[ Post a Response | Inclusion Daily Express Discussion Board ]
Posted by Steve Busch Link: sad but true arguments against
on December 15, 2002, 2:05 pm
207.170.204.100
Perhaps "almost always" would have been more accurate. But this discussion board has been much too quiet and I felt a couple of challenging emphatic statements were in order to liven things up. As far as AB896, I have not done a lot of research on that particular bill, but I'll stick with my assessment that the unions were indeed opposed to it for the very same reasons they are opposed to de-institutionalization here in Washington State. But it is indeed an over simplification to say that the debate is stalled merely because protecting union jobs has been a major sticking point. Closing government run institutions and transferring supports to the private sector in our communities involves many other factors as well, and these factors are certainly in play in California as well as around the rest of the country. All parties to the debate have raised valid concerns about closing the institutions, i.e. the levels of support available in the community, quality of care, training of staff, government oversight, economic impact, funding, taxes, etc. My view is that the debate should center on protecting the basic civil rights of individuals with disabilities. Worrying about how the people who support those individuals are going to vote, or who controls the distribution of funding, is secondary. Although I can't speak for California's Republican Party, by definition, Republicans are ALMOST ALWAYS in favor of reducing tax burdens and moving government services to the more efficient private sector. Would AB896 have accomplished this? No one argues the fact that high quality community supports are seriously lacking at this time. [As a side note, see the link below] It is a classic catch 22. Once the government institutions are closed, more tax money should be available for community supports. Differences over control of how that money is distributed seems to be the real hold up. I accept the fact that Government oversight is critically needed, but Republican plans for providing tax break incentives for investments in new and innovative private business ventures such as competitive community supports, make more sense to me than the Democrats strategy which historically discourages private sector innovation and investment, reduces competiton, panders to it's union constituency, increases the tax burden, and results in an ever larger bureaucracy.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread