[Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
Mary Ellen
gabias at telus.net
Thu Jan 29 17:29:07 UTC 2009
There is certainly an element of chance involved in being a pedestrian.
Sometimes things just happen regardless of our level of preparedness. I've
never believed that it is either possible or desirable to eliminate all risk
from the environment. I do believe, however, that major risks which
contribute to the isolation of a whole group of citizens should be managed.
You're right when you state that noisy vehicles are a hazard because they
cause noise pollution and mask other sounds. I wouldn't want loud cars, just
audible ones.
With respect to the legislation, I don't know how a piece of legislation
could mandate responsible behavior on the part of blind travelers. For that
reason, I think your critique is a bit unjustified. Personal responsibility
looms large in the equation, but the legislation was intended to fix the
piece of the puzzle related to design and manufacture of vehicles.
This exchange has convinced me that we agree far more than we disagree.
We're different in that I don't read car magazines or technical data. I have
neither the interest nor the technical background. I don't think knowing a
lot about individual brands of cars makes me a better traveler. I suppose
being able to recognize design characteristics by sound makes traveling on
the streets more fun, just as recognizing birds by their songs makes a walk
in the woods more enjoyable. I keep up on traffic flow changes and how
lights and turning lanes are set up to cope with them and I am currently
learning about the new traffic round abouts being installed in our city.
Beyond that, I could care less about how cars are engineered. (My Dad worked
for years in the auto parts business; perhaps my aversion to technical car
talk comes from boring years of hearing too much of it at the dinner table.)
This entire situation has the potential to be the springboard for creative
new approaches to travel. Some of the new technology being considered for
installation in cars could protect against vehicular and pedestrian crashes.
Although I continue to be skeptical of "smart" technology, I applaud the
creative thinking this technology represents.
For the record, I don't think it's dangerous to travel as a blind person; if
I did, I wouldn't travel independently. I just want it to stay that way or
perhaps improve.
-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of michael townsend
Sent: January 29, 2009 7:24 AM
To: 'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
Maryellen, here's what I mean, and I don't mean to be discourteous to anyone
on lis6t be they a dog handler or a cane user or just someone who grabs an
elbow or moves out on their own.
You have to read about the vehicles on the road, as I do. Hybrids are as
dange4rous, I think, as are vehicles with quieter engines, like most of the
four cylinder or V6 models today.
Diesels are quieter than they used to be, and the V8 engine is virtually a
thing of the past but on a few American makers and some luxury European and
Japanese car manufacturers.
What is out on the street is quiet, to be sure, and since even 20 years ago,
we've seen a trend to environmentally friendliness, in that gas mileage has
increased and the muffling of sound has also increased. This makes for a
dangerous combination. It doesn't mean that these problems can't be
remedied.
Young people slap on louder exhausts because they think it's cool to do so
on small cars, trucks and on motorcycles. It's cool, but it's a plus for us
blind people and others who choose to walk about, be we cane travelers or
dog handlers or just motivate our two feet to get us there. But,
environmentally, it is not friendly. It is not friendly to our ears as we
are assaulted with different ops, groans, roars, hisses and noises that
might irritate our ears, disturb the sleep of those who wish to get a few
hours of rest before they go to work, and more.
So, we have to balance the assault on our ears and the potential that these
noises may assist in our travels with the fact that too much noise and the
types of noise that are emitted are bad in many different ways.
Determining the speed and direction of travel of any car is different, be it
silent or noisy. For example, when working a guide dog, it is not possible
to determine the speed and direction of a car if the car is traveling at a
speed greater than 35 miles per hour, which is a figure that we heard during
a traffic lecture at Seeing Eye, just two years ago. This figure has been
borne out through testing when professionals stood with dogs in training and
looked at vehicles approaching the training team at speeds up to and beyond
that speed and determined this to be true.
I have traveled in areas of heavy and light traffic and am pretty well
versed in determining when it is safe and not safe to cross even lightly
trafficked streets.
However, I would like to point out that one time, when crossing a street
that had a curve in it nearest to my former home in Plainfield, New Jersey,
which has a great deal of multiple type vehicle traffic, a bus was coming
down the road and I crossed, and I didn't hear the Toyota corolla coming in
the other direction. This was nearly 25 years ago, and the four cylinder
engine was drowned out by the engine of the bus, which, as you might have
guessed was considerably louder than the bus. This corolla was traveling
at a speed exceeding 25 miles per hour, which was over the speed limit, and
which, with noise emitting devices, which could operate at speeds up to 20
miles per hour, as legislation would outline today, would have not been
operative, so we would have been in the same boat, nonetheless.
