Tue 28 Jan 2020 07.00 EST
I’ve never seen this level of engagement”, is a statement many of us would like to hear much more often when it comes to social justice. Rebecca Cokley, director of the disability justice initiative at the Center for American Progress and former White House staffer in the Obama administration, is referring to the unprecedented level of discussion of disability issues by presidential contenders in the Democratic primaries.
Eight candidates released and promoted disability plans as part of their pitch to win the Democratic nomination, including Elizabeth Warren’s which was widely praised for being particularly comprehensive. When Warren tweeted during a Twitter “town hall” that “all policy issues are disability policy issues”, it struck a chord. Along with disabled people’s direct involvement in drawing up many of the candidates’ proposals, it has become a priority election topic.
Ordinarily, it doesn’t tend to feature in primary or presidential campaigns, never mind so prominently, despite one in four adults in America – 61 million people – living with a disability. The current focus is all the more significant because 2020 is the 30th anniversary of the introduction of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a landmark piece of anti-discrimination legislation.
Among the most welcome proposals are greater inclusion in education and a focus on removing the sub-minimum wage, where some disabled people are paid a fraction of the federal minimum wage, currently just $7.25 (£5.53).
For decades, campaigners in America have grafted, as in the UK, to push disability issues – from health and social care to employment and accessible transport – up the political agenda. Disabled people must, as Cokley has put it, “have a seat at the table”. But policies that could tackle persistent barriers to inclusion often aren’t even on the table, while there are many that actively go against disabled people’s interests.
The fallout of punitive policies is all too apparent in both America and Britain. Look no further than the catastrophic impact of a decade of austerity in the UK and welfare “reforms” that came with it, which have seen thousands of people denied benefits payments and put through degrading and stress-inducing “fit-for-work” tests. Figures published this month confirming that more than 5,000 disabled and chronically ill people in the UK died before they could be reimbursed for benefits not paid due to government errors, and which left them seriously out of pocket, is just the latest in a long litany of mistreatment.
In the US, a plethora of attacks on the social safety net, including reducing access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known as Snap and formerly, food stamps) has disproportionately affected disabled and chronically ill people. So too do attempts to undermine social security. The latest adverse proposal from the Trump administration would introduce additional assessments of social security benefits applicants in order to qualify. The move constitutes what some disability advocates are calling a “back-door” attack on vital assistance along similar lines to the fit-for-work tests in the UK. Some, including Cokley, are pointing to British cuts and reforms as a cautionary tale. If implemented, the new rule would make it much harder (in an already notoriously tough system) for disabled people to claim two kinds of benefits currently needed by millions, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). SSDI benefits of up to $1,800 a month are based on lifetime earnings and are paid to people who have worked for a set number of years, while SSI (up to $770 a month) is a benefit for low-income people who have largely been out of work.
As in Britain, governments undercutting or altering access to benefits leaves those disabled people who rely on them in a profoundly precarious position. Having senior politicians grasp what’s at stake and making it a priority is critical. According to Alice Wong, an advocate and a co-partner in #CripTheVote, a non-partisan campaign encouraging the political participation of disabled people, one of the reasons for the recent shift in focus by Democrats is that social media has increased the “visibility of disabled people’s perspectives and their direct engagement and critique of candidates.” And, as she also points out, “campaigns are more noticeably hiring disabled people”.
It’s one thing as a presidential hopeful to have great intentions and another entirely to get elected and put them into practice. Here’s hoping.
• Mary O’Hara lives in Los Angeles. She is the author of Austerity Bites
