PG&E Proposes Electricity Rate Increases That Harm People With Disabilities

BAD NEWS ALERT: If you are a person with a disability and a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) customer you may be finding that your electricity bill soon will be more expensive.

On May 26th, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will be hearing public comments on two new proposed rate increases. The first would assess a fixed customer charge for its entire base of residential utility customers.  The second would lower the "baseline" above which customers would pay higher rates for electricity usage.

CFILC recently signed on to a joint letter opposing the rate increases circulated by The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a consumer watchdog group.  The letter states that the proposal, which proposes to "balance" previously-approved rate increases for businesses and higher-usage customers by requiring residential customers to pay more, violates state law.  Current law only allows modest increases over time for lower income customers. 

TURN and Disability Rights Advocates have asked CFILC to testify about why the new fixed charge and lowering of the baselines will disproportionately impact people with disabilities.  The argument is that they would come on top of recent state budget actions that have lowered disability benefits and SSI monthly grants, required Medi-Cal copayments for prescriptions and doctor visits, and require more out of pocket expenses for Durable Medical Equipment and medical supplies.

Lowering the baseline will especially harm people with disabilities who have multiple or complex medical conditions.  Many of these customers with Multiple Sclerosis or heart and lung disabilities are heavily dependent on air conditioning and electricity to filter their air and operate their medical equipment.  These customers have no realistic options to lower their electricity usage.  The simple truth is that many will be unable to afford the increase rates and may default on their bills and face electricity shut downs.

The proposal is designed to conserve electricity, but it is an unrealistic goal for people with disabilities who tend to be low- to moderate-income earners with very basic electricity use needs.  Others who live in HUD-subsidized housing that use electricity as heating sources simply cannot control home energy conservation.

It is possible that votes on the proposal may be postponed until early June.  However, if you act NOW you can send an email to the CPUC by May 26^th to oppose the rate increases.  Just go to the CPUC website at www.cpuc.ca.gov and link the Public Advisor tab that gives you easy-to-follow instructions. 


There is still time for your voice to be heard.  Those who can least afford even more household budget increases should not be forced, once again, to bear unfair burdens.

In This Economy Do We Really Need MORE Corporate Tax Breaks?

As discussed in the first article in this Blog, various media reports have noted that even though U.S. corporations are riding a wave of record profits and can afford to pay huge executive bonuses that are the envy of business executives around the world, the Ryan Budget would cut the corporate tax rates from 35% to 25%.  Surprisingly, there is some bipartisan support for the proposal even though President Obama and Congressional Democrats want to see a lower percentage reduction.

Supporters argue that the tax rate cuts would be offset by eliminating other unspecified U.S. tax code loopholes and tax breaks.  However, corporate lobbyists are certain to fight for the retention of their hard-fought tax breaks, so at a minimum that would be a long, hard-fought battle.

Corporate lobbyists have continued to claim that they pay an unfair share of taxes, but studies have shown that while in 1952 nearly one-third of all Federal taxes came from corporations.  By 2010, that share had dropped to just 8.9%. 

Congress has been very generous to corporations over the past 25 years.  Even at the 35percent rate, profits have continued to rise as result of tax credits that rarely fulfill their promises about stimulating economic growth, as well as tax loopholes and other laws that enable corporations to shelter earnings from abroad.

Many Democrats want to eliminate tax loopholes, but they want the savings to go to reducing the national budget deficit, not lower the corporate tax rates.  Progressive tax reform think tanks believe that the public and advocates for seniors, poor and low-income families, and people with disabilities must step up the fight for eliminating the loopholes to counter Republican plans to reduce the deficit by cutting Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs.

Holy Guacamole! U.S. Supreme Court Denies Appeal by Chipotle Mexican Grill on Disability Access Lawsuit

On April 18^th, the United States Supreme Court turned away an appeal filed by the Chipotle Mexican Grill Corporation after a Federal Appellate Court ruled that a 4-foot barrier in a waiting line in their restaurant design denied wheelchair users the right to see the food that they were ordering.  The appellate court found that the barrier “subjects disabled customers to a disadvantage that non-disabled customers do not suffer” in violation of the ADA. 

The plaintiff in the lawsuit that was originally filed in 2005 argued that the barrier he encountered in two San Diego area restaurants blocked his view of the counter, the purpose of which is to allow customers to inspect and watch every order they place.  The restaurants claimed that for purpose of ADA compliance they accommodated wheelchair users by bringing them spoonfuls of their preferred dish for inspection.  The appellate court had dismissed that purported “accommodation” and ruled that it did not match a customer’s personal participation in the selection and preparation of their food order.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the appeal without any comment.  The corporation headquarters did not issue a press release.  A spokesperson said that they were retrofitting restaurants with a new counter design that makes the ordering process fully accessible.

NEWS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN WASHINGTON D.C.

While there are many controversial national and international issues currently being debated in Washington D.C, few are as contentious and foreboding for the disability community than the proposing major revamping of the Federal Budget.  Somehow Republicans viewed the voter anger or apathy in the November election as a “public mandate” for them to pursue a radical agenda.  Thus far, public reaction to their proposal to “Kill the Medicare and Medicaid Programs in Order to Keep Them Solvent” could be a pivotal issue as public attention focuses more on what Republicans are proposing to do.  The devil is always in the details.

House Republicans are moving aggressively forward on their 2012 Budget Resolution that would make massive changes in the way that the Federal Government plays its traditional role as the guardians of the public good.  Labeled as the “Ryan Budget” to reflect the author of the budget resolution, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the bill passed the House on April 15^th along party lines 235-193, with only four Republicans voting against the proposal.

It is highly unlikely that the Ryan Budget will be adopted in the still-Democratic controlled.  However, it is important to pay close attention to the various proposals that include, among other things, major changes in Medicare and Medicaid, privatizing programs, the utilization of Block Grants for many programs, and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.  Various components will be featured in other budget alternatives, so it is necessary to gain a better understanding of the impact they may have upon the disability community.

The Ryan Budget will be the defining issue in the 2012 Congressional and Presidential campaign trails.  Democrats are hopeful that by highlighting the clear political and policy differences they will win back the House.  Messaging campaigns and GOTV efforts are already being developed commercials.  The contrast between how the two parties view the role of the Federal government in the daily lives of Americans has never been this stark or contentious.

Republicans counter that it is misleading to characterize the Ryan Budget as promoting privatization and claim that it is necessary the reduce the Federal Budget Deficit and make Medicare and Medicaid solvent.  Immediately after its passage, political pundits, pollsters, and fiscal Think Tanks have begun analyzing the details and its impact on the economy.

The following is a summary of some of the key issues and analyses.  This Blog gives you the option to simply read the headlines and short summary.  However, if you are interested in reading the full blown reports, a link is added for your convenience. 

In many, but not all, cases the information is summarized from or otherwise attributed to other writers of the various articles and reports.  Where there is no such attribution, the text reflects my own research or opinion on the issues.

Under the Ryan Budget, “Tax Reform” Places Top Priority on High –Income Tax Cuts and Ignores Deficit Reduction

The most recent analysis highlighted in this Blog dated April 26, 2011 by Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the Ryan Budget ignores real deficit reduction and places a greater priority on cutting taxes for higher-income taxpayers.  They found that the Price Tag for the proposal to make the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy taxpayers permanent and to continue other tax breaks would be  nearly $4 trillion over 10 years.  In addition, the Ryan Budget would propose an additional series of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporation that would cost of an additional $3 trillion over that period. 

They presume that the new tax breaks would be offset by additional unspecified spending reductions.  In other words, the Ryan Budget finances these tax cuts with extremely large budget cuts, including cuts for people with low or moderate incomes. 

The proposal would also reduce top individual and corporate tax rates to 25 percent and would rescind the health care reform law’s Medicare payroll taxes on high income people.  So, once again it is clear that Republicans have a unique definition of “tax reform.”  The common characteristics are that they are very costly and that they would disproportionately or exclusively benefit those with high incomes.  

What does this mean for the underlying public sales pitch that the Ryan Budget will reduce the Federal deficit and benefit all taxpayers?  According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center (TPC), even if the House follows through on the commitment to offset $2.5 trillion of these costs by eliminating loopholes, the net result would most likely make the United States Tax Code more regressive than it is today.

According to the TPC report “[r]educing the top income tax rate to 25 percent would primarily benefit households with the highest incomes.  For example, a family with two children that earns $850,000 would receive an annual tax cut of $61,200 from lowering the top rate to 25 percent, which would be in addition to the $31,000 the family would get from extending all of the Bush tax cuts.  And family with $8.5 million in earned income would receive a tax cut of $1.64 million a year from the reduction in the top rate. 

In contrast, 95 percent of Americans would receive no benefit at all from lowering the top rate to 25 percent, because they would already be in the 25 percent tax bracket or a lower bracket (assuming that the Bush tax cuts were extended, as the House budget envisions).”

