[Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
Malcolm Graham
mjgraham at earthlink.net
Fri Jan 30 00:16:52 UTC 2009
Howdy from Texas!
I don't think having a dog guide is an issue with quiet cars at all, and I
hope we get something passed before the streets are overrun by hybrids. I
also don't understand what the space program has to do with this either. We
benefit from NASA tech every day, blind and sighted alike.
Regards,
Malcolm Graham
----- Original Message -----
From: "michael townsend" <mrtownsend at optonline.net>
To: "'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'"
<quietcars at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
>I think, Mr. Evans, that you are a little too involved with this to be
> actually objective I the way you look at things., I am not criticizing
> you,
> or any individuals on list, per se, but if a collective assumption offends
> you, then, so be it. I really don't care. I was trying to make the point
> that this is for the collective good of all of us blind people,
> affiliations
> notwithstanding.
>
> If you travel well, fine. I do, too, and I am not the least offended by
> someone's point of view.
>
> However, I was highly offended by the October 1995 publication which in
> effect slammed guide dogs, their use and the mere fact that people would
> choose to use them. There were many issues that your former president of
> the NFB had set forth which I disagreed with, but this is why I am not an
> affiliate of any of these blindness organizations, because none of them
> speaks for me, nor do I want or ask them to.
>
> Collectively, we are all effected by legislation, be it good or bad. So,
> we
> have to make sure that whatever legislation that is written is the most
> effective, from all standpoints, that it can be and that the legislation
> benefits the greatest majority of people, and that it's tailored to the
> least common denominator, from the person who is a competent traveler to
> someone who is not.
>
> Sorry you took offense, Mr. Evans, but, none was intended.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On
> Behalf Of David Evans
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:05 PM
> To: Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety
> Subject: Re: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
>
> Dear Mike,
> Thanks for your opinion Mike, but I do take responsibility for myself
> every
> time I travel.
> I use the skills I have been taught and use them very well.
> You imply that because you use a guide dog, that you are protected because
> of its use.
> Well maybe you are and maybe you aren't.
> I know that users of guide dogs get hit by cars too, just as both cane
> users
> and fully sighted people do every day.
> How much did your guide cost? $20,000 dollars, 30 or 40, 000 dollars to
> raise and train and will work for you how many years before it needs to be
> retired?
> I am not against guide dogs and have been in fact applying for one myself,
> so don't think that I am anti-guide dog, I am not.
> I am just ticked that you sound as if we have done something wrong and
> irresponsible here in addressing an issue of life and death for Blind
> travelers.
> There are things that can be just as bad , if not worst, than death.
> Being so crippled and disabled that we have no quality of life left,
> laying
> in a bed with a feeding tube and someone changing our diapers, unable to
> go
> anywhere or do anything for ourselves can be far worst.
> We are much more likely to suffer crippling injuries and be financially
> destroyed by being hit by a car than we are of being killed.
> All I can ask is that I, and the greatest majority of Blind people, would
> ask is to have some way of detecting quiet cars and vehicles so as to
> avoid
> them.
> The manufactures should have thought of this when they designed them.
> All this bill will do is start a study of the problem and come up with
> some
> suggestions as how to fix it , who should do it and what will be required
> to
> make it happen.
> I am disappointed that it does not require all vehicles to be retro-fitted
> too.
> If the answer was that every blind person be given a guide dog to protect
> them from quiet cars, there would not be enough guide dogs to go around.
> The cost would be as high or higher that placing a "fix" on the cars
> themselves.
> Lets see, $30,000 per dog times 1.3 million blind people plus figuring a
> replacement dog every 11 to 12 years and the space program seems to be not
> so bad.
> We all can't have or use a guide dog for many reasons, nor should we be
> forced too just because you think that is the answer and seems logical to
> you.
> I am glad you like your guide dog, I hope I like mine too, but I still
> want
> to have some say in maintaining my own safety. Its my life and if I am
> suppose to be responsible for my actions and what happens to me, I don't
> want to look up from the surface of the street and say to my guide dog, "
> I
> think you missed one Rex!"
> I can't blame the dog if I am not taking charge of my actions and how I
> handle the situations. To do that I need to be able to detect them, where
> they are coming from and how fast. I can then make a decision as to what
> to
> do in a crossing or walking through a parking lot.
>
> David Evans, NFBF
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "michael townsend" <mrtownsend at optonline.net>
> To: "'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'"
> <quietcars at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:01 PM
> 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/drevans%40bellsou
> th.net
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
>
> 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
> 6:37 AM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/mjgraham%40earthlink.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1924 - Release Date: 1/29/2009
5:57 PM
More information about the QuietCars
mailing list