Energy, Environment, & Climate Change (2020 Presidential Election)

At least 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree.  Our earth is warming.  Due to the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) for our energy needs, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than it has been at any time in the last 400,000 years.  People have increased the carbon dioxide in the air by 40% since the 1700’s.  Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released during the burning of fossil fuels used to produce electricity trap heat in our atmosphere.  As the atmosphere warms, evaporation increases, which increases humidity, average rainfall, and severe storms.  

According to the statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations, “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.”  These activities have caused a 1.0°C rise in the Earth’s global temperature so far.  This has resulted in a loss of sea ice, rising sea levels, and longer and more intense heat waves.  

Source:
www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

According to NASA, the effects of climate change are expected to continue into the future.  The magnitude of these effects depends on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted around the world.  Temperatures will continue to rise, precipitation will increase in some areas and decrease in others.  This will lead to more droughts and heat waves.  It will also lead to hurricanes becoming stronger and more intense.  The arctic is predicted to become ice free and the sea levels will rise.

In the United States, the northeast will see heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise which will affect agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure, and ecosystems.  The northwest and the southwest have already seen an increase in wildfires, insect outbreaks, and tree disease.  Additionally, the southwest has experienced increased heat, declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, and health impacts.  Rising sea levels pose a continuing threat to the economy and environment of the southeast.  The extreme heat there will affect agriculture, health, and lead to decreased water availability.  In the midwest, climate change will exacerbate threats to the Great Lakes while extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air & water quality, and infrastructure.

In order to combat climate change, President Obama developed the Clean Power Plan.  This plan aimed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical power generation.  President Trump then rescinded this plan citing economic reasons.  On a larger scale, the Paris Climate Agreement is an agreement negotiated by 196 state parties with a goal to keep the increase in average global temperature to far below 2.0°C by reducing emissions.  The United States was a part of the agreement until President Trump withdrew the United States, again citing economic reasons.

This brings us to the other 3% of scientists, the climate deniers. There are two primary think tanks that have heavily influenced the climate denial movement.  Neither currently question that climate change is occurring, but they push back against the role of human activity and the degree to which it is affecting the environment.  These two organizations are the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute.  

The Cato Institute was founded by oil billionaire, Charles Koch, of the influential Koch Brothers, known for building a donor network said to rival that of the Republican National Committee. The Koch brothers have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbying against government's role in expanding health care and climate change mitigation.

For years, the Cato Institute was a leader in climate denial.  However, their most recent public statement on global warming read, “Global warming is indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975. But global warming is also a very complicated and difficult issue that can provoke very unwise policy in response to political pressure. Although there are many different legislative proposals for substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, there is no operational or tested suite of technologies that can accomplish the goals of such legislation. Fortunately, and contrary to much of the rhetoric surrounding climate change, there is ample time to develop such technologies, which will require substantial capital investment by individuals.”

Then, about a year ago, Cato closed down its office dedicated to global warming.  The office had been led by climate scientist, Pat Michaels, known for rejecting the consensus of 97% of climate scientists.  He has repeatedly downplayed the effect humans have in climate change and was influential in the administration of George H.W. Bush and turning the GOP away from climate change at a time when they were embracing it.  During Bush’s 1988 campaign speech, he said, “Those who think we’re powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about ‘the White House effect.’  As president, I intend to do something about it.”  However, the influence of the Cato Institute eventually caused the president to change course.

The Heartland Institute has hosted an annual climate change conference in Washington, D.C. for the past 13 years, which is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry (and at least most recently hosted at the Trump International Hotel).  It features prominent climate deniers such as Tim Ball, Myron Ebell, Christopher Monckton,  David LeGates, Willie Soon, and Pat Michaels.  The research of some of these scientists have been directly funded by the fossil fuel industry.  Take, Willie Soon, for example.  He has accepted more than $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, though he insists his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.

Over the years, the size of the conference and the focus has shifted.  In the beginning, it was a three day event that drew over 50 co-sponsors.  It has since dwindled to one day with only 16 co-sponsors.  The messaging has also shifted from all out denial attacks on climate science and more towards PR campaigns that promote the idea that oil and gas companies accept climate change is happening, but they are doing their part to address it.  With this approach, they argue that natural gas is clean, fossil fuels are the future and may even be a solution to climate change.

