 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Letters Welfare reform: ignoring general assistance programs? Editor: While we are happy to see Illinois Issues devoting significant space to the issue of welfare reform (see February and April 1994 issues), there is a whole area of public aid which has, in general, received little attention. We hope you will do another article to address this. As you probably know, there have been major cuts to General Assistance (a state program for primarily poor single people ineligible for federal aid) in states throughout the country. In the Midwest, Michigan, Ohio and Illinois have all drastically cutback their GA programs. Other states, like California and Pennsylvania, are also experiencing major cuts as well. These cuts reflect a whole segment of people who are being forgotten and ignored by the states. One way this issue could be addressed is through the federal welfare system. Unfortunately, federal welfare reform proposals are not addressing it. In fact, there is talk about cutting back on the few federal programs that serve this population to help finance the current welfare reform proposals for AFDC. The Clinton Administration admits its task is almost insurmountable, but the task is actually greater if one includes the GA population.
Molly Bougearel
Editor: I just finished reading "Rights vs. 'rights,'" April's guest column (page 11). We must bestow pity on the Thomas N. Hineses of the world, for obvious reasons, but the comment that disturbs me the deepest is the one about the "unreasonable demands of environmentalists in the Pacific Northwest." Excuse me, Mr. Hines, a basic question, do you like to breathe? Do you not know how oxygen is produced on this planet? Geez, bud, get a clue. To paraphrase an old bumper sticker, "Don't bad-mouth environmentalists with your lungs full." Somehow I don't believe we should have to amend the Constitution to assure a clean, safe, productive environment. How can one make respect a law? I wonder, whose "Rights vs. 'rights'" is Mr. Hines talking about (or should I say protecting), huge profit-oriented corporations, or the human race? I can hear it all now: "How dare those people in wheelchairs expect us to spend our precious time and money to build ramps and bathrooms just for them. It's not our fault they can't walk..." Most of these groups you accuse of demanding "advantages over everyone else" are people who have finally decided they want the same "privileges" afforded to your average male Caucasian for centuries (oops, you forgot slam people of color. They seem to have started this 'rights' thing). If those unreasonable environmentalists are successful, and our grandchildren have a sus-tainable planet to live on, this will inevitably include your grandchildren, too, Mr. Hines. And if they aren't successful, well, the Constitution won't be worth the tree it's written on. Think about it. Please.
Diane Ohizen
Editor: Thomas Hines (guest column/April 1994) holds himself out as both a constitutionalist who believes in "the true Rights of the individual" and a man in sympathy with "those objecting to special laws for gays in Colorado." He'd be much closer to the truth if he'd taken a careful look at what actually happened in Colorado. What happened is that voters approved a statewide proposition banning specific civil rights protection on one and only one basis, sexual orientation. Colorado trial and appellate courts since have overturned the law. They say the proposition negates the most fundamental right in a democracy, the right of aggrieved citizens to seek redress in the legislative and political arenas, for one and only one group: homosexuals. Colorado is not a case of giving gays special rights. Rather, it is a case of singling them out and denying them rights any other citizen has to seek favorable laws.
Mr. Hines comes closer to the truth when, in his lead paragraph, he talks about the rights of women, men, children, the handicapped, animals, criminals, plants and gays — in that order. That at least is an honest if unintentional expression of the author's real agenda.
Gregory J. Hinz
Editor: Today, while individuals and professional organizations argue for total inclusion, children with disabilities have become the pawns in a game of ideologies. Why? Professionals have lost sight of the history of special education. Look back at Illinois in the 1950s when Ray Gramham, assistant superintendent of Public Instruction, went into classrooms and asked why children with disabilities were not receiving special help. The inclusion debate is like the abortion debate — you are either for or against — with no middle ground. But individuals and professionals must recognize that, for the sake of children with disabilities, we must work together. The problem is that we have forgotten the gains we have made. Parents, professionals and advocate organizations joined forces to get PL 94-142, mandatory legislation for the education of all children with disabilities, passed in the late sixties and reauthorized in the late eighties. This law laid the groundwork for a free and appropriate education with a continuum of alternative placements for children with special needs. The law recognized that children with disabilities have unique needs, and to meet these needs individual programs must be developed which allow children with disabilities to grow and become independent productive members of society. The intent of the law was to individualize each child's program. With that came the development of the continuum which allows children with disabilities access to the most appropriate program at any given point in his/her development. A child could go from a residential setting to a specialized program in the community if that setting best met the child's needs. The IEP, Individual Education Program, would be reviewed yearly and the decisions made based on the individual needs of that child. Some advocates have decided that all children with disabilities should be in a regular "home school" classroom. What will happen to choice? Will it disappear? The home school classroom represents only one choice in the spectrum. This and other choices are found in a continuum of alternative placements. What is happening to the middle ground — using all choices from inclusion to specialized settings to meet the individual child's needs? Including a child with disabilities in a regular classroom requests that we develop a special curriculum to meet his/her needs, provide additional support for the teacher, and assures that cooperative planning takes place. Why don't we develop a long-range plan to make sure that all children with disabilities are served appropriately and develop new programs that meet the individual's needs rather than close existing options?
Special education as it exits today is not perfect, but let's not destroy a system without having a plan that will benefit all children.
Donna Ree
Editor: Hurrah! The "granny tax" is gone in Illinois! (see Illinois Issues, April 1994, page 18) — so it has been joyfully proclaimed, thanks to our humane legislators and governor, who thus indirectly apologize for their "emergency" use of the special tax on nursing home patients to balance the state's budget last year. But is the granny tax really gone? Or is it just another slick trick that uses the perennial "emergency" in state finance to push an oppressive burden upon Illinois' sick, disabled and helpless minority: nursing home patients? 10/June 1994/Illinois Issues
Decide for yourself.
Are our political representatives and governor pulling a fast one? Or are they simply innocent of fiscal and economic realities? This fact is obvious: There is no way to keep such a tax from being passed on, either in reduced services or increased charges — except, of course, in the tooth-fairy cases of profitable nursing homes with generous owners who are glad to sacrifice their profits. Perhaps our legislators should set speed limits for the wind or mandate that water should not run downhill. Certainly no one can believe that apartment renters, for example, can escape paying higher rent because their landlords must pay real estate taxes — and, so be it, so must nursing home patients! The substitute for the granny tax got a nice new name, a respectable one: license fee. In ordinary, honest practice, governments make a reasonable license fee charge for an inspection with application of reasonable standards — usually standards which duplicate those applied by non-governmental accrediting agencies of associations of nursing homes themselves. This usually means that a team of specialists visits the nursing home for a few days, report shortcomings and virtues and grant a license if reasonable standards are met. Would a reasonable fee for such a visit and report be, let us say, $3,300? Or would that be a bit extravagant? Perhaps. Why, the "fee" for one place I am familiar with (with 60 beds) this year is some 10 times higher than that! It is almost $33,000 for the license! Considering that the other two nursing homes in the area have between them 313 beds, the take from the three nonprofit nursing homes is over $204,000 this year under the nice title: "license fee." Obviously, statewide, this tax on the aged, sick and disabled is a gold mine for politicians who boast that they have held the line on taxes — with that gold mine cleverly concealed from citizens generally! Consider this: The "licensing" bill (SB 677) has a price of $1.50 per day on all beds, not just the occupied ones as of last year when the rate was only $1. So this increase is considerable. Yes, the $6.30 per day charged patients is gone. Actually, a separate law, passed by those of merciful spirit, required the state to return roughly four-fifths of the almost $2,300 each lower-income patient paid. So, while the take last year was substantial, it was substantially less than it will be this year. A reasonable conclusion might be that the new law (SB 677) takes more money from nursing home patients than the granny tax did, unless, of course, they reside in homes that are profitable with generous, kind-hearted landlords. Is SB 677 a scam? Is [it legitimate] calling a thing a license fee with a price of over $200,000, as it is for one community with only three nonprofit nursing homes?
Is it a scam if our state governors honestly believe such a charge can be kept from being passed on to the patients? If so, we should reasonably anticipate better weather and fewer floods by legislative mandate.
W. Paul Street
Editor:. I was shocked and dismayed to read that six more Cook County judges are going to neglect and abuse their section (see Illinois Issues, April 1994, page 44). It is a great service that you provide to the people of Illinois by letting us know about this problem. P.S. Keep up the good work.
Edmund W. Murphy [Readers: In using "to" as a preposition in a headline, we overlooked its use as an infinitive, turning adjectives into verbs and our faces red. The headline with the double meaning read, "Cook County Juvenile Court expands; six more judges to neglect, abuse section." We appreciate your keen eye and good humor. Editor] Clarification The Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Council is an independent 11-member board charged by the General Assembly to be a cooperative venture between government and business to curb motor vehicle theft in Illinois. It is housed at the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority office in Chicago and funded by a $1 fee assessed on every comprehensive auto insurance policy sold in the state. The authority, a nonpartisan statewide agency dedicated to the improvement of criminal justice in Illinois, provides oversight and administrative support to the council. The council, however, is not part of the authority nor the secretary of state's office as implied in May's Illinois Issues (see page 31).
The photo caption on page 22 of the May issue incorrectly identified Julie McPike's employer. She is director of marketing for Lewis and dark Community College.
Your comments on articles and columns are welcome. Please keep letters brief (250 words). We reserve the right to print excerpts of letters to the editor so that as many as space allows can be published. Send your letters to:
Letters to the Editor
Electronic mail address on Internet:
June 1994/lllinois Issues/I 1
|