[nfbmi-talk] dangerous offset

[joe harcz Comcast]

Well said, and don't forget the miserable SSI and other below poverty 
so-called benefits to those who are blind or otherwise disabled who never 
have even had the opportunity to enter the workforce.

Oh yes but the hacks can cut deals with the devil there and "employ" 
thousands in shelterred shops making less than minimum wage.

Yet, the administrative hacks in both the Rehab System and the Community 
Rehab Programs make in excess of six figures for not doing their designed 
job.


One other thing here Terry and all. Let us not forget the outright sellouts 
to our community who are nominally blind and who, for a few dollars are more 
than willing to   deny their brothers and sisters not only the things you 
ascribe, but even basic civil rights and basic dignity.

Rodgers, Kisial, Jones, and Essenberger are just a few names that come to 
mind here.

Oh, one can get a job in BSBP if one is blind, but then that person would 
have to sell his very soul in order to do so.

It's too high of a price for me to pay.

Joe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry D. Eagle" <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] dangerous offset


> The decline of disabled persons in the workforce is no more demonstrated
> than the Michigan BS4BP, where once-upon-a-time blind persons made up 33
> percent, or 1 out of 3 agency eployees, and now BS4BP and LARA brag about 
> a
> 19 percent, or one out of five agency employees being blind.  Is the 
> result
> because blind persons don't desire to work?  Is it that blind individuals 
> as
> job applicants are unqualified for the position vacancies filled?  Is it
> that blind persons simply would rather sit at home in government 
> subsidized
> housing, receiving poverty-level government benefits?
>
> I submit that the answer to these questions cannot be answered in the
> affirmative.  The bottom line is that the legislators and bureaucrats, the
> same officials that propose that disabled persons now be pushed further 
> down
> the economic ladder, and deeper into poverty and despair, these officials
> have simply miserably failed and abandoned the blind and disabled persons
> when it comes to rehabilitation and employment services.  This includes 
> the
> agency administrators charged to assisting disabled persons, to the
> governor, to Congress, regulatory agencies, and the White House office of
> the President and Vice-President, and envelops political types from the
> extreme left to the extreme right, and everyone in-between.  They all talk
> the talk, and do nothing to walk the walk, to assist persons with
> disabilities toward full employment and tax paying independence.
>
> Michigan is a textbook example of that which is wrong with the system and
> process designed to assist disabled persons to gainful employment.
>
> First, the system promotes welfare over work, mainly because those persons
> operating the system lack belief in the abilities and capacity of the
> persons with disabilities that they are to assist.  This is best
> demonstrated in the make-up of the agency workforce, from entry-level
> positions to top mmanagement positions.  Not only do persons with
> disabilities not hold these various positions, in the rare case where a
> person with disability does hold a position, they are compensated less 
> than
> non-disabled peers.
>
> Next, one only look at the number of vacant or non-existent positions 
> within
> an agency at the direct client service level, and it is not difficult to 
> see
> a serios lack of priority for rehabilitation servicw outcomes in
> rehabilitation.  Unused annual budgets are another serious indicator of 
> lack
> or service priority and poor management of resources.  If the number of
> persons with disabilities who are unemployed and those  in the workforce
> declining, and the munbwes are a true reflection of the crisis facing
> persons with disabilities, I would like to know how any agency serving
> disabled persons, can ever justify having funds for client services
> remaining at the close of any fiscal year?  For example, notwithstanding 
> an
> explosion of baby-boomer senior citizens, defined as age 55 and older for
> services, the Michigan BS4BP serving the older blind population, had
> approximately 20 percent of the last fiscal year budget go unspent at 
> close
> of the fiscal year.  How can that be with the need so great to assist
> persons.
>
> I could go on and on with other examples demonstrating a lack of priority
> and lack of leadership in serving the rehabilitation and employment needs 
> of
> persons with disabilities, directly contributing to the forrific workforce
> numbers published, and outlook for persons with disabilities in the
> workforce, but I know this audience is the choir I am addressing here.
>
> I do, however, propose that anyone, politician and bureaucrat alike, 
> should
> have to live for at least one year on the average $13,000 per year
> disability benefit amount, without additional funds or benefits, having to
> purchase for themselves and household family, the essentials of housing,
> food, clothing, utilities, vehicle payment, gas and oil or public
> transportation costs, insurances, medical dental and medication costs, 
> kids
> school lunches and other costs, and don't forget the internet, cell phone,
> cable television, and the occasional travel, vacation, social and holiday
> party costs, such as gifts and food and veverage.  I'll bet after a year 
> of
> politicians and bureaucrats restrained to living and supporting themselves
> and loved ones in this manner on $13,000, we just might experience change 
> in
> the rehabilitation system, or a marked increase in the rate of suicide 
> among
> those two professions.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe
> harcz Comcast
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:56 AM
> To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] dangerous offset
>
> Senate Toys with Financing Unemployment Benefits with Cut in Disability
> Benefits - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly
>
> #jac-wrapper
>
>
>
> disabledunemployed
>
>
>
> January 10, 2014;
>
> Bureau of Labor Statistics
>
>
>
> In the midst of the confusing muddle of statistics in the December jobs
> report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, almost nothing has been written
> about
>
> the disturbing trend concerning the employment conditions of persons with
> disabilities. Between December 2012 and December 2013, the labor force
> participation
>
> rate of men with disabilities between 16 and 64 years of age declined from
> 34.2 percent to 30.6 percent. For women, the labor force participation 
> rate
>
> declined from 28.6 percent to 27.7 percent. The labor force participation
> rate for all persons with a disability 16 and older declined from 20.5
> percent
>
> to 18.7 percent.
>
>
>
> The fact that so many persons with disabilities are leaving the work force
> reflects just how "rocky" the job market is for the disabled, according to
> Shaun
>
> Heasley
>
> writing for Disability Scoop.
>
> Conservative critics have been
>
> writing about the increase in the number of persons receiving disability
> benefits
>
> as a reflection of the welfare state's disincentives to work. In fact, the
>
> number of disabled workers receiving support from the nation's Disability
> Insurance Trust Fund
>
> reached 8,942,584 in December 2013, an increase of 1.3 percent from the
> previous year, but an increase of 52.2 percent over the decade. The notion
> that
>
> an average monthly payment to a disabled worker-in December, $1,146.43-is 
> a
> substantial distinctive to avoid work is hard to imagine, but that is the
> concept
>
> that animates the critics.
>
>
>
> More troubling was last week's 205-count indictment of 102 New York City
> firemen and policemen for participating in a massive Social Security 
> fraud,
> faking
>
> psychiatric illnesses over a 26-year period. Some of the alleged
> perpetrators claimed
>
> disabilities incurred from their roles as first responders to the World
> Trade Center terrorist attacks on September 11, 2011.
>
> Eighty of the 102 were police and fire department retirees, rather than
> current workers unable to work due to their disabilities.
>
>
>
> The coverage of the New York indictments has provoked almost giddy 
> reactions
> on the parts of critics of employment compensation that the disability
> insurance
>
> system is one of rampant fraud. In truth, the system is one of stringent
> eligibility, requiring recipients to be both "fully insured" (having 
> worked
> for
>
> at least one-fourth of their adult lives) and "disability insured" (having
> worked in at least five of the previous ten years), severely impaired
> (suffering
>
> from a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least five months
> and is expected to last at least 12 months), and unable to perform
> "substantial
>
> work" (meaning earning more than $1,040 a month-or $1,740 for the blind).
> The
>
> Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
>
> explains the growth in the numbers of people receiving disability 
> insurance
> payments as due not to a flood of fakers, but to the aging of Baby Boomers
> (now
>
> reaching their 50s and 60s, the peak ages for disability insurance) and 
> the
> increase in the participation of women in the labor force overall.
>
>
>
> How then to explain the latest proposal of the U.S. Senate-concocted in 
> this
> case by Democrats, the generally reliable Jack Reed of Rhode Island and
> supported
>
> by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid-to pay for a one-year extension of
> unemployment benefits by
>
> cutting benefits for persons with disabilities?
>
> This would be part of the budget "offset" that Republicans are demanding 
> in
> return for the extension of unemployment benefits that were eliminated in
> the
>
> federal budget agreement last month. The notion is that workers who 
> collect
> disability payments but also earn a tiny amount of wages or receive other
> benefits
>
> are "double-dipping." Oddly, President Obama proposed the same in his 
> FY2014
> budget proposals.
>
>
>
> A coalition of nonprofits, including the Arc of the United States, 
> Goodwill
> Industries, Easter Seals, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and the
> National
>
> Disability Rights Network,
>
> issued a letter
>
> last week condemning the offset proposal, noting that less than one 
> percent
> of disability insurance recipients "double dip" and receive unemployment
> insurance
>
> benefits as well, and that this practice has been accepted by both the
> Social Security Administration and the courts as legitimate. As the letter
> explains,
>
> "Individuals who do receive concurrent benefits do so because they have
> significant disabilities that make them eligible for DI, and because they
> have
>
> also attempted to work at a low level of earnings but have lost their job
> through no fault of their own." Nonetheless,
>
> the double-dipping argument has gained traction among our nation's
> legislators,
>
> including Senator John McCain's support for the offset idea and Senator
> Chuck Schumer's declaration that the idea of people receiving both DI and 
> UI
> is
>
> simply "wrong."
>
>
>
> The critics of double-dipping are operating under a major misunderstanding
> of both programs. Disability insurance and unemployment insurance are 
> meant
> as
>
> bridges to employment, not substitutes for jobs. For the 117,000 persons 
> who
> receive both disability and unemployment benefits, the
>
> average combined annual benefit
>
> is all of $13,200-hardly a mammoth disincentivizing alternative to a 
> decent
> job's paycheck. But critics will use the increase in the DI rolls and the
> scandal
>
> of New York scammers to buttress their arguments that it is okay to cut
> disability payments-unless more nonprofits than just the disability
> advocates speak
>
> up with the facts. They had better speak up fast, because it looks like 
> the
>
> Senate could agree
>
> to cut disability insurance payments today.-Rick Cohen
>
>
>
>
>
> Source:
>
> http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/23526-senate-toys-wit
> h-financing-unemployment-benefits-with-cut-in-disability-benefits.html
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/terrydeagle%40yahoo.
> com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net