By Joe Eurell
In the chaos that is the 2024 presidential campaign, public policy related to Americans with Disabilities is rarely discussed, but no less significant. The plight of disabled Americans is continuing on its stagnant trajectory of an unemployment rate of 7.2%. If this were the unemployment rate of the ambulatory population, it would be an economic crisis strong enough to boot both candidates from the race.
For those on Social Security disability often unemployment is the result of the system that we exist within. A policy known as means testing, or as social security deems it, Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA) is an income restriction on Social Security disability benefits. According to Google, as of 2024, one may stop receiving SSDI benefits if you earn over $1,550 a month. More stringent income restrictions exist across other assistance programs, with the most notable being the one that applies the Medicare that prevents certain couples from being able to get married for fear that they might exceed the income limits two receive benefits, and in some cases have resulted in couples having to divorce legally to maintain benefit levels! Even means testing policies for in-home care forces one to bear the brunt of their own care, which is a burdensome fixed cost only exists by virtue of having a disability and remains regardless of their financial situation. Just as the Americans with Disabilities Act expanded accessibility into public spaces, we need an economic ADA to end all means testing policies to do the same in fulfilling employment environments.
Within my own experience, I have had unnerving levels of frustration being limited by income restrictions. In August 2021, I successfully used GoFundMe to purchase a vehicle for my comedy career and to attend gigs. Despite doing so in complete transparency in regards of paperwork, I was penalized 1/3 of my Social Security for three months six months after the transaction. That's right, despite only having the money for 36 hours, in early August I was docked six months later. In my opinion, the fact that this was done a third at a time is social security’s admission that the punishment is too harsh. These limitations would also limit any future hope for a Netflix special. Although some would consider my jokes to be the real obstacle to my getting special. I, like millions of other disabled Americans am forced to choose between my ambitions and my well-being unnecessarily. While certain types of bank accounts exist that are not means tested, they remain subject to regulations of *how* the money is spent.
The reality is that income has nothing to do with the level of impact disability has on one’s life. No amount of money earned change how cerebral palsy physically disables me. There's no gainful activity substantial enough to lift the burden of a disability on the recipient or their loved ones. Means testing policies are a violation of the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities act as it for a person with a disability to choose between having a job in the way that everyone else does or acknowledging their disability as real. In effect, SGA’s deny people with disabilities accommodation from the whole economy.
To me, our capitalist society resents people with disabilities, because when it's a tax dodging billionaire it's an automatic subsidy via tax cuts, but when it's a person with a disability it's a stagnant "entitlement", w/ income restrictions limiting to punish for them not working.
However, if it was to be framed in a free market way, these policies ignore that people who have disabilities have a different economic margin than their non-disabled counterparts because they have an experience that is individual to their own needs for a disability that limits their freedom of choice and their self-determination. Ending all means testing policies with an economic ADA legislation would be a neutral way to increase economic accessibility for Americans with disabilities.