We have to make informed decisions, meaning that we gather our facts from
all resources, whether they be news resources, auto magazines, etc,, as well
as organizational reports or publications, and then proceed as safely as we
can in doing our daily tasks, whether that be working our dogs, walking with
a cane, etc., and what may happen happens regardless or how t thoroughly we
regard things.
All I am stating is that no matter what legislation is passed, and no matter
what noises we see coming from under the hoods and out of the exhausts of
cars, we have to be responsible in making decisions as we are able and take
it from there. I can be no more definitive in my response than that. No one
organization or bill can speak for all blind, deaf, or whichever sect an
organization claims to support, and therein lies the fallacy of it all. Mr.
Towns and whomever else supports this legislation may do a masterful job of
crafting the piece that they bring before the house and senate, and Dr.
Maurer may agree with the premise that they put forth, but if we as handlers
of dogs or cane are ill--prepared or just happen to walk in front of a
hybrid or a quieter car, it doesn't mean that the legislation was flawed or
that the industry failed to listen, it is just pure luck and there's nothing
we can do about it, period.
-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mary Ellen
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:44 AM
To: 'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
Mike,
You frequently mention blind people taking responsibility for their own
travel. I absolutely agree that we are responsible for ourselves; that's the
only sane premise from which to operate. In this circumstance, though, I
wonder what you mean. The problem with quiet cars is that their near silence
robs us of the possibility of taking charge of our own safety because we
don't have data about where the cars are, how fast and in what direction
they're moving. How can I take responsibility for evaluating data which I do
not possess? If you could suggest some ways in which I could be responsible
for operating safely in an environment where I cannot hear what's coming, I
would genuinely appreciate knowing about them. I, like almost every blind
person I know, dislike asking for environmental modifications and will only
do so if I believe it is absolutely necessary. Your implication that asking
manufacturers to implement standards which correct a design flaw is somehow
failing to live up to my responsibilities as a blind traveler leaves me
shaking my head. How is what we're asking for different from requiring
shatter proof windshields? In a world where every driver was absolutely
responsible there would be no crashes and windshields could be made of
ordinary window glass. Yet we all accept the notion that safety glass is not
only good but necessary. Seat belts are required in all vehicles (with the
possible exception of taxis in some jurisdictions). The government in my
province will fine me if I don't wear one. Some argue that government may
have gone too far with such a requirement, but the notion that safety
standards can and should be regulated is well established.
If cars continue to get quieter and no method is found for making them
discernable by sound, my only responsible alternative as a blind traveler is
never to leave home alone. I've worked hard to learn what I've needed to
learn to travel and I am more than willing to work hard to travel safely in
the presence of nearly silent vehicles. My problem is that no one to date
has shown me or any other blind person how to travel safely without adequate
sound cues. I would be supremely arrogant to suggest that I know everything
there is to know about independent travel. I certainly do not. That's why
I'm asking you for information on ways I can effectively take responsibility
for travel around nearly silent vehicles. The only comparable situation is
travel where there is too much noise, in the presence of a jackhammer, for
instance. In those situations I wait until the noise stops, take another
route, or find someone to help me cross the street. Unlike a jackhammer, a
silent car doesn't advertise its presence so that I can take responsible
action. Lack of knowledge of the presence of such cars is precisely the
problem this legislation seeks to correct.
Mary Ellen
-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of michael townsend
Sent: January 28, 2009 5:01 PM
To: 'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
Here you go again, folks. Put the weight of this on the organizations that
make the car without taking any responsibility for your own actions. It's
nice to have legislation, but where are the mobility specialists, and state
agencies in this. I noticed the cane traveler was mentioned. In no part of
this was brought up the fact that guide dog schools have begun to train
their dogs and then the teams to work within the environment and meet the
challenge of dealing with the hybrid issue. Legislation is fine, David and
others, but you have to begin to take some responsibility for your own
actions and meet the challenges that exist head-on.
Thanks for the post.