For years, the Heartland Institute has attempted to host a debate between climate deniers and mainstream climate scientists.  However, climate change scientists have responded by saying that the questions that the deniers would like to debate have long been answered.  Leading climatologist Dr. Michael Mann, who has called the aforementioned Tim Ball "perhaps the most prominent climate change denier in Canada" went as far to say, “I won’t debate a chihuahua about climate change either, even if it continues to nip at my heels.”

So, the biggest reasons that politicians continue to pursue a fossil fuel agenda in Washington is economic. Not only is the fossil fuel industry a multi-billion dollar industry that creates jobs, funds climate denial research and scientists, and has a large lobbying influence in Washington, it has been commonly viewed as cheaper than renewable energy.  However, latest analysis is showing that renewables are catching up and becoming the cheaper alternative in some regions.  

Here are some additional arguments against renewable energy.  Many have geographic limitations.  For example, solar panels and solar farms are more efficient in areas that have a good amount of regular sunlight.  Fossil fuels are seen as more reliable and can be stored so that we can call on them when we need them.  Renewables can require more land in comparison to traditional fossil fuel plants.  And, fossil fuels are well-established, so switching over to renewables in a short amount of time would cause catastrophic job loss and major disruption.

So, whether you side with the 97% of scientists who agree on climate change or the 3% that challenge the consensus, there is a candidate for you!

Here is where the presidential candidates stand on issues of environment, energy, and climate change.  Click on their name to be taken directly to their website’s full policy on this issue.

Joe Biden:  Here are some of the highlights of Biden’s plan as found on his website

• Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions by 2050.
• Require aggressive methane pollution limits for new and existing oil and gas operations.
• Drive towards 100% clean energy and zero emissions vehicles.
• Ensure all government installments, buildings, and facilities are more efficient and climate ready.
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.
• Conserve 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030 to protect biodiversity and slow extinction.
• Permanently protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Donald Trump:  Donald Trump is a well-documented climate denier. He appointed Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.  Since leaving the EPA, Pruitt has become a lobbyist on behalf of energy and coal.  These are some of the accomplishments related to energy and the environment that Donald Trump highlights on his website:

• He signed an executive order expanding offshore oil and gas drilling to open more leases to develop offshore drilling.
• He acted aggressively to increase energy exports to the global market.
• He approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines supporting an estimated 42,000 jobs and $2 billion in wages.
• He announced the approval of the New Burgos pipeline to export U.S. gasoline to Mexico.
• He reversed the Obama moratorium on new leases for oil and gas development on federal lands.
• He repealed  Obama’s Clean Power Plan as well as many additional Obama era regulations related to the environment.
• He withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement.
• He signed legislation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to domestic energy production.

Education (2020 Presidential Election)

No teacher goes into education expecting to hit it rich.  However, they may not understand that when you choose education as a field, you are choosing a field that pays 20% less than other college-educated workers.  For the first time, a majority of parents say that they do not want their children to become teachers, citing poor pay and benefits.  Two-thirds of Americans say that teachers are underpaid and 78% of public school parents say they would support teachers if they went on strike for more pay.  In both red states and blue states, voters back tax increases to support public education and urge lawmakers to stop cutting school budgets.   Many teachers across the country have gone on strike to protest the low pay.   Teachers in both West Virginia and Oklahoma won raises as a result of their walkouts.

The average teacher pay in 2016-2017 was $58,950.  Public teachers’ average weekly wage hasn’t increased since 1996.  Adjusting for today’s average for inflation, today’s pay is actually $1,000 less than it was in 1989 and $3,000 less than 2009!  Some argue that the salary gap is made up for with better healthcare and retirement benefits.  However, factoring that in, teachers nationally still make 11% less.  Despite the fact that, in 1994, teacher compensation, including benefits, was about equal to similarly educated professionals.  Higher pay leads to teacher retention which is linked to higher student achievement.

Source: www.usatodayeducation.com

The decline in education funding is not limited to salaries.  Twenty-nine states were still spending less per student in 2015 than they were before The Great Recession.  This leads to poor facilities, overcrowding, outdated resources, and a lack of supplies.  Public schools received a D+ in facilities from the American Society of Civil Engineers.  Public school infrastructure is underfunded by $46 billion annually.

