Public Policy Perspectives

THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY MUST MOBILIZE TO STRENGTHEN LAWS PROTECTING PUPILS WITH DISABILITIES FROM BULLYING

2012-01-19T13:29:00.000-08:00

Historically, the bullying of pupils while in school has not been viewed as a major public policy concern. Many school personnel and even some parents characterize it as: “kids being kids;” “part of growing up;” or “ways to toughen children for adulthood.” It's simply untrue.

All of us have witnessed our classmates with perceived differences or physical characteristics being teased, laughed at, or even beaten. We’ve seen the tears, their fear, and their rejection. Once a pupil is labeled as being "deserving" of abuse, few ever escape that stigma. The cuts and bruises may heal, but the emotional and psychological scars last a lifetime.

Many of our community members with both visible and invisible disabilities have experienced bullying. It is a serious problem for our children because one out of every three pupils with a disability is bullied while in school.

Children with visible disabilities such as Cerebral Palsy and wheelchair users are often called ugly names or are aggressively excluded from interaction with their peers. Pupils with invisible learning disabilities report high rates of teasing and physical abuse. Others with ADHD are taunted because they have higher impulsivity and lower frustration tolerance.

Today, many participants in the California Youth Leadership Forum reveal they cannot interact with the main student body. Even in the post-civil rights era, many school campuses are physically segregated and pupils with disabilities can only befriend other pupils with a disability.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community members are also disproportionately bullied in school. There are thousands of stories from throughout the nation about victims being subjected to extreme, long-lasting abuse and violence. Tragically, LGBT victims often face severe abuse that can result in serious injuries, deaths, and suicides.

Increased awareness about the pervasiveness of bullying and its tragic consequences is mobilizing anti-bullying campaigns to end this abuse and violence. Parents, educators, and lawmakers have classified bullying as a major public health and school violence problem.

Bullying inflicts physical, psychological, and emotional harm and interferes with a victim's ability to learn and participate in school activities. It’s been linked to anti-social behaviors like vandalism, drug and alcohol abuse, and sexual harassment and violence.

Since 1999, state legislatures have enacted anti-bullying laws. Today, 47 states have anti-bullying laws of various types. They universally acknowledge that pupils have a right to attend schools that are safe, secure, and peaceful.

The California Legislature enacted its first anti-bullying laws in 2003, but more progress is needed. “Bully Police U.S.A.,” that monitors state anti-bullying laws only awarded California’s statutes a "B" grade.

In 2011, CFILC supported a bill that may raise our GPA. AB 9 expands California law to protect pupils bullied because they are, or perceived to be, part of the LGBT community and pupils with a disability.

Other new laws include: AB 746 that strengthens prohibitions against using social networks for “cyber-bullying,” and AB 1156 that requires more school personnel anti-bullying training and prioritizes school transfers requested by bullying victims.

The disability community and the families of pupils with disabilities must push for stronger anti-bullying laws to protect our children. We must also ensure they are enforced to combat the debilitating effects of bullying.

The abuse and violence against pupils with disabilities must STOP!

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

2011-12-23T10:26:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-23T11:47:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-04T13:02:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-04T10:58:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-22T12:38:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-08T14:59:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-08-31T15:49:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-08-19T12:58:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-08-05T13:06:00.000-07:00

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?"

2011-07-28T14:57:00.000-07:00

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"

2011-07-19T09:35:00.000-07:00

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

2011-07-12T09:00:00.000-07:00

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

2011-06-16T14:00:00.000-07:00

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

2011-06-15T10:27:00.000-07:00

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.

UPDATE ON PG&E'S ELECTRICITY RATE INCREASES THAT HURT PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

2011-06-03T12:58:00.000-07:00

In my last posted Blog, I had issued a BAD NEWS ALERT that warned Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) customers about a May 26^th California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Meeting where they would hear public testimony and vote on two new proposed rate increases. The first will assess a fixed charge for all of its customers and the other will lower the “baseline” above which they would pay higher rates for electricity. The rate increases were approved by the CPUC.

I testified on behalf of people with disabilities to follow up on a CFILC letter of opposition we sent to the CPUC. We were asked by The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Disability Rights Advocates to give a disability community perspective to the proposal. Consumer and utility advocates argued that the rate increases violate state law that only allows moderate increases over time for low-income customers.

I was disappointed to learn at the last minute that my 3 minutes of allotted time was reduced to 2 minutes! It forced me to scramble to cut my well-rehearsed presentation, so I spoke quickly and violated the public testimony speed limit.

Nevertheless, I testified that the rate increases would be a substantial financial hardship for people with disabilities. They would come on top of recent state budget actions that reduced income benefits, required copayments for medical appointments and prescriptions, and lowered Medi-Cal coverage for Durable Medical Equipment and medical supplies. These rising costs are challenging the ability of the disabled to afford living independently.

Lowering the baseline will also hurt people whose medical conditions require maintaining constant air conditioned temperatures or medical equipment usage. Others live in subsidized housing that uses electricity for heating.

The proposals allegedly would encourage energy conservation, but these customers have no such options and will only end up paying more. It’s likely that many will find the increases unaffordable and may be forced to default on their utility bills and risk electricity shutdowns.

It was apparent that CPUC President Michael Peevey, who sponsored the proposal, had paved the way for its approval. It was smooth sailing because a new commissioner appointed by Governor Brown could not vote because his prior advocacy was a conflict of interest.

Nevertheless, TURN and other advocates negotiated some minor improvements to the original proposal. They were able to extend the rate increase phase-in period. Sometimes political success means working hard to make a devastating proposal merely alarming. It is admittedly a subtle nuance.

It’s ironic that the rate increases were proposed to “level the playing field” between rates paid by low-income customers and businesses and higher users. It was claimed that low-income rates needed to be increased because they had been exempted by state law that expired in 2009.

Of course, that philosophy is consistent with the kind of thinking that is going on in Congress today in the Federal Budget debate. Republicans claim that stimulating economic recovery requires lowering taxes and fees for the wealthy and corporations. They advocate for the elimination of programs assisting seniors, the poor, and people with disabilities and to force them to pay more out of their shrinking household budgets.

And so it goes.

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

2011-05-24T12:51:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-05-23T09:00:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-05-19T13:00:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-17T15:52:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-16T09:00:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-11T11:26:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-09T11:11:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-04T09:29:00.003-07:00

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.