Amendment 50 - Colorado's Community Colleges on the Slippery Slope

Colorado's Amendment 50, a ballot initiative that ties casinos to community colleges, is making me call into question the level of education of community college leaders in this state. They have tied their buggy to the casino industry - a very dangerous and slippery slope.

Amendment 50 would allow our casino towns to make changes in limited stakes betting so that people can bet more money. The increases in profits the casinos receive is supposed to go, in part, to community colleges. Community colleges apparantly don't know that raising the gambling stakes also raises the incidence of problem and compulsive gambling.

Is this what we want our educational system tied to?

Vote No on Amendment 50. Colorado does not need to create more problem gambling.

"The Socialists are Taking Over"

Today I saw the clip of the man at the McCain rally who is very angry because, as he says, "the socialists are taking over."

Phew, am I glad to hear that! It's about time!

We know where we have gotten in the last 8 years. Free market - tanked. Remember the old plan to "privatize social security" by having people invest their own money? Hmmm, isn't it a good thing today that this did not happen? Did you benefit greatly from the "trickle down" method of economics?

So what does a country look like when we are all in it together? Ideally, it is a country where no child or person is hungry or uneducated. It is a place where people with disabilities have the care they need. It is a place where grandma can live in an assisted living facility instead of a nursing home. It is a place where education is fully funded and we create the best scholars in the world. It is a place where everyone who is able is working. It is a place where those in the upper 1% of the income bracket don't have all the power. A place where everyone has healthcare. And yes, it is a place where people from other countries are treated with respect and dignity rather than being vilified as "aliens."

Socialism is taking over? Bring it on!

Fuzzy Math

I have been having a recent exchange of words with a mother of a child with a disability who believes with all her heart that the government should not be supporting people with disabilities. She believes, bless her heart, that every family should raise their own money to support the needs of their children.

This, however, is fuzzy math and an extremely naive approach.

The cost of caring for an adult with a disability who needs 24 hour care is somewhere in the range of $50-$75,000 annually. Not only is this more than some families make in a year, if we had to rely on each family doing fundraisers to the tune of $75K a year, our friends and family would get extremely tired of us asking them for money every year. It just cannot be done by an individual this way. It is a full-time job to be a fundraiser. Furthermore, without a system in place to oversee and recruit service providers, the cost would go up for care because providers would have to develop complicated mechanisms to serve each family.

It is beyond naive to think that families are able to take on this monumental task. Those who think otherwise are not in this situation and do not understand how difficult this is. While some families are able to band together to create solutions for their children, so many cannot.

This kind of thinking is going to put us back in the dark ages... when people with disabilities were supported by sitting on street corners begging for money. At some point, I hope people are going to figure this out and stop this endless debate about whether or not our country is about equality for everyone - including economic equality - or not.

Providing Services for People Makes Common Sense

Today I had a conversation with a community leader about the value to the community in providing services to the disabled.

While there are many people who are "anti-taxes," and I do understand why, it is very important to consider that if services are not provided to people who need them the most, the cost to the community may actually be much more than paying taxes.

Parents caring for children with disabilities who do not receive services have to stay home to care for their children rather than work. This decreases their family income (and in fact many have to be on public assistance to survive), and also decreases their spending ability which means loss of income for the state. People with disabilities who don't work because they need services in order to get jobs, also lose the ability to get employer-based medical insurance. They must rely on Medicaid or, in some cases, hospital indigent care. Parents who are unable to save money for their retirement, will end up themselves needing Medicaid to pay for nursing care.

These are just a few examples but it is important for people to understand that we all pay higher costs in insurance, products, medical care, taxes, services, transportation and more when we do not support programs that serve our most vulnerable citizens.

Where the Presidential Candidates Stand on Disabilities

In case anyone has forgotten, "saying" you support people and their problems, is not the same as actually supporting. I know, it is hard to believe that pretty words and a wink or pat on the back don't mean action.

So let's examine where the action is:

First, here is a side by side comparison of McCain vs. Obama's positions on disability issues:
Click here

What I see when I read this is that McCain opposes several extremely important bills like the Community Choices Act and the CLASS Act to support people with disabilities or has no plan for some.

Second, I checked as deeply as I could into Sarah Palin's record on supporting issues affecting people with disabilities. What I learned is that she cut special ed funding in Alaska and that people with disabilities who live in Alaska have to go out of state for services. They are literally flown out of state. How is that advocacy for people with disabilities?

Here's an article about some advocates reactions to her pretty words:
Medical News Today

Third, I learned that Republicans in Colorado are opposing Amendment 51, a bill to fund desperately-needed, life-saving services for people with disabilities.

If this is all about how the government should not provide money to provide services because that is not what the government is supposed to do (that's how I understand their position), what exactly is the alternative? Currently, government funding from taxes goes to nonprofits (in Colorado anyway) that provide the services. It isn't the government providing the services like we often hear. (And that isn't what would happen with a national heathcare plan either).

Where do Repulican families go to get services? How do they pay for them out of pocket (at a rate of between about $25-70K per year?) Is that what we are all supposed to be able to do? How can I do that?

I want to hear about real solutions to these issues that are in the works NOW. Not an "idea" or statement that says "parents, communities and churches should step up to the plate." (A quote from a local Republican). Where are these community organizations and churches that are providing these free services?

Be informed before you vote. And, as always...
Vote Yes on 51

Health Care for All

If you haven't seen the PBS program called Critical Condition, it is definitely a must see.

They provided a statistic in the film that all people who do have health insurance are paying nearly $1,000 a year more in costs due to the lack of medical insurance for all. Doesn't a national plan make sense, considering this?

Check out the program Critical Condition.

That's Just Not Neighborly!

It strikes me that we now have a layer of government and law enforcement in our lives that is taking away our need to be neighborly - it's called a homeowner's association.

Case in point: my dead barking dog.

Yup, my dog is dead. And yup, somebody complained that it barks too much.

Did anyone ask me if I still had a dog? Nope. That's because we don't really live in a "neighborhood." We live in a system of rows of houses where people don't talk to one another. No longer do people have to just walk over to my house and ask "was that your dead dog barking last night?"

So the People Pusher wants to know... why do we want homeowner's associations? I'm starting to think that pink houses are a great idea. Since the reason we have homeowner's associations is supposedly to keep the neighbor from painting their house pink, I am really starting to like pink houses. As John Mellencamp said, "little pink houses, for you and me!"

But seriously - I'd like the idea of a "neighborhood" to come back.