When 20,000 teachers walked out in the state of West Virginia, the average salary was just $45,701.  To end the walkout, legislators agreed to a 5% wage increase.  Following West Virginia, Oklahoma teachers walked out forcing the first major tax increase in nearly 30 years to fund raises for teachers.  This was followed by similar walkouts in Kentucky, Arizona, North Carolina, Colorado, Los Angeles, Denver, and Oakland.  

Of course, while much of the public does support teachers and teacher pay, many lawmakers and government officials don’t.  Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, criticized striking teachers implying that they were failing to serve their students and told them to “keep adult disagreements” out of the classroom.  There is opposition to teachers’ unions, a push to standardize curriculum, and arguments that full funding for public education isn’t fiscally responsible.  States like Wisconsin, moved to strip teachers of their pensions and roll back collective bargaining in 2011.  In 2018, the Supreme Court dealt an additional blow to teachers’ unions when they mandated that public sector unions can’t mandate fees from non-members.  Also in 2018, Colorado voted to raise teacher retirement age and cut benefits.  That same year, the Supreme Court in Arizona blocked a ballot measure that would have added $690 million annually to state education funding.

In addition to stagnant wages and attacks on benefits, teachers are consistently met with ever changing benchmarks for student achievement, pressure for their students to perform on standardized tests, constantly changing curriculums, and evaluations on performance linked to all of the above.  They spend their own money on supplies and are asked to take on roles such as mentoring and coaching new teachers, and serving as social workers due to lack of mental health support in the schools. Teachers are generally not treated as experts in their field.  This loss of control over the classroom, coupled with the fact that 20% of teachers work more than one job to get by, make it an unappealing field for many.  

On top of that, teachers are on the front lines of caring for traumatized children living with the effects of the opioid crisis, poverty, and fear of the next school shooting.  One in five students experience mental health problems.  The CDC says that over half of American children have experienced some kind of trauma.  Teachers are exposed to the traumas that students bring in every day leading to Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS). As a result, educators are exposed to and begin exhibiting signs of trauma themselves including withdrawal, anxiety, depression, and chronic fatigue.  The current school psychologist to student ratio is 1,400 to 1 and experts say it should be at about 700 to 1.

Due to all of this, districts across the country are facing hiring shortages.  Between 2008 and 2016, the number of students in teacher prep programs fell by 23% and at least 17% left the profession within the first five years.

While other fields, like nursing (which earns an average salary of $73,550), address shortages with signing bonuses, free housing, and tuition reimbursement, teacher shortages result in states increasing class sizes, shortening school weeks, freezing updates to supplies and resources, and enacting emergency certifications for untrained educators.

And, all of this doesn’t even address the funding gaps between high income and low income districts.  Since a portion of education is funded by property taxes, there is a massive discrepancy between high income and low income districts.  Districts that are made up of predominantly non-white students receive $23 billion dollars less annually than districts made up of predominantly white students, despite the fact that they serve the same number of students.  And, students in these low-income districts start at a disadvantage before they even begin kindergarten.  By age 3, students from lower income families and upper income families have a 30 million word gap. 

One often offered solution to the achievement gap is school choice.  School choice allows families to redirect public education funds to private schools, charter schools, or home schools. The most common school choice programs involve scholarship tax credits which exist in many states. The most controversial form of school choice is the school choice voucher program. Eighteen states have voucher programs. The movement gained prominence in 1990 with the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Indiana’s Choice Scholarship Program is the largest voucher program. 

Supporters of school choice say that it expands options for students with poor educational options in their neighborhood and gives parents options. They think public schools should be run like businesses subject to competition from other schools and closure if they don’t work. 

Critics say that it redirects public school funds to private institutions in an effort to privatize education, therefore undermining public education. They say that schools cannot run like a business because students are not products. They say that public schools have to accept all students, but private schools don’t and public schools are hurt when their funds are diverted because the schools they are diverted from are already typically underfunded. Choice schools are not accountable to the public, oversight is often lax, and some choice schools violate separation of church and state (where tax dollars would be diverted to religious institutions through the choice program).

Here is where the candidates stand on the issues.  Click on their name to be taken to their campaign website’s full plans.

Joe Biden:  Joe’s wife, Dr. Jill Biden, has worked as an educator for more than 30 years. Biden vows to give teachers the pay and dignity they deserve.  He will invest in resources for our schools so students grow into physically and emotionally healthy adults so that educators can focus on teaching.  He wants to ensure that no child’s future is determined based on their zip code, parents’ income, race, or disability.  He says he will provide every middle and high school student a path to a successful career and start investing in children at birth.  Here are some specifics of his plan:

• Invest to eliminate the funding gap.  He will triple funding for Title I which benefits schools with a high percentage of low income families.  He will require these funds be used for competitive teacher salaries, then access to pre-school for three and four year olds, as well as other critical investments before directing the funding into other purposes.
• Help teachers pay off their student loans by fixing the current Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.  Currently 99% of applications are denied.
• Make what he calls an unprecedented investment in school mental health professionals to double the number of psychologists, guidance counselors, nurses and social workers so kids get the mental health support they need.
• Include federal infrastructure legislation aimed specifically at improving school buildings.
• Provide universal pre-k for all three and four year olds.
• He also has plans to improve teacher diversity, build innovative schools in low-income communities, diversify schools, supporting children with disabilities by fully funding the IDEA Act, and create more opportunities for high school students to take practical classes that lead to more credentials.

Donald Trump:  Central to Trump’s education plan is his support for school choice.  His budgets have made school choice a priority and he has encouraged state and federal lawmakers to expand school choice.  The additional achievements in education he lists on his campaign website include:

• recalling the Education Department’s order that public schools allow “gender-confused males access to girls’ restrooms and lockers.”
• signing the INSPIRE Act which encouraged NASA to have more women and girls participate in STEM and pursue careers in aerospace.
• announcing $200 million in grant funds directed toward STEM education, an effort spearheaded by Ivanka Trump.
• rolling back various guidance documents on affirmative action because of “unnecessary or improper rulemaking.”
• reauthorizing the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act providing nearly 1.3 billion annually for career and technical programs.
• forgiving over $300 million in outstanding debt to 4 schools impacted by  natural disasters.
• signing a “historic executive order that promotes and protects free speech on college campuses.”
• appropriating more money than any other president to Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
• signing legislation to increase funding for HBCU’s by 13%, the highest level ever.
• lifting the ban on Pell Grants on summer classes.
• lowering regulatory hurdles and restoring flexibility to schools with respect to cafeteria menus.
• waiving the interest on all federal student loans during the Covid-19 crisis.

The Economy (2020 Presidential Election)

The economy is a big issue for voters.  Independent voters rank the economy as their number one issue.  About 55% of voters approve of Trump’s handling of the economy.  And, he is leaning heavily on the economy to win him re-election.  Analyses of past elections do show that an improving economy, and specifically a rise in GDP, give an incumbent an advantage.  So, when we are talking about the economy, what are we really talking about and what is the current and historic state of the United States economy?  Here is just a scratching of the surface of a very complex system

GDP

The strength of an economy is measured by GDP.  The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) includes everything the U.S. produces by the people and the companies in the country, or our total output.  The GDP growth rate measures if an economy is growing more quickly or more slowly than the quarter before. A healthy GDP growth is one that is stable, so many economists place the ideal growth rate at 2%-3%.  When the GDP growth rate turns negative, we enter a recession as we did in 2007.  During a recession income, employment, manufacturing, and retail sales drop in addition to GDP.  If it stays negative long enough, we enter into a depression.  Conversely, if the growth rate is too high, for example over 4% for several years, there is too much money chasing too few growth opportunities.  It can also cause inflation, an increase in prices and the decline in the value of money. It’s unsustainable so eventually the bubble will burst which could also lead to recession.  The Federal Reserve raises interest rates if the economy is growing too quickly and lowers them if it is growing to slowly in an effort to keep the economy in the ideal zone.

It is well known that Obama inherited an unhealthy economy.  George W. Bush’s presidency, marked with the attacks of September 11, two extremely expensive wars, and the housing crash sent us into a recession and added more debt than any president before him since World War II.  Obama became president during The Great Recession and inherited that economy and that debt.  In 2009, the Obama administration passed a massive stimulus package to jumpstart the economy and it was successful.  The economy has been growing at a steady, moderate pace averaging between 1.6% and 2.9% ever since.  Trump inherited Obama’s economy and has maintained consistent growth between 2% and 3%.

Trump’s signature legislative accomplishment has been The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which he signed on December 22, 2017.  He said it would be, “one of the great gifts to the middle-income people of this country that they've ever gotten for Christmas.”  Yet, most of the tax cut went to businesses and higher income individuals.  He predicted that the economy would grow to “4, 5, and maybe even, 6% ultimately.” After this tax cut, growth accelerated to 2.9% in 2018 (the average for 2016 as well, the year before Trump was sworn into office).  In 2019, the U.S. economy grew 2.3%, which matches the average annual rate over the last 10 years.   The average for his presidency is 2.5% which is .3% greater than the average for Obama’s presidency.  Trump blames the decline from 2018 to 2019 on the Federal Reserve which has raised interest rates eight times since Trump’s election and lowered rates three times.

Jobs

I will likely go into greater detail concerning jobs in a future post.  Briefly, in the 38 months since the 2016 election, the US economy has added 7.3 million jobs.  In the 38 months before the 2016 election, the US added 8.4 million jobs. Employers added an average of 176,000 jobs a month in 2019 compared to 223,000 jobs a month in 2018.

Unemployment

What about unemployment?  In a healthy economy, unemployment and inflation (increase in prices and the decline in the value of money) need to be in balance.  It is said that the lowest level of unemployment an economy can sustain is between 3.5% and 4.5% without experiencing high levels of inflation.  In November of 1982, unemployment broke 10% for the first time since World War II.  By the time Reagan left office, it was cut to half of that. This started to rise half way through George HW Bush’s term and topped out at 7.8% when he left office.  Clinton had a strong economy throughout his term and unemployment declined steadily ending up at around 4% when he left office in 2000. When George W. Bush left office in 2008 (during a recession) the unemployment rate was at its peak for his term at 7.8%.  The recession continued through the beginning of Obama’s presidency topping out at 10% in October of 2009. It has been on a steady decline since the end of 2010. When Obama left office, the unemployment rate was 4.7%.  It has been waffling between 3.5% and 3.6% since September of 2019.  Black (5.5%) and Hispanic (3.9%) unemployment are at a record low.

Debt

Debt is how much we owe as a result of accumulated annual budget deficits.  A deficit occurs when the government spends more than it takes in during a year.  The more this happens, the more the overall debt accumulates. The U.S. currently has over $23 trillion in debt.  The debt to GDP ratio rose from 35% in 2006 to 75% in 2016. And, it is predicted to be over 107% by the end of 2020!  

So, how did we get here?  Honestly, I don’t think debt is a partisan issue.  Both Clinton and Reagan invested in education, infrastructure, and non-military research which ultimately drive both economic growth and wage gains as a result of improvement in labor force skills and worker productivity.  Reagan managed to stabilize the deficit and Clinton actually had a budget surplus!  The only president to do so since World War II.  The debt exploded under Bush and remained high under Obama.  Obama AND Bush added more debt than any president since World War II.  Much of this was related to paying for 2 wars and the economic stimulus to bring us out of the recession.  Obama never got the debt under control, despite restoring economic growth and reducing unemployment. Though, he did reduce the budget deficit each year he was in office.  As a candidate, Trump promised to eliminate the debt.  Instead,  Trump has cut taxes and increased spending and has increased the deficit each year he has been in office.  As a result, the debt has increased by $3 trillion in Trump’s first three years.  

So, even if our economy is doing well, how does the debt come into play and how do we fix it?  Left unchecked, this could lead to higher interest rates, a slower economy, a weaker job market, and higher taxes.  Growing the economy, reforming the tax code to increase revenues, and reducing spending are all ways to tackle the debt.  The debt does not need to go to zero to be healthy. Economists have said anywhere from 40%-60% of our GDP is healthier.

Based on my weeks of research, here is my summary:  Bill Clinton was the economic master in terms of economic growth, jobs, unemployment, and the crown jewel: budget surplus.  George W. Bush’s presidency, marked with the attacks of September 11, two extremely expensive wars, and the housing crash sent us into a recession and added more debt than any president before him since World War II.  Obama inherited that economy and that debt. He turned the economy around in terms of growth, jobs, unemployment, and consumer confidence, but was not able to bring the debt under control. Trump inherited Obama’s economy and has built on it, but also continues to add to the debt with tax cuts and increased spending.