Mike T
-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:39 PM
To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org
Subject: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
Legislative Agenda of Blind Americans:
Priorities for the 111th Congress, FIRST Session
The National Federation of the Blind
(NFB) is the oldest and largest organization of blind people in the United
States. As the Voice of the Nation's Blind, we present the collective views
of blind people throughout society. All of our leaders and the vast
majority of our members are blind, but anyone can participate in our
movement. There are an estimated 1.3 million blind people in the United
States, and every year approximately 75,000 Americans become blind. The
social and economic consequences of blindness affect not only blind people,
but also our families, our friends, and our coworkers.
Three legislative initiatives demand the immediate attention of
the 111th Congress in its first session:
1. We urge Congress to ensure the safety of
blind and other pedestrians by passing the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Act. This legislation would require the U.S. Secretary of Transportation
to:
. Begin a study within ninety days of its
enactment to determine the most practical means of assuring that blind and
other pedestrians receive essentially similar information to what they now
receive from sound emitted by internal combustion engines;
. Determine the minimum amount of sound
necessary to offer sufficient information for blind pedestrians to make safe
travel judgments based on appropriate scientific research and consultation
with blind Americans and other affected groups;
. Within two years of beginning the study,
promulgate a motor vehicle safety standard to address the needs of blind and
other pedestrians by requiring either a minimum level of sound or an equally
effective means of providing the same information as is available from
hearing internal combustion engines; and
. Apply the standard to all motor vehicles
manufactured or sold in the United States beginning no later than two years
after the date it is promulgated.
2. We urge Congress to work with blind
Americans to create a Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind that mandates
consumer electronics, home appliances, and office equipment to provide user
interfaces that are accessible through nonvisual means. This legislation
should:
. Mandate that all consumer electronics,
home appliances, and office equipment be designed so that blind people can
access the same functions as sighted people through nonvisual means and with
substantially equivalent ease of use;
. Create a commission comprised of
essential stakeholders to establish standards for nonvisual accessibility of
electronic devices intended for use in the home or office;
. Endow the commission with enforcement
powers or locate it within a government agency having such powers; and
. Authorize it to reexamine and rewrite
standards to keep pace with the evolution of consumer electronic technology.
3. We urge Congress to promote and facilitate
the transition by blind Americans from recipients of Social Security
Disability Insurance benefits to income-earning, taxpaying, productive
members of the American workforce by enacting legislation to:
. Replace the monthly earnings penalty with
a graduated 3-for-1 phase-out (i.e., a $1 reduction in benefits for each $3
earned above the limit);
. Replace the monthly earnings test with an
annualized earnings test with an amount equal to twelve times. Substantial
Gainful Activity amount; and
. Establish an impairment-related work
expense deduction for blind Social Security Disability Insurance
beneficiaries equal to the amount applicable for this deduction when
determining an appropriate income subsidy under Medicare Part D or 16.3
percent of earnings, whichever is greater.
For more information about these priorities, please see below or
consult the attached fact sheets.
Blind Americans need your help to achieve our goals of economic
security, increased opportunity, and full integration into American society
on a basis of equality. Enactment of these legislative proposals will
represent important steps toward reaching these goals. We need the help and
support of each member of Congress. Our success benefits not only us, but
the whole of America as well. In this time of national economic insecurity,
these measures will contribute to increasing the tax base and encouraging
the purchase of consumer goods.
ENHANCING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY: ENSURING THE BLIND CAN CONTINUE TO TRAVEL
SAFELY AND INDEPENDENTLY
Purpose: To require hybrid, electric, and other vehicles to emit a minimum
level of sound to alert blind and other pedestrians of their presence.
Background: Until recently independent travel for the blind has been a
relatively simple matter, once a blind person has been trained in travel
techniques and has learned to use a white cane or travel with a guide dog.
Blind people listen to the sounds of automobile engines to determine the
direction, speed, and pattern of traffic. Sounds from traffic tell blind
pedestrians how many vehicles are near them and how fast they are moving,
whether the vehicles are accelerating or decelerating, and whether the
vehicles are traveling toward, away from, or parallel to them. With all of
this information, blind people can accurately determine when it is safe to
advance into an intersection or across a driveway or parking lot. The
information obtained from listening to traffic sounds allows blind people to
travel with complete confidence and without assistance. Studies have shown
that sighted pedestrians also use this information when traveling.