To read the entire report, go to:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3480&emailView=1

Details Emerge of May Revise Impact on People with Disabilities

Sacramento, CA – A day after the Governor’s May Revision to his 2011-2012 budget proposal was released, the impact of the budget proposals on people with disabilities is becoming more evident.  The budget includes revenues needed to stave off billions more in cuts identified by the Legislative Analysts Office as options in case 2009 tax increases were allowed to expire.  However, buried in the budget are details of program reductions that – on top of more than $6 billion in health and human services cuts made earlier this year – would further dismantle essential services for people with disabilities who have been constantly targeted for more cuts in each new budget proposal.

These include:

•      Complete elimination of Adult Day Health Centers that provide essential services for the most vulnerable and at-risk seniors and adults with disabilities, putting recipients of these services at risk of being placed in nursing homes.

•      Severe reductions to the In-Home Supportive Services Public Authorities, which improve home care safety and provide training to providers and people disabilities who need these services and supports to live in their homes instead of nursing homes. The 37% funding cut is expected to force many Public Authorities to shut their doors.

•      Continued reductions to Developmental Services that provide independent living support and skills to children and adults with disabilities and their families. 

•      Hasty implementation of forced managed healthcare for seniors and people with disabilities. The lack of adequate preparation and planning for this huge shift of thousands of people puts many vulnerable people at risk.

•      Lifting the mandate for counties to be responsible to provide school-based services to children with mental illnesses, reversing an important policy that provided for better quality and more effective mental health services.

•      Proposals to eliminate the Department of Mental Health and Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, raising questions over how critical services will administered going forward.

“While this budget avoided billions in cuts that could occur if existing revenues are not maintained, the details of several May Revise proposals create concern for people with disabilities,” said Teresa Favuzzi, Executive Director of the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers. “Taken together, and on top of cuts to critical services made earlier this year --these unacceptable proposals mark a retreat from California’s obligation to promote the most independent living possible for people with disabilities.  We urge Gov. Brown and legislators to consider the many revenue options – from oil severance to increased alcohol taxes -- which would obviate the need for these cuts and which experts say can be done without damage to the economy.”

INSIDE THE CAPITOL: NEWS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN SACRAMENTO

At the time of the posting of this Blog, the state budget negotiations are still at an impasse.  Republicans in the Assembly and the Senate are still withholding the votes that are necessary to place the question of calling for the voters to have an opportunity to vote for an extension of temporary taxes that are scheduled to expire June 30, 2011.

As we are all aware, the Legislature did enact budget trailer bills to cut programs and services that disproportionately impact poor and low-income families and their children, seniors, and people with disabilities.  If the Legislature is unable to resolve the remaining $12.4 billion budget deficit, further cuts may be required.  As time passes, the prospects for the voters approving the tax extension in November are growing dimmer and the State will lose substantial revenues that will add to the deficit.

Hopefully, future Blogs will provide more details of the budget negotiations.  Until then, CFILC must return its attention to legislation that has been introduced in 2011.  Following the April 6^th Policy Briefing, the Public Policy Committee has recommended that the Board of Directors vote to take formal positions as we have developed our 2011 Legislation.

GOP House Freshmen Clarify Plan to Reform Medicare....Never Mind

I will soon be adding new posts analyzing the details of the House Republican Budget Resolution for 2012 and how it would impact people with disabilities.  One controversial proposal is their proposal to reduce the Federal budget deficit by privatizing Medicare and capping program spending. 

However, the GOP is facing a huge backlash on their most severe budget proposals.  Ever since the November 2010 Election, House Republicans have encountered a major ideological struggle between their Tea Party wing and the Republican Leadership.  The battle has caused many of their legislative and budget proposals to shift to the Far Right.. 

It also appears that their self-perceived  "mandate" from the voters is eroding.  They clearly view the results of the election that returned control of the House to Republicans as the basis to radically change the fundamental role of the Federal government.

On Medicare, since the passage of the House 2012 Budget Resolution economists and senior and disability rights organizations began critically examining the details.  They have concluded that GOP promises to both reform entitlement programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit are built on shaky fiscal and public policy foundations. 

Moreover, public reaction may be causing a retreat from some of their entrenched positions. Rather than accepting the blame, however, they claim that purely partisan Democratic attacks are generating the loss of public support.

Today, Freshmen GOP House Members held a press conference to announce that they want to “wipe the slate clean” and start all over on serious discussions about Medicare.  In a letter signed by 42 GOP Members, they urged President Obama to end Democratic Party ads targeting Republicans seeking reelection who voted for their budget. 

Despite the rhetoric, the ads are not the only reason why Republicans are feeling the heat.  A recent poll found that public opposition to cutting Medicare and Medicaid is 80 to 18 percent.  Even more alarming, only 29 percent of Conservatives are in support, while 68 percent are opposed.

