Presidential commission bodes ill for people with disabilities
President Obama’s decision to create a commission on how to cut so-called entitlement programs is ominous news for millions of people with disabilities.
In January, the Senate rejected legislation endorsed by Obama that would have created such a commission.
So in his State of the Union address, the president said he would create a similar “bipartisan fiscal commission” by executive order. Obama stated that his commission will be “modeled” on the one rejected by the Senate.
If his commission is anything like the one that was in the Senate bill, it would pose a serious threat to people with disabilities, seniors and others who rely on programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Here’s how the Senate bill would have worked: If 14 of the 18 members appointed to the commission agreed on recommendations, those recommendations would have been submitted to Congress after the Nov. 2 midterm elections. The bill would have required Congress to rush through the legislative process and vote by Dec. 23 on whether or not to make all the recommended changes law. What’s worse, no amendments would have been allowed. (Both the Senate and the House would have had to pass the bill by a three-fifths majority.)
I have no doubt the commission’s recommendations would have included some harsh cuts in many vital support programs. Already, the House and Senate health care bills have proposed large Medicare spending cuts. And Republicans are clamoring for more cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Reducing the federal deficit is not as important as providing for the basic necessities for retired people or poor people with disabilities. Plus, there are other places to cut, such as the Pentagon and corporate welfare.
But the president seems bent on extracting more sacrifices from the elderly and the poorest disabled Americans.
The president spent a lot of time in his State of the Union speech telling middle class Americans how much he understands the pain being inflicted upon them by this dreadful economy. But people on fixed incomes are hurting, too. And they will hurt a lot more if the president uses his commission to justify slashing programs that are lifelines for millions of Americans.
Mike Ervin is a Chicago-based writer and a disability-rights activist with ADAPT (www.adapt.org). He can be reached at pmproj [at] progressive [dot] org.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
| We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
| The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
| March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Comments
First of all, the cuts in Medicare in the Health care bill are to the Medicare Advantage programs which are being reimbursed at a much higher rate than regular Medicare. Why do you think insurance companies such as Humana push their all-in-one Medicare Advantage programs? The health care bill also calls for an increase in the income levels which would make Medicaid a viable option for a larger group of people.
I disagree with the first comment that it is not the taxpayers' responsibility to provide basic necessities for the people. It sounds like a classic line right out of the Republican play book. If indeed we are a Christian nation as the Republicans love to tell us, then it is our moral duty to provide for those of us who have less. According to Jesus, remember him, it is our Christian duty to take care of the poor. To fail to do so, is a moral failing or a calculated choice which makes us at best, hypoctrics.
People on fixed incomes, by its very nature, cannot replace or recoup lost sources of money. It is not redistributing (another Republican buzz word) income to ensure those who cannot replace income are protected. People who are disabled, those who are elderly, and children are the most effected when their "so-called entitlements" are targeted. They are the first hurt when prices climb or inflation hits. They are the ones hit when money is taken from food stamp programs, WIC, Headstart, HEAP and yes, Medicaid and Medicare. If you honestly believe they are not feeling the pinch right now, you are sadly mistaken.
Entitlement reform is not true entitlement reform. What it really is just another way to strip the social safety net in this country. Take Social Security. If you want real reform, how about taxing up to the first million instead of 100,000? How about taxing those who actually have capital gains? How about putting the tax brackets back to where Ronald Reagen had them? How about taxing the profits companies make overseas at a reasonable rate? When proposals such as these get serious consideration then I will start to seriously consider entitlement reform.