Self Advocation Power Hour Episode 3: 2024 Presidential Election Issues Breakdown

October 24, 2024 | by sau1admin

Today, we have a very special election themed show. We're gonna be breaking down some of the issues for the November of 5th General Election that are gonna matter maybe most to self advocates. Transcript is below the episode player. You can also check out more info to help you power your vote.

Disclaimer: The show hosts and guests try their best to provide accurate and up to date information. However, no one is perfect. Please always check with your locality or county office or appropriate channel for the most up to date and accurate information.

Transcript

Introduction

Ed Auerbeck: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Self Advocation Power Hour. I'm Ed Auerbeck. And today, we have a very special election themed show. We're gonna be breaking down some of the issues for the November of 5th General Election. I should say this year, but it's coming close, we're, we're almost close to an October surprise, but I guess this is a little bit of our October surprise. So we're gonna break down the issues with David Champignon who we've had before to interview Michael, the voting advocate that we talked to last week, but let's dig in. And the candidates obviously, are Donald Trump on the Republican side, Kamala Harris on the Democratic side and with that David, I'll turn it over to you.

Conversation

David Champignon: I thought I'd start with their positions on Social Security because it's kind of unique in that both candidates are accusing the other of being bad for Social Security. Both candidates fall short when it comes to solving the long-term future of Social Security. Candidate Trump's plan is to eliminate taxes on Social Security, which I admit sounds good on its face but my research indicated that that would make the program sunset faster because Social Security relies on those taxes as a revenue source. And not to be outdone, Harris would pay for the expansion of Social Security by essentially taxing the rich and also she plans on massively expanding people's eligibility. Two things are unclear about her plan. What amount of money counts as taxing the rich? So, what is the cutoff for the most amount of money you can make before the increased taxes would kick in? And two it's also unclear if Congress would even go for something like that. And there's actually a third thing. It's whether her plan would solve the Social Security insolvency crisis that's coming somewhere between 2032 and 2038 depending on what source you read.

Ed: Okay, David, I appreciate that. I was curious about what your take was just on the insolvency. It seems to me that this is basically, I don't know if you' agree, but it basically seems like it's being used as a political football by both sides. And they're pretty much, just from looking at these plans, it almost seems as if they're okay, just kind of kicking the can down the road. Would you agree with that?

David: Yes. They've been kicking the can down the road since I first started following politics, at the age of 12. I'm now 36. This could have been solved like 20 years ago.

Ed: Yep.

David: But successive administrations have just kicked the can down the road because both parties don't want to change anything because honestly I think it's Social Security has emerged more useful as a talking point than actually you know getting down to the the gritty and solving the problem.

Ed: Makes sense. Yes, I would concur with that. And I think that is a negative but a negative that needs to be pointed out, that they would prefer it seems to have the issue to argue over rather than solving it, so that they can claim that they'll be the ones to solve the problem or fix the issue, and it leaves the American people sort of hung out to dry, unfortunately.

David: I mean, the issue of Social Security solvency has been talked about since the Reagan administration, but every successive administration just continues to kick the can down the road.

Ed: Yep, yep. Is there any thing David that you would, if it were up to you, I don't know if you had just from looking over the information, I don't know if you had any ideas, but is there one candidate who you could see being more effective in the area of the Social Security? Or is it really as you sort of described, is it really just a lot of talk and based on what they're saying you can't really count on either one of them to have this issue solved?

David: Well, I think I would give a slight edge to Harris. But that comes with the bipartisan caveat that it depends on what she can get through Congress because her plan for Social Security is somewhat bold. But number one, it's a few years old at this point, she's been talking about it since 2015. But as I have learned to be less rough on presidents overall. President's only as good as his or her Congress allows.

Ed: Gotcha.

David: So unless you're gonna do something by executive order, you can only sign the bills that come to the President's desk. Personally, I don't think you can do a massive, either a massive program expansion or a massive cut by Executive Order.

Ed: Yeah, I guess you'd say like a wave of the pen kind of thing. So that pretty much, I think, breaks down the Social Security. Unless there was something else that you wanted to touch on, David, but with that, I think if not, we'll go to the next issue.

David: One thing that I would like to say about this is that I think the media needs to reframe how they talk about disability issues in general. Because I could find the candidates position on the Social Security. And Social Security is an important issue, don't get me wrong, but it's not the only issue when it comes to services for people with disabilities. I think the media acts like as long as Social Security is protected the issue of services for people with disabilities is covered. And I think that's way more complicated. And I think the media needs to do more direct questioning on, of candidates based on other issues besides Social Security when it comes to disability issues.

Ed: Okay, yes, I would agree with that. I think there's a lot of nuances that aren't touched upon. And like you said, Social Security just seems to be a band-aid that covers it all or at least that's the way that they would present it. And within the fight for Social Security, there's also these little kind of mini arguments and mini bills and all this type of things that are coming up. And I would say, probably one of the most important ones that I know that you had a lot of notes on was the HCBS.

David: Home and Community Based Services.

Ed: Yes. Do you care to go deeper into the woods on the notes that you have there for that? Or what would you say about that?

David: It's interesting because my research indicated that the Trump administration, through a letter to the Health and Human Services Secretary, tried to delay implementation of the Home and Community Based Services Final Rule. Which quick Cliff Notes version of that is that the Home and Community Based Services Final Rule was the government basically saying that you have to give people with disabilities the choice to live in the community and the Trump administration tried to delay that. So it's kind of a catch 22 as to how he would handle the issue of Home and Community Based Services in a second term.

Ed: Okay. It almost seems as if Trump on the Republican side, does not want to have, or it doesn't seem that he wants to have the HCBS as an issue. So he just has done a lot of frequent ignoring of it sort of like what you're talking about with the Social Security. He would just like to put a massive band-aid over the issue by like you said, delaying and almost keeping them in that institutional model. Is that something that you can see where I'm going on that, or is that a misguided view?

David: That's a fair statement I believe. I don't think he would be able to cut all the HCBS funding or do anything drastic like that but I think what would happen is that he might propose cuts. The fate of them might come down to whether he listens to his advisors or not. And I think that would really put self advocates in a rough position because they'd have to rely on the whim of the President.

Ed: Right. And I would just say that as we know in politics in general, but just overall, I think it's one of those things that you could say sometimes with politicians it's what side of the bed they get up on that day.

David: Oh yeah. Yeah.

Ed: So it really does sort of raise the anxiety of like you said, self advocates and people that are around self advocates, that they don't really know what the future holds. And all they seem to be asking for is a little bit of security and I don't know that we'll have that until November or nearer deadline maybe that they break down the issue. But it almost seems as if both candidates almost seem to, not on this issue as much, but they seem to enjoy the ambiguity of these issues and you don't really know what exactly policy positions are. I know you said Harris's is a little more clear, but it's just that kind of thing that you don't know if it's real, or if it's just talk on the trail, I guess, is what I'm saying.

David: Yeah I mean, I think she hopes to be bold, but having lived through multiple presidential administrations, there's a confident theme I keep returning to, the president is only as good as Congress will allow him or her to be.

Ed: I was gonna say that fits. I think you are right in pointing it out again because I think it is a theme that the country has returned to and will keep returning to unless we have a change in the way that we interact about politics. But for right now, that seems to be the best option is just to hope that uh Congress and and the people making these decisions sort of make the right ones. And it's terrible that we have to think in the ways of, I guess, putting Americans in peril, but it might be comfortable for them because they don't have to worry. But for the actual Americans going through the issues or having somebody close to them go through the issues, it really is a night and day difference on how their loved one's life is gonna go on. So the next issue will touch on was Medicaid. Is that correct?

David: Yes. Well I would like to in a kind of bipartisan fashion bring up the fact that I don't know if you remember this Ed, but I believe it was a year and a half to two years ago now, it all seems like a lifetime ago because we're living in a decade that seems like a disaster movie at times.

Ed: Yes.

David: But there was a plan by then house speaker, Kevin McCarthy and Trump, and others in Congress that they had to renew the debt ceiling, which is kind of an artificial, semi not real check on Congress to reign in spending overall.

Ed: Yes.

David: And they tried to pass manditory work requirments to Medicaid in a must pass bill.

Ed: I believe that out of all the issues we're discussing today, I think this is clearly the most contentious because these work requirements really seem to be sticking point for both sides.

David: Yes. the medicaid, work requirements were only withdrawn from the debt ceiling bill after Kevin McCarthy and and Trump listened to outside advisors who told them it was basically a non-starter. I would say there was also rare unanimous fury from self advocates about requiring Medicaid recipients to work.

Ed: What you're getting at there is that this is at a standstill. In time since then we've also had to change in speaker. The uncertainty around this seems to be just more and more clouded with each passing day. You know, David, with the change in speaker has there been any movement whatsoever on Medicaid as an issue?

David: It doesn't seem to have been brought back. There's no movement to in a sense revive the requirment to work on a federal level. I think both sides in Congress have realized how much of a debacle...

Ed: As far as I can remember it, again, correct me if I'm wrong David, you do amazing research on the stuff and you would definitely know I think more on the issue but, at least it was reported a while back that Trump intentionally tried to kill further conversation on the issue or, or am I wrong on that?

David: The thing is that Trump seems to have stopped directly saying that he would fundamentally change Medicaid because I think he has finally realized that it's not very good even as a trial balloon issue for him.

Ed: Yes, so basically just even floating the issue out there, the popularity's just not...

David: Oh on that, on the particular issue of Medicaid work requirements, I think you can tell a lot in the fact that that kind of requirement has not been revived

Ed: If you had to guess David, is there a way to sort of, I guess for lack of a better word, reengage this conversation without the work requirements being at the center of it or do you think it's just one of many issues that until that issue is sort of ironed out there won't be much progress in this department?