Income Inequality

So, is the economy benefiting everyone?  In the 1950’s, CEO’s made 20 times more than the median wage of their employees.  Last year, that rate ballooned to 287 times.  It could be argued that the middle class has been cut out of decades of economic growth.  Median household income has been basically the same for the past 20 years.   Meanwhile, the top 1% have had their incomes nearly triple in recent decades.  When politicians talk about income inequality, that is what they are talking about.  Much of this has to do with a tax code that benefits the wealthy leading to billionaires like Warren Buffet paying a lower tax rate than his secretary.

So, what are the plans of our candidates?   (If this is a stand alone issue for a candidate, I have linked their entire plan to their name):

Joe Biden:  Biden says we need stronger labor laws and a tax code that rewards the middle class, not just the wealthy who have gotten too many tax breaks for too long.  Biden will reverse Trump’s tax cuts for the super wealthy and corporations.  He will eliminate tax breaks that reward special interests. He will get rid of the capital gains loophole for multi-millionaires.

Amy Klobuchar:  Klobuchar believes in ensuring that all families have a fair shot in today’s economy.  She believes that means investing in quality child care, overhauling the country’s housing policy, raising the minimum wage, providing paid family leave, supporting small business owners and entrepreneurs, and helping Americans save for retirement.  She vows to cut child poverty in half in a decade and end it within a generation. She believes that economic injustice is a result of decades of systemic racism and inequality. She believes that fixing this begins with early childcare, fixing our education system, and ending housing discrimination so that everyone can afford to rent or own a home in a good neighborhood for their kids.  She says we need to take on monopoly power and promote competition. In addition to her website, you can take the 20 minutes to read through her comprehensive economic policy here.

Bernie Sanders:  Sanders aims to curb income inequality in his tax plan.  His tax plan would target all private and publicly held corporations with annual revenue of more than $100 million.  He wants to see a progressively higher corporate tax rate for companies with large gaps between their CEO and median worker pay.

Donald Trump:  Trump focuses more on what he has done than what he plans to do.  He highlights the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, GDP growth, job creation, and low unemployment written about above.  He also signed an executive order to expand federally funded apprenticeship programs and launched the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative allocating $50 million to the fund. 

Elizabeth Warren: The heart of Warren’s plan is raising people’s wages and bringing down their costs.  She believes that wages will be raised by increasing the minimum wage to $15/hour, strengthening unions, and ensuring women of color receive fair wages.  She aims to reduce household costs by canceling up to 50% of student loan debt, bringing down the cost of rent, providing universal affordable childcare and early education, and making tuition free at every public technical, two year, and four year college.

Disability Rights (2020 Presidential Election)

It is estimated that 1 in 4 adults in the United States have some sort of disability, or 43 million total individuals. In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act.  It was signed into law by George H.W. Bush on July 26, 1990 and amended and signed by George W. Bush with changes effective January 1, 2009.  The intention of the law is that it protects against discrimination based on disability. It makes discrimination by employers against a qualified person with a disability against the law in hiring, advancement, training, and dismissal.  Some of the major points of the law include the requirement of employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities and for public places to meet accessibility requirements.  

Source: Rewire.News

At the time it was opposed by some religious groups and business interests.  The Association of Christian Schools International fought and prevailed to keep religious organizations from being classified as “public accommodations” so that they could avoid costly structural changes that would ensure access for all.  The National Association of Evangelicals testified against the employment provisions on the ground of religious liberty and called it an “improper intrusion of the federal government.” Business interests argued that it would have “a disastrous impact on many small businesses struggling to survive."

Still, it passed, but despite the progress that has been made, people with disabilities still have an unemployment rate that is twice that of those without a disability and are more than twice as likely to live in poverty.  Many people with disabilities are paid below minimum wage, some as low as just 4 cents per hour.  Medicaid is one of the largest sources of healthcare for people with disabilities.  Yet, 1 in 3 do not have access to a primary healthcare provider and has unmet healthcare needs. 