Over the past few years, however, vehicles that are completely
silent in certain modes of operation have come on the market, and many more
silent vehicles are expected in the near future. These vehicles are
designed to have many benefits, including improved fuel efficiency and
reduced emissions, but they do not need to be silent in order to achieve
these intended benefits. An unintended consequence of these vehicles as
they are currently designed is that they will reduce the independence of
blind Americans and endanger the lives, not only of blind people, but also
of small children, seniors, cyclists, and runners.
Currently the most popular of these vehicles is the
gasoline-electric hybrid, which alternates between running on a gasoline
engine and on battery power (although a few electric automobiles are already
on America's roads and new all-electric models are planned). The blind of
America do not oppose the proliferation of vehicles intended to reduce
damage to the environment, but for safety these vehicles must meet a minimum
sound standard.
On April 9, 2008, Congressmen Ed Towns and Cliff Stearns
introduced H.R. 5734 (the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2008). This
legislation sought to solve the problem of silent cars by authorizing a
two-year study to determine the best method for allowing blind individuals
to recognize the presence of silent cars, and by requiring that, two years
after the study was completed, all new vehicles sold in the United States
must comply with the solution determined by the study. In the 110th
Congress, eighty-eight members of the House cosponsored this legislation.
Need for Congressional Action: For several years the National Federation of
the Blind has been concerned about the proliferation of silent vehicles.
Recently automobile manufacturers have acknowledged the problems posed to
blind pedestrians by silent vehicle technology and have begun to work with
the National Federation of the Blind to seek solutions. However, federal
regulators have indicated that, in the absence of statistics on injuries or
deaths caused by hybrid vehicles, nothing can be done. Congress must
therefore direct the Department of Transportation to take action. It is
crucial that this problem be addressed before the inevitable avalanche of
tragedies involving blind people, small children, seniors, cyclists,
runners, and newly blinded veterans shocks the nation.
Proposed Legislation: Congressmen Towns and Stearns have reintroduced the
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act to direct the Secretary of Transportation
to conduct a study and establish a motor vehicle safety standard that
provides a means of alerting blind and other pedestrians of motor vehicle
operation, based on appropriate scientific research and consultation with
blind Americans and other affected groups. This national motor vehicle
safety standard must have the following characteristics:
* In all phases of operation (including times when the vehicle is at a
full stop) vehicles shall be required to emit an omni-directional sound with
similar spectral characteristics to those of a modern internal combustion
engine.
* The sound should vary in a way that is consistent with the sound of
vehicles with combustion engines to indicate whether the vehicle is idling,
maintaining a constant speed, accelerating, or decelerating.
The standard need not prescribe the apparatus, technology, or
method to be used by vehicle manufacturers to achieve the required minimum
sound level. This approach will encourage manufacturers to use innovative
and cost-effective techniques to achieve the minimum sound standard.
The addition of components to emit a minimum sound discernible by
blind and other pedestrians will not negatively affect environmental
benefits of gasoline-electric hybrids and other automobiles running on
alternate power sources, and the emitted sound need not be loud enough to
contribute to noise pollution. Automobiles that operate in complete
silence, however, endanger the safety of all of us; silent operation should
be viewed as a design flaw comparable to the lack of seat belts or air bags.
Requested Action: Please support blind Americans by cosponsoring the
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act to authorize the U.S. Department of
Transportation to establish and promulgate regulations specifying a minimum
sound standard for all new automobiles sold in the United States. In the
House of Representatives, members can be added by contacting Emily Khoury in
Congressman Towns's office, or James Thomas in Congressman Stearns's office.
In the Senate members can support independence for blind Americans by
sponsoring companion legislation.
Contact Information:
Jesse Hartle
Government Programs Specialist
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Phone: (410) 659-9314, extension 2233
Email: jhartle at nfb.org
A TECHNOLOGY BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE BLIND
Purpose: To create a Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind that mandates
consumer electronics, home appliances, and office equipment to provide user
interfaces that are accessible through nonvisual means.
Background: In recent years rapid advances in microchip and digital
technology have led to increasingly complex user interfaces for everyday
products like consumer electronics, home appliances, and office equipment.
Many new devices in these categories require user interaction with visual
displays, on-screen menus, touch screens, and other user interfaces that are
inaccessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision. No longer are
settings on the television, home stereo system, or dishwasher controlled by
knobs, switches, and buttons that can be readily identified and whose
settings can be easily discerned, with or without the addition of tactile
markings by the user. Moreover, the use of inaccessible interfaces on
office equipment such as copiers and fax machines makes these devices
unusable by the blind and therefore a potential threat to a blind person's
existing job or a barrier to obtaining new employment.
