Palin Not Such an “Advocate” For People With Disabilities After All

by Cara on October 23, 2008

in 2008 election, class and economics, disability, human rights, legislation, politics, Republicans

It seems like Sarah “friend and advocate to parents of children with disabilities” Palin might, shockingly, not be such the ally after all. In Colorado, she opposed a ridiculously minuscule tax increase which would help state citizens with developmental disabilities by providing vital services.

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) is speaking against a Colorado ballot initiative designed to help the state’s developmentally disabled population by raising the sales tax.

Palin made the comments Monday in Colorado against Amendment 51 which seeks to raise the sales tax by one cent on every $10 spent in each of the next two years.

The money would go to help the roughly 12,000 kids and adults in Colorado who currently are on a wait list to receive state services such as home nursing care and job training. They suffer from autism, Down syndrome and mental retardation. Palin’s son has Down syndrome and she has campaigned as an advocate for special needs families.

“There’s got to be an alternative to raising taxes,” Palin said, while answering a question submitted by former Colorado First Lady Frances Owens, who describes herself as a “fiscal conservative,” a supporter of the McCain-Palin ticket and as one of the spokespeople in favor of Amendment 51. “It’s a matter of prioritizing the dollars that are already there in government. What I did as governor in Alaska is prioritize for a great increase in funding for students with special needs up there and I think Colorado can do that also.

“It doesn’t necessarily mean increasing taxes to meet those needs. It’s all a matter of prioritization,” said Palin.

Right. For example: if you silly Coloradans would stop paying for rape kits rather than passing the cost on to sexual assault survivors, just think of all the money you’d save!  It’s not fair to raise taxes for the purpose of helping vulnerable members of society when you’re placing such ridiculous “burdens” on taxpayers already!

But hey, maybe Palin is opposed to the increase because the funds would go to help people with disabilities themselves.  After all, she’s only a friend and advocate for parents of children with disabilities. No need to talk to people with disabilities directly like they’re people who might have an opinion about and stake in their own welfare, or like the challenges of living in our society with a disability don’t end with childhood. No need to actually address the very real concerns of people with disabilities and provide them with the services they need when you can talk about how very special and understanding your privileged self (who already has means to pay for services) is because you have a child with Down Syndrome.

You see, you don’t actually need to support people with disabilities in order to be a friend and advocate.  You just have to look very earnestly into the screen while making that claim.  Well, not really — but Palin certainly seems to think that people with disabilities are that stupid.

Seriously Coloradans, vote Yes on Amendment 51.  And for the love of god, vote Obama.

h/t F.R.I.D.A.


1 Stephanie October 23, 2008 at 11:57 pm

I read about this earlier, elsewhere, don’t remember, but someone at the elsewhere place had commented that since sales tax is the most regressive tax of ‘em all, perhaps it was not so bad to oppose that source of funding.

So, I think if we can pull a trillion dollars out of our behinds without raising taxes, we could pull at least as much to help disabled kids without taxing their parents.

No intention here to support Palin cuz I’m sure in her “prioritization,” in order to support the disabled kids, we’ll have to cut funding for school lunches or battered women.

We have the money to do it all. Our “representatives” choose how to spend it.

2 notpalin November 2, 2008 at 11:11 pm

–parents and guardians against palin unite!

(a non-partisan appeal)

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: