The Bipartisan History of Disability Rights

Yesterday I wrote on the Endrew F. v Douglas County decision from the Supreme Court. It's powerful and could make a real difference in special education in this country. In the meantime, though, even as the decision was being handed down, ADAPT (a direct action disability rights group) was occupying the Capitol Rotunda, chanting, and eventually being arrested. I wrote a piece about SCOTUS, Gorsuch, and ADAPT, while remembering all the ways that disability rights can and should be bipartisan.

For decades, Democrats and Republicans have come together to pass legislation and support regulations to make America more inclusive for people with disabilities. Not only did a Republican president (George H.W. Bush) sign the ADA in 1990 after it passed with overwhelming majorities, but the same congress and president easily reauthorized the Education for the Handicapped Act and renamed it IDEA. A Republican congress reauthorized the same bill under President Bill Clinton, in 1997. In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act, passed by a Democratic congress, which explicitly expanded ADA protections to people with mental disabilities. President Barack Obama signed a law permitting some disabled people to work and save money without jeopardizing access to benefits, and another encouraging integrated work opportunities for disabled people. These were both passed by huge margins in the otherwise highly partisan 113th and 114th congresses.

Read the whole piece here.

ABLE Act Reforms

Over a year ago I wrote about problems with the ABLE Act, the well-intentioned bill that the divide-and-conquer wing of the GOP was tweaking into semi-irrelevancy. It passed with a definition of disability that only included those disagnosed before age 26, a sign of the way too many politicians like to differentiate between the worthy and unworthy disabled, as they do between the worthy and unworthy poor. I listed lots of rhetoric showing this pattern, then asked:

As we head into the final few weeks of the 113th Congress, questions remain. Will ABLE pass? What definition of disability will emerge in the final bill? Who will Congress consider worthy?
This is why Courtney’s story is so important. I am the father of a boy with Down syndrome and am personally invested in this bill’s passage. I know, though, that whatever passes, my son — diagnosed since birth — will be included in the definition. No one wants to take his benefits away. But what about Courtney? What about the person who develops disability through injury, age or disease later in life? They too need the ability to save, to work and to garner what independence they can.
This is the danger of playing politics with disability. Definitions are complicated, and needs are real. Instead of trying to divide and conquer, let’s pass a bill that can offer dignity and security to all.

Why should my son, diagnosed with a disability 5 minutes into his life, be treated better than someone who gets a traumatic brain injury on their 27th birthday?

I have to say, though, that disability politics are never simple left-wing/right-wing. There are so many GOP officials who do great work on disability, and good disability legislation routinely passes with huge majorities. So I read this piece on tweaking ABLE with some optimism.

Under the latest proposals, people with disabilities who are employed would be able to allocate extra money each year to their ABLE account. Beyond the existing annual cap of $14,000, those who are working could also deposit their earnings up to the federal poverty level – currently $11,770 for a single person.
In addition, eligibility for the accounts would be expanded to include people with disabilities that onset by the age of 46, an increase over the current requirement that conditions must exist prior to age 26.
Finally, the lawmakers want to allow families to be able to rollover money they’ve saved for an individual with a disability in a 529 college savings plan to an ABLE account.

Let's keep pushing for better policy.

Update on ABLE - Two questions.

ABLE is likely to become law in the next few weeks, offering new tax-free savings accounts for people with disabilities. 

• Here's my article on the bill.
• Here's the current language in the House with off-sets (who knew you could save 444 million by not funding erection pumps via medicaid?). 
• Here's a piece saying that Senator Casey (D-PA) has agreed to the House language.

It reads:

The proposal's cost has been scaled back from an estimated $20 billion over 10 years. Clarifying that someone must be diagnosed with the disability by age 26 to qualify, and limiting annual contributions to $14,000, trimmed that cost to $2 billion over a decade.

The question I am trying to get answered (and have some hope of getting answered) is this:

1. The bill just "allows" states to set up ABLE Accounts? Will we then have to lobby each state to do it, or is it simple enough that this shouldn't be an obstacle.

I expect to have this question answered by the end of today.

2.  Why does someone who has a traumatic brain injury at age 25 get access to ABLE and not someone who gets the same injury at age 27?

I get it that it will make the program more expensive. But if ABLE is good policy, then it's good policy. We have to fight these disability hierarchies that will help my son and those like him, but leave so many other people stranded.

UPDATE: And answers

1. A spokesperson for a congressional rep said that it should be fairly simple to get the 529 accounts set up, as states already run the other 529s. But let me know if your state doesn't carry through.

2. It's just money. Too many reps in the House (I am assuming GOP but my source avoided partisanship) wouldn't vote for it  unless it was cheaper, so they came up with the age 26 based on the ACA use of age 26 as a way to make it cheap enough to pass.

So Congress is doing a good thing, it's not a big thing, it's going to be nice for wealthier families with kids with disabilities. Poor people won't be helped, as they don't have the money to save. People who become disabled later in life won't be helped. Still, a small good thing is, I guess, good.

Forbes questions how good and notes that special needs trusts do a lot of this work already. ABLE is better though. At any rate, they are voting more or less now, as I write. 

ABLE has led me to create a new mantra - Fight disability hierarchies. And so I shall.