system: You are Jim Gashel, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Nfb Blind News message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to All about "Re: ACB Washington Connection (fwd)".

They wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 hheagy@delphi.com wrote:
>
> > As far as the 30-thousand dollars in earnings is concerned, I
> > think we have every right to have it if the senior citizens have
> > it.  Why should we have been disconnected from the 65-69 year old
> > bracket just because the government felt they should have more
> > earnings power?
>
> I know of no intrinsic linkage between blind folks as a group and senior
> citizens as a group.  Blind people on SSDI as a class have more in common
> with other people on SSDI:  like many of them we must use alternative
> techniques for making our way in the world,and must face the barrier of
> bad
> attitudes; like the rest, blind people on SSDI have been deemed unable to
> work.  The linkage with retirees was created in 1977 only because we
> persuade Congress to adopt it so blind folks could get more bennies.
> Understandable, and I sure agree that we needed better bennies than we had
> at the time.  But we should realize that there's nothing magical or
> particularly "historic" about that linkage.  Certainly, if Congress had
> instead worked to improve benefits for people with disabilities so that
> they were better than those for seniors, we sensibly would have sought to
> break the linkage ourselves in order to get our piece of the better pie.
> If we can stop thinking of the linkage with seniors as the key, we can
> more freely and carefully craft an approach to benefits that contains real
> work incentives without making a mockery of the notion underlying
> disability insurance.
>
>
>  Frankly, I think we should be in the 70 and
> > older bracket which totally eliminates the earnings test.  Even
> > if we get good jobs we have technology maintenance to pay > and other
> > work if all our earnings are consumed by blind related expenses.
>
> When I first heard that we wanted the earnings limit removed, I thought it
> was much too big a hand-out to ask for.  I actively supported it for a
> time because it was Federation policy, because I thought it would rid us
> of some beaurocratic nightmares, and because of the costs of blindness.
> It never looked quite right to me, though.  Now, and for some time, I
> wish I'd stuck to my first opinion throughout--though I certainly would
> not have actively opposed our effort ouside the outfit.  It is worth
> noting that how much money one gets has nothing to do with the costs of
> blindness:  it depends on how many quarters one has worked, and I guess on
> some other things.  Not only does this mean that the help one gets with
> blindness cost may have nothing to do with how high those costs are, but
> it shafts people like my wife, and others I know, who haven't worked
> enough in jobs in which people pay into the trust fund.  No solution will
> be perfect, but we can do better than that.
>
> Also, job-related blindness costs are often handled by theemployer or by
> the rehab agency.  (I think they belong with rehab, unless we could get
> some stypend designed specifically to deal with blindness costs or
> disability costs generally.)
>
> Finally, as my wife pointed out in BlindTalk about two years ago,
> disability insurance is supposed to be insurance for when you have a
> disability that prevents you from making a living.  I don't know of a
> private disability insurance policy that will pay somebody full
> benefits--or any benefits--if he or she earns much money at all.  What
> we're telling the congress is that we should be able to earn at least a
> decent wage while getting full benefits that are awarded because we're
> deemed unable to work.  Remove the earnings limit altogether and it seems
> to me we've cast logic into the great void beyond.  It would be far better
> to raise the earnings limit less (if at all) but reduce benefits gradually
> after one has exceeded that limit.  (I understand that the National
> Council on Disability has proposed something like this, something that
> also tries to deal with the loss of medical benefits.  SSI already works
> this way.)
>
> > Several years ago, we convinced S.S.A. of the need for the
> > elimination of the earnings test but their objection was that if
> > they gave it to us they would have to give it to all the
> > disabled.  We said that was not necessarily true; that other
> > disabled groups would have to make their own cases if they wanted
> > it.
>
> Apparently, others with disabilities are trying to make their cases.  I
> suspect their cases are much like ours.  Congress's failure
> to link everybody with seniors has nothing to do with the failure to make
> a case.  Rather, the reason is the projected cost of doing it.  I
> understand that concern about the cost of it was one reason our linkage
> proposal died last year.  Another, I was told, was that members of
> Congress noted that we blind folks already have better benefits than other
> disability groups.
>
> I stress that I think our biggest problem is the abrupt benefits cut-off
> that come with reaching the earnings limit.  When I mentioned this at the
> Massachusetts affiliate's convention last April, Allen Harris responded
> that it really wouldn't be a great concern because not many blind people
> would be earning more than thirty thousand a year.  Well, for a moment I
> wondered what I was doing there.  We want equality with sighted folks and
> say we're capable of it.  A fair number of sighted folks make more than
> thirty grand.  If we're on the right track, than a similar percentage of
> blind folks should at some point be making more than thirty grand.  If
> not, maybe I should forget all that about equality.  I expected more
> optimism than that!  Maybe life will prove that sad, but we're not the
> folks who should be lowering the ceiling of expectations for the blind.
>
> Well, our work on the linkage proposal is far along, and it iscertainly a
> policy with broad support.  I hope, though, that we'll take a different
> approach if it doesn't pass.  We should go for gradual benefits
> redunctions, so their is always a work incentive and we're not gouging the
> taxpayers.  Also, though we have no duty to fight other people's battles,
> we should stop creating mythical differences between blind folks and
> others with disabilities:  the real differences from group to group are
> already there to deal with.
>
> I realize, of course, that this may be a marginal perspective.  The only
> hope of leaving the margins, however, is to persuade others that your
> views have some sense.  I've tried to do that here.  Thank you for your
> attention to these comments.
>
> Al
>
>
>
>

Write your reply.

assistant: From: Jim Gashel <jgashel@blazie.com>
Subject: Re: ACB Washington Connection (fwd)
hello Al:
Contrary to your statement that you know of no intrinsic linkage between
blind people and seniors under social security, I would say that there is,
in fact, one.  Under the social security act, both conditions, retirement
age and blindness, are defined.  No other disability is defined.  the
point in creating the linkage between blind people and seniors in the
first place is that, since you can easily define both conditions in the
law, then it would make sense to extend the same earnings exemption
threshold to both groups.  the purpose for the earnings limit is to define
whether or not someone should be eligible for benefits.  since the two
conditions were defined in the law already, congress saw fit to apply the
same limit to both groups.  that is the linkage.  from that point of view,
the breaking of the linkage makes no sense whatsoever.
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997, Al and Masha Sten-Clanton wrote:
expenses others do not have.  It does us no good to