This growing threat to the
independence and productivity of blind people is unnecessary since digital
devices can function without inaccessible interfaces. Today text-to-speech
technology is inexpensive and more nearly ubiquitous than it has ever been;
it is used in everything from automated telephone systems to the weather
forecasting service broadcast by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Indeed, a few manufacturers have incorporated this
technology into their products to create talking menus or to articulate what
is on the display; there is no reason why other manufacturers cannot do so
as well. And text-to-speech technology is not the only mechanism by which
consumer electronics, home appliances, and office equipment can be made
accessible to blind people.
Need for Legislation: Currently there are no enforceable mandates for
manufacturers of consumer electronics, home appliances, or office equipment
to make their devices accessible and no accessibility standards to provide
guidance to manufacturers on how to avoid creating barriers to access by the
blind. Congress should therefore enact a Technology Bill of Rights for the
Blind, which clearly establishes that manufacturers must create accessible
user interfaces for their products, provide a means for enforcement, and
establish standards that will provide meaningful benchmarks that
manufacturers can use to make their products accessible.
Congress need not mandate a single, one-size-fits-all solution
for all consumer
technology. Rather any such legislation should
mandate regulations that set meaningful accessibility standards, while at
the same time allowing manufacturers to select from a menu of potential
solutions that, singly or in combination, will allow blind users to operate
the technology easily and successfully. This will not only give
manufacturers the freedom and flexibility they desire, but encourage
innovations that make consumer technology more usable for everyone.
Proposed Legislation: Congress should enact a Technology Bill of Rights for
the Blind that:
* Mandates that all consumer electronics, home appliances, and office
equipment be designed so that blind people are able to access the same
functions as sighted people by nonvisual means and with substantially
equivalent ease of use; and
* Creates a commission to establish standards for nonvisual
accessibility of electronic devices intended for use in the home or office.
Such a commission should represent all stakeholders, including organizations
of the blind; manufacturers of consumer electronics, home appliances, and
office equipment or associations representing such manufacturers; and
experts on universal design, electronic engineering, and related fields.
This commission should have enforcement powers or be housed within a
government agency having such powers (e.g., U.S.
Department of Commerce), and should be authorized to reexamine and rewrite
standards periodically, as consumer electronic technology continues to
evolve.
Requested Action: Please support blind Americans by introducing legislation
to create a Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind (or by cosponsoring once
legislation has been introduced) so that blind people will be able to
participate fully in all aspects of American society. Increased access
leads to increased independence, increased employment, and increased tax
revenue.
Contact Information:
James McCarthy
Government Programs Specialist
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Phone: (410) 659-9314, extension 2240
Email: jmccarthy at nfb.org
REMOVING THE EARNINGS PENALTY: A COMMON SENSE WORK INCENTIVE FOR BLIND
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES
Purpose: To promote and facilitate the
transition by blind Americans from Social
Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
beneficiaries to income-earning, taxpaying,
productive members of the American workforce.
Background: The unemployment rate for
working-age blind people is over 70
percent. Part of the reason for this
disproportionately high statistic is the myths
and misconceptions about the true capacities of
blind people. These erroneous perceptions are
manifested when employers refuse to hire the blind.
In addition, governmental programs
intended to help blind people meet their basic
economic needs, especially the SSDI program, have
had the unintended consequence of creating an
incentive for blind people to remain unemployed
or underemployed despite their desire to
work. Low societal expectations result in low
representation of the blind in the
workforce. This low representation of the blind
reinforces low societal expectations-it is a
vicious circle that perpetuates systemic
employment discrimination against the blind.
Despite the efforts of the National
Federation of the Blind, blindness still has
profound social and economic
consequences. Governmental programs should
encourage blind people to reach their full
employment potential; they should not encourage economic dependence.
Existing Law: Title II of the Social Security
Act provides that disability benefits paid to
blind beneficiaries are eliminated if the
beneficiary exceeds a monthly earnings
limit. This earnings limit is in effect a
penalty imposed on blind Americans when they
work. This penalty imposed by the SSDI program
means that, if a blind person earns just $1 over
$1,640 (the monthly limit in 2009 following a
Trial Work Period), all benefits are lost.