Additionally, more than 3.5 million Americans are believed to have Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) including 1 in every 68 children.  As an elementary school teacher, I have worked with many wonderful children with an Autism Spectrum Disorder and studied it extensively including an entire graduate level class dedicated to Autism Spectrum Disorder.  I have seen first hand the effects of early identification and support versus ASD that goes unrecognized for years. This goes for ADHD, Learning Disabilities, and Emotional Behavioral Disorders, as well.

I have also seen first hand the effects that lack of funding can have on students with disabilities.  Last year, my district’s special education program was underfunded by $7 million dollars. This can and does lead to rejecting requests for evaluations or delays in evaluations for students.  It can and does lead to children not receiving the services that they need to due to too few case managers or paraprofessionals. And, it can and does lead to Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) not being properly implemented.

In 1975, Congress passed what is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.  It is meant to ensure that students with disabilities receive a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) tailored to their needs.  This means that children with a disability have the same opportunity for an education as students without a disability. Today IDEA is not fully funded.  In 1975, Congress vowed to fund 40% of the average cost it takes to fund a student with a disability, leaving the rest to state and local governments.  Today, Congress funds about 14% of that which stresses state and local governments and leads to underfunding and lack of necessary services for students with disabilities (and education as a whole for that matter).

Here is where the candidates stand on this issue.   (If this is a stand alone issue for a candidate, I have linked their entire plan to their name):

Joe Biden:  Biden will fully fund IDEA within 10 years.  His health care plan focuses on protecting Medicare to protect people with disabilities.  He will fund initiatives to pair disability advocates with police departments to better train police to de-escalate interactions with people with disabilities.

Pete Buttigieg:  Buttigieg will work with Congress to end subminimum wage pay for persons with disabilities.  He will work to double labor force participation by people with disabilities by 2030. He will fully fund IDEA.  He will work to protect voting rights and custody rights of persons with disabilities and train police and first responders to appropriately respond to individuals with disabilities.  He will ensure that people with disabilities can receive long term care in their homes and require that transportation projects that receive federal funding are 100% accessible in addition to ensuring that air travel is accessible.  His Medicare for All Who Want It Plan will ensure affordable health care coverage for people with disabilities.

Amy Klobuchar:  In Klobuchar’s first 100 days she will fully fund IDEA.  She will reinstate documents protecting the rights of students with disabilities that were rescinded by Trump’s Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos.

Bernie Sanders:  Sanders will protect and expand the Social Security Disability Insurance Program.  He will increase educational opportunities for people with disabilities by fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and expanding vocational education opportunities.  He will end the sub-minimum wage for individuals with disabilities and guarantee jobs that pay a living wage for persons with a disability through a federal job guarantee program. He will ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, enact a Medicare-for-all program that includes home-based and community based care, and work to end discrimination against persons with disabilities.

Tom Steyer:  Steyer supports a $15 minimum wage for all people.  He would work to ensure affordable technologies to people with disabilities and fully fund IDEA.

Donald Trump:  Trump has said, "Nobody gives more money to Americans with -- you know, the Americans with Disability Act - big act. I give tens and tens of millions of dollars.  And I'm proud of doing it." This quote was said in response to criticism that he mocked a New York Times reporter who has a disability during his 2016 campaign.  He claims he did not. Here is the video if you’d like to see for yourself.  He has apparently been sued multiple times for inaccessible properties.  Trump’s Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos rescinded 72 guiding documents that detailed the rights of special education students in an effort to get rid of allegedly superfluous regulations.  Under Trump, there has been a rise in discrimination complaints and the firing of disabled federal workers.  He has repeatedly proposed funding cuts to programs that support people with disabilities including Medicaid.  His administration backs Medicaid work requirements which affects people with disabilities and access to healthcare.

Elizabeth Warren:  Once again, Warren’s plans are detailed and extensive.  This summary is very general and just scratches the surface.  Click on her name for greater detail. Warren will create a National Office of Disability Coordination to ensure federal programs work together to support people with disabilities.  She will fight for economic security for people with disabilities by ensuring a fair wage, support children with disabilities by providing crucial early interventions, and ensure technology is used to advance the interests of people with disabilities.  She will protect the rights of people with disabilities in areas like voting, criminal justice, and parental rights. She will ensure consistent, affordable, high quality health care, and promote affordable, accessible living.

Andrew Yang:    Yang is the father of a son with Autism.  He says we need to ensure that all people have equal access to the healthcare they need.