Political Candidates Speak Truth about Disability

Posted by John B. Kelly

No, not in Massachusetts, unfortunately. But it is happening in nearby New York, where gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer recently called for the restoration of the post "state advocate for the disabled," previously cut "as a cost-savings measure."

David Patterson, who is running with Spitzer for lieutenant governor, is legally blind*(see bottom) and is actually, publicly committed to enforcing civil rights for disabled people. When will we hear a Massachusetts candidate say something like the following and mean it?

"The ADA is an unfinished agenda," said Paterson, the state Senate minority leader. "You can have an act on paper, but it isn't
trickling down to the streets."

"Let me assure you," Paterson said. "On Jan. 1 there will be a new
sheriff in town. And I will be his deputy. The sun will not set on
people with disabilities as long as we're there."

All is never rosy for people with disabilities, however. Spitzer has made a big deal out of promising to reduce the Medicaid budget, so our compatriots are a bit worried. We know what that is like in Massachusetts -- "sorry, no new leg for you," and "what's your problem? Only children need any of their back teeth."

Some advocates said they worry about a big issue in the campaign _ cutting the sprawling $40 billion Medicaid health care system many agree is rife with waste and fraud. Advocates said they are concerned that deep cuts in Medicaid called for by Spitzer, Democratic challenger Tom Suozzi, and Republican candidate John Faso will reduce home and outpatient services for the disabled and force more into residential care facilities.

"The disabilities community is deeply concerned about simplistic cuts," said Bruce Darling, an advocate in New York City.

Spitzer said Medicaid must be reduced because the state can't afford for it continue to grow. Spitzer's plan, however, mostly targets fraud and waste by providers. He said any changes in Medicaid for the needy and disabled won't undercut "the critical safety net" the system provides.

Yeah, we'll see about that. Notice that every candidate is for cutting the budget, which "many agree is rife with waste and fraud." This is what is known as "elite consensus," more often than not proved wrong later, after terrible damage has been done to vulnerable populations.

When a newspaper article uses the word "many" or "some" (Fox News' favorite way to interject its own right wing views) without identifying real-world people with real-world interests, watch out for "some" people pulling a fast one on "other", often powerless, people.

Cutting fraud and waste by providers and contractors seems like a worthy goal, but fraud and waste in the same quantities rarely turn out to be as locatable after candidates achieve office, so "cuts" start gouging the bodies of vulnerable people.

*Being "legally blind," by the way, is no guarantee at all of someone advocating for truth and justice. But it is true that people who identify with an oppressed group are more likely to reflect the group's views. Except those, of course, who don't.