
CFILC Position: Support.

Description: Requires state agencies, upon request from a blind or visually impaired person, to provide a narrative description of proposed state agency regulations. 

Status:      ACTIVE.

DIVERSITY

AB 9 (Ammiano) Pupil Rights: Bullying
CFILC Position: Support.

Description: Requires school districts to adopt policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying, including pupils with disabilities.  

Status:      ACTIVE.  

AB 519 (Hernandez) Pupil Discipline: Restraints and Seclusion
CFILC Position: Support.

Description: This bill prohibits schools and school employees from using chemical restraints, mechanical restraints, physical restraints, or physical seclusion to control the behavior of special education students. 

Status:      ACTIVE.  AB 620 is now a 2-year bill.

AB 533 (Yamada) Continued Funding for Area Agencies on Aging and Independent Living Centers During State Budget Impasses
CFILC POSITION: Support.

Description: This bill would have enabled Area Agencies on Aging and Independent Living Centers to continue to receive Federal funding during state budget impasses. 

Status:      INACTIVE  

AB 620 (Block) Postsecondary Educational Institutions: Policies Intimidation and Bullying
CFILC Position: Support.

Description: This bill requires state institutions of higher education to adopt policies prohibiting students from engaging in acts of intimidation or bullying. 

Status:      ACTIVE.

HOUSING

AB 264 (Hagman) Transitional Housing: Notice Requirements
CFILC Position: Oppose.

Description: AB 264 would have required new transitional housing projects for the homeless to provide advance notice to all residents living within 300 feet of a project. CFILC opposed the bill because it was discriminatory. 

Status:      INACTIVE  

AB 1198 (Norby) Land Use: Housing Element: Need Assessment
CFILC Position: Oppose.

Description: This bill would have repealed existing law requiring the Department on Housing and Community Development to identify existing and projected regional housing needs. CFILC opposed the bill because the State must continue to play this role. 

Status:      INACTIVE  

OLMSTEAD

AB 66 (Chesbro) Taxation: Vehicle License Fees
CFILC Position: SUPPORT.

Description: This bill would raise the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) to the levels they were prior to Governor Schwarzenegger’s fee reduction. It would provide $4 billion annually to offset budget cuts.

Status:      ACTIVE.  AB 66 is now a 2-YEAR BILL.

AB 594 (Yamada) California Department of Aging and Adult Services
CFILC Position: Support.

Description: This bill creates a new single state agency to coordinate all state-administered home and community-based programs for independent living.

Status:      ACTIVE.  AB 594 is now a 2-YEAR BILL.

AB 889 (Ammiano) Domestic Workers

CFILC Position:  Oppose, Unless Amended.

Description:  This bill would give Domestic Workers, including personal attendants serving seniors and people with disabilities, certain labor protections and benefits, including overtime compensation and accrued vacation time.  Currently, it would include  low-income, non-IHSS eligible disabled persons who pay for their personal attendants, so CFILC is seeking to exempt them.

Status:  ACTIVE.

SB 21 (Liu) Long-Term Care: Assessment and Planning
CFILC Position: SUPPORT.

Description: SB 21 would have reformed the long-term care system to make it easier for aged or disabled persons to access supportive services post-hospitalization by requiring counties to provide case management and transitional services.

Status:      INACTIVE 

SB 33 (Simitian) Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse
CFILC Position: Support.

Description: This bill would make the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act that requires financial institutions to report suspected financial abuse permanent law.  

Status:      ACTIVE.

SB 930 (Evans) IHSS: Enrollment and Fingerprinting Requirements
CFILC Position: SUPPORT

Description: SB 930 repeals the mandatory fingerprinting of IHSS recipients and a prohibition for the use of post office boxes to receive their checks. 

Status:      ACTIVE.

TRANSPORTATION

AB 441 (Monning) State Transportation Planning
CFILC Position: Support, if Amended

Description: This bill would have required local transportation plans to include “health equity and health issues.” CFILC was seeking amendments to encourage Olmstead implementation in that planning. 

Status:      INACTIVE  

VOTING

AB 346 (Atkins) Polling Places in Higher Education Institution Campuses
CFILC Position: Support.

Description: This bill requires the establishment of polling places on the campuses of state funded higher education institutions to increase student voter turnout in elections. 

Status:      ACTIVE.