Nonetheless, the GOP letter insists that growing public opposition is due to "petty politics." The letter succinctly said “We ask that you stand above partisanship, condemn the disingenuous attacks and work with this Congress to reform spending.

Read the letter here:

Republicans certainly do not have clean hands when it comes to using Medicare as a wedge and scorched earth campaign tactics.  During the same 2010 election, Republican candidates claimed that Democrats who voted for the health care reform law had “cut” Medicare, even though the reductions actually came from overpayments to private insurers.

Sensing that Republicans are diverting attention, Democrats preempted the press conference by releasing a list of Republican ads and statements from 2010.  They all alleged that incumbent Democrats had voted to cut Medicare.  Many of the GOP attacks were successful and led to the defeat of these incumbents.

Clearly, Democrats will continue to remind voters about the votes  Republicans cast on their Medicare proposals.  It is unlikely they will agree to Republican pleas for a period of “Let’s Let Bygones Be Bygones.”

Please watch for future other postings analzing how the Ryan Budget will impac people with disabilities.

    

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Report Analyzes Impact of the Ryan Budget’s Plan for Medicare and Medicaid

According to a recent non-partisan CBO report, with some exceptions, the Ryan Budget would cause most Federal government programs to literally cease to exist.  The report also reveals that his plan envisions additional Medicare cuts that were not disclosed in his official proposal.  Moreover, the proposal to privatize Medicare with “premium support” and its Medicaid block grant proposals were found to substantially differ from and have much deeper cuts than the so-called “Ryan-Rivlin” plan that was rejected last fall as “too severe” by the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission.

Medicare---Welcome to the Wonderful World of the Health Care Plan Free Market:  According to a posting by Robert Greenstein on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ website (www.cbpp.org), for Medicare the  plan would raise the age at which people become eligible from 65 to 67, even as it repeals the health reform law's coverage provisions.  This means 65- and 66-year-olds would have neither Medicare nor access to health insurance exchanges in which they could buy coverage at an affordable price and receive subsidies to help them purchase coverage if their incomes are low. 

This change, which is not mentioned in the 73-page booklet on his plan that Chairman Ryan released, would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don't have employer coverage and can't afford insurance into the individual insurance market — where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be very high — leaving them uninsured.  People of limited means, such as those who are trying to get by on incomes as low as $12,000 a year in today's dollars, would be affected most harshly because they wouldn't be able to afford private coverage.

          In another report, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also estimated that out-of-pocket medical costs would skyrocket for low-income seniors and “dually eligible” people with disabilities under the Ryan plan.  This would be because the Ryan budget would eliminate supplemental Medicaid coverage, except for long-term care services and support and replace it with a medical savings account.

          To read this entire report, go to:

          http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3473&emailView=1

Wait, There’s More---Medicaid:  For Medicaid, the CBO report similarly concludes that the Medicaid block grant amounts would grow each year only with inflation and U.S. population growth, which is roughly four percentage points less than current projected annual growth in Medicaid.  CBO found that Federal funding for Medicaid would fall 35 percent by 2022 — and 49 percent by 2030 — far below the levels the federal government now is projected to provide for the program.  

The CBO report makes clear that unless states made up the difference, the measures they would have to take as a result of this large loss of Federal funding would include cuts in eligibility (leading to more uninsured low-income people), cuts in covered services (also leading to more underinsured low-income people), and/or cuts in already-low payment rates to health care providers, which would cause doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes to withdraw from Medicaid and thereby reduce beneficiaries' access to care.

To read the entire report, go to:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3453

National Poll Reveals Public Support for Taxing the Wealthy, but not for More Federal Borrowing or Cutting Medicare or Medicaid

A recent McClatchy-Marist poll seems to indicate that Americans are increasingly fearful about the rising national debt and generally pessimistic about the recent downturn in the economy.  Their message:  Raise taxes on the wealthy and protect Medicare and Medicaid.

The poll also indicated that responders do not believe that the Federal government should raise the legal debt ceiling that will be the next political battleground in Congress.  Raising the debt ceiling translates into more borrowing.  Fiscal experts argue that the failure to raise it could force the government into default, create turmoil in credit markets, and push the economy into a deeper tailspin.

By a margin of 63 to 34 percent voters support raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000.  Support for the proposal by Democrats was 83 to 15 percent, while Republicans opposed it 54 to 43 percent.

Public opposition to the House Republican efforts to cut Medicare and Medicaid was 80 to 18 percent.  Even among conservatives, only 29 percent supported the proposal and 68 percent opposed it.