Section 216(i)(1)(B) of the Social
Security Act defines blindness as a disability
based on objective measurement of acuity and
visual field, as opposed to the subjective
criterion of inability to perform Substantial
Gainful Activity (SGA). For blind people, doing
work valued at the SGA earnings limit terminates
benefits but does not terminate disability. Only
blind people not working or those with work
earnings below an annually adjusted statutory
earnings limit receive benefits.
Need for Legislation: When a blind person enters
the workforce, there is no guarantee that wages
earned will replace SSDI benefits after taxes are
paid and work expenses are deducted. For
example, Jane worked as a customer service
representative with an annual income of $35,000
until she became blind from diabetic
retinopathy. Jane meets the criteria for SSDI
benefits, which provide income of $1,060 a month
(or $12,720 a year) tax-free while she is not
working. Jane wants additional income to meet
her financial needs. After an adjustment period
and blindness skills training, she finds
employment as a part-time representative making
$10 an hour for 35 hours a week. Jane grosses
$350 a week for an average of $1,517 a
month. Using a conservative 25 percent
withholding tax, Jane nets $1,137.50 from her
work, combined with her $1,060 disability
benefit, for a net total of $2,197.50 a
month. If Jane should have the opportunity to
work full time (40 hours), her weekly salary
would go up to $400 a week for a monthly average
of $1,733. This amount is over the 2009 earnings
limit, so Jane loses all of her disability
benefits. Using the same 25 percent tax level,
Jane nets only $1,300 a month-working an extra
five hours a week has cost Jane $897.50 net
income (over $10,500 a year). This example
illustrates the work disincentive contained in current law.
A gradual reduction of $1 in benefits
for every $3 earned over the earnings limit would
remove the earnings penalty and provide a
financial incentive to work. The benefit amount
paid to an individual will gradually decrease,
while the individual's contribution to the Social
Security trust fund increases over time. Under
this approach, as Jane earns more, she pays more
into the trust fund, and her dependence on benefits decreases.
Monthly earnings evaluations are
unnecessarily complicated for both the
beneficiaries and the Social Security
Administration. Since the medical prognosis for
blind people rarely changes, and because
blindness is objectively measurable, blind people
should be subject to an annual earnings test with
the limit equal to the twelve times applicable monthly SGA amount.
Under current law blind workers
frequently pay for items and services related to
their disabilities that are necessary for them to
work, and they are permitted to subtract these
Impairment Related Work Expenses (IRWE) from
monthly earnings when determining monthly
income. Properly crediting IRWE poses a serious
challenge to the SSDI program and creates a lack
of predictability for the blind person trying to
determine whether benefits will be available. To
address both issues, Congress should permit SSDI
recipients to claim the same amount used when
determining an income subsidy under the Medicare
prescription drug program, currently 16.3 percent.
Congress should enact legislation to:
. Provide that earnings of blind SSDI
beneficiaries in excess of the annual earnings
limit result in a gradual benefit reduction of $1
for each $3 earned over the limit;
. Establish an annual earnings test for blind SSDI beneficiaries; and
. Establish one standard IRWE deduction for
blind SSDI beneficiaries equal to the amount
presently applicable for this deduction when
determining an appropriate income subsidy under
the Medicare prescription drug program or 16.3
percent of earnings, whichever is greater.
Requested Action: Please support blind Americans
by cosponsoring legislation that provides a
common sense work incentive for blind Social Security beneficiaries.
Contact Information:
James McCarthy
Government Programs Specialist
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Phone: (410) 659-9314, extension 2240
Email: jmccarthy at nfb.org
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
2009-Washington-Seminar-Legislative-Agenda-and-FactSheets.doc
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail
programs may prevent sending or receiving certain
types of file attachments. Check your e-mail
security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
_______________________________________________
Quietcars mailing list
Quietcars at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Quietcars:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/gabias%40telus.ne
t
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 1/28/2009
7:24 PM
_______________________________________________
Quietcars mailing list
Quietcars at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Quietcars:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/mrtownsend%40opto
nline.net
_______________________________________________
Quietcars mailing list
Quietcars at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Quietcars:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/gabias%40telus.ne
t
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 1/28/2009
7:24 PM
More information about the QuietCars
mailing list