David: I have to say that since then the Biden administration has done a lot to make a process for applying to Medicaid and Social Security easier. His administration has sort of taken the whole debacle and sort of turned it into a positive direction and I believe, that Harris would attempt to continue that.

Ed: Okay.

David: But it's kind of weird because so far in the campaign she hasn't really put out anything concrete, at least since she got the nomination after Biden dropped out.

Ed: Exactly. It seems like on a number of them while she's proud of her work with the Biden administration, it seems like she's trying to also distance herself from their policies but I can't imagine that she would distance herself from something like this.

David: No, I agree you don't want to distance yourself from...

Ed: Yes, because...

David: It's positive.

Ed: It seems to be something that's going to be a pivotal issue going forward, and has been but it seems like it's being brought up more during this election cycle. The work requirement was something that I definitely was not as aware of until doing some research for this. And it seems to be the center of every article on the subject or close to the center of every article on the subject. So, I don't know. It's very interesting, sort of every four years where we decide to focus. The minuteness of some of the things they decide to focus on while other things get ignored is just interesting to me and it's just really the psychology of the issue. This really gets interesting about why are they harping so much on this versus that? How much do you think everyday Americans really are focused on the work requirement part or is it literally an issue that's just been created sort of by the candidates and by their advisors?

David: Here's the way I'm going to answer that question. I think, the thing is that it took, the drasticness of the Medicaid work requirement proposal to get much engagement on the issue. By that I mean, even people outside the advocacy community were like, oh my gosh, this could be very bad. But outside of that two week period where it was floating around in Congress, I mean, the self advocacy community is of course, engaged on many issues to better the lives of people with disabilities.

Ed: Right.

David: But I think issue is outside of the self advocacy community all over the country, I think the issue isn't being highlighted.

Ed: No, I guess in the 24 hour kind of news cycle, which has been going on for two decades, if not longer now.

David: Yeah, at least early 80s.

Ed: So it's just one of those things that either it's the people on the TV or behind the scenes or however you want to phrase it, that they seem to be okay with these, what I would consider fairly sizable issues, just being used for sound bites for, like you said, two weeks and then it k...it kind of loses its luster. But I feel like we did a good job of nailing down some crucial issues that are gonna affect self advocates and those they love and care about. And it's just unfortunate these things aren't, I guess, talked about more in a serious way. It's very surface. And I guess I just say that to say that I really hope for a change in not only, and again it doesn't matter what side you're on. It's not about hoping for a change so much because of this election as much as it's hoping for a change in the way that these elections are treated and that they're taken more seriously as opposed to like we mentioned before the political footballs that these issues seem to be. Do you have any thoughts on that?

David: I have a thought that these very serious issues that impact people with disabilities and their loved ones, not only here in PA, but all over the country, they're just left to hang there. They've been left to hang there for some cases years and then there's no action on it until an emergency occurs.

Ed: Right. Right. And then by then people are busy worrying about the emergency and they just, oh, just pass whatever you have to to make sure that this is taken care of. A lot of times, it seems like it's just a patchwork situation, sort of like what we were talking about with kicking the can down the road on the Social Security, of just like, okay, whatever we have to do to survive till tomorrow. Well, regardless of what we think or not tomorrow is gonna be coming and we have to really have some deep conversations on this stuff. But yeah, either on the media side or the politician side, it doesn't seem to be coming.

David: And the media preys upon the American public's genuine insecurities.

Ed: Yes, exactly. Exactly. And that is, I think if nothing else that is an issue that I think a lot of people know, or they have some, they have some sense of but they don't really have a lot of time to focus on it. Or they just say, well, I don't choose to let the media fire me up. Is there another issue that you'd like to talk about? Or is there one thing that you would like to tell people about this election that maybe we didn't touch on yet? Or just sort of an overall takeaway that you'd like to hit again?

David: I would like to say that no matter the outcome of this election, we all just need to remember to, regardless of who we vote for, be kind to each other. I think we've lost that, in at least last two cycles. So, just be kind to each other. Maintain your friendships with people that have different political views than you, and you know, talk to your family for goodness sake.

Ed: Yes, I couldn't agree more with that. I think I would just like to say, somebody that disagrees with you, and guess what? The conversation doesn't have to be about how you disagree. You can, you can talk about many things. Because we have that one difference, that difference isn't as glaring as the media would like to portray it as. We've been getting through differences of opinion for generations and generations. And we will continue to.

Wrap Up

Ed: with that, that has been David Champignon, sort of breaking down the issues that are gonna matter maybe most to self advocates. We hope to have your feedback on these episodes. Realize though that SAU1 is a non partisan organization. We're not telling anybody how to vote, or what issues matter. It's all up to the individual and we only are providing the information. Do with it what you will.

David: And I would also add that don't just take our word for it. Please consult our source page, which has the information we used to get our research.

Ed: Yes, that is a great tip. And that research will be available in the episode description. When you're listening to this, you can follow along and sort of see where the notes and where the talking points that we sort of discuss today come from. So for David Champignon, this is Ed Auerbeck saying be well and be kind to each other.