Yes on Amendment 51
Who is more deserving than the developmentally disabled?
Rocky Mountain News
Published September 24, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Video: Marijo Rymer, Executive Director, The Arc of Colorado, Campaign chair for Amendment 51. Watch »
It's natural to recoil from a proposed tax when it seems like you're constantly getting nickeled and dimed for Taxes to Nowhere - when you don't see where the money goes or what or whom it might be benefiting. What you do notice, though, is the lighter wallet at the end of the day.
But in the case of Amendment 51, you only need to look around the corner to see who would benefit from your extra pennies on purchases; the person could be in your own family and almost certainly is within your circle of friends. Or the beneficiary might be at the corner store where a vocationally trained, developmentally disabled individual is hard at work.
If passed, Amendment 51 would hike the state sales tax 0.1 percent on July 1, 2009, and another 0.1 percent on July 1, 2010, taking the state rate from 2.9 percent to an eventual 3.1 percent.
When fully implemented, the tax is expected to raise $186 million annually to help more than 12,000 developmentally disabled now on waiting lists for services. Currently, the state spends $183 million a year to meet the needs of about 11,300 developmentally disabled - and could not decrease that funding level if Amendment 51 passes.
The amendment's proponents are reaching for the whole funding enchilada, in other words, to cover every known eligible person - although needs and definitions of disability change. To the sponsors' credit, however, the measure is a statute. It would not be locked into the constitution.
So what is a developmental disability? It's defined in state statute and basically is a substantial disability, manifesting itself before age 22, attributable to mental retardation or a neurological condition (such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy or autism) that is severe enough to cause functional impairment.
If ever there was a segment of society that needed and deserved the helping hand of government, it's the developmentally disabled. Whereas institutionalizing these individuals used to be common, now many live with their families or, with a little help, on their own.
But what happens when the parents of a developmentally disabled person pass away, especially if the child is getting along in years himself? Medical advancements have doubled the life expectancy of those with Down syndrome, who face new challenges such as a three-to- five-times greater risk of Alzheimer's disease.
A long-term, stable source of funding is essential for the developmentally disabled. Those on the state's waiting list need everything from 24-hour residential care to therapeutic services to essentials such as adult diapers or help going shopping.
There's a hole in the safety net, and we can plug it with our spare change. Vote yes on Amendment 51.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
September 24, 2008
6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Art writes:
What are the chances that if this passes the money will actually go to the developmentally disabled? So often this type of legislation results in little or no change to the originally intended beneficiary. The state will simply reduce the amount that is being paid to the agencies involved by the amount of new money coming in resulting in the same shortfall for the agencies trying to help the developmentally disabled.
September 24, 2008
7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
nativegirl writes:
I don't trust the government to ever do what they say they will with my money. The words "tax" and "increase" get a automatic NO from me.
September 24, 2008
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Elwood writes:
We have to find extra money in our lives to pay for gas and groceries, why can't the state do a little trimming in their bloated budgets to find this extra cash?
September 24, 2008
8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
DStuart writes:
Developmental disabilities like Down syndrome, Autism, Cerebral Palsy or Mental Retardation are a natural part of life, and through no fault of anyone it can happen to our children or our grandchildren. Voting YES on 51 won't change the personal opportunity fate may offer in respect to experiencing what a developmental disability is as it relates to our personal lives -- however, it will assure that should anyone find themselves on that life path they will know that there is a safety net should they need it.
VOTE YES ON 51
www.youtube.com/endcoloradowaitlist
September 24, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
No on 51. No doubt, disabled people need the money. Cut your other socialist programs and use the re-allocated revenue for the disabled.
Voting yes on tax increases enables socialists. Two years from now, they will be telling us to vote yes on other tax increases that would benefit equally just causes. Kids, cancer, schools, developmentally disabled, the environment...all just causes. Tell them to get bent and cut their other already-failing programs to raise the money.
September 24, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
rule 1 never vote for tax increases until all wasteful spending is cut from the budget. The disabled need help, sure, and they could be helped with existing revenue. For example there' are thousands who have their rent paid by the state, soak the system. There's millions spent on ridiculous environmental regulation and enforcement, or how about the millions spent to give free medical care and benefits to illegals living here in Colorado? Instead of a vote to raise taxes, how about ballot issue requiring our government to trim itself back and cut the fat?
It is quite annoying to see the victims paraded out as cover for the government seizing your hard earned money.
No one's saying we can't help those that need it, just saying that before you start asking the taxpayers for more money, you the government had better start being good stewards of what you have. Instead you spend millions on nonsense, appease the environmental obstructionists, save the field mouse and to support the gay agenda...money that could be better spent.
message to our elected officials...trim your budget like we the people have to in order to pay for your environmental regulations in our energy and gas costs.
September 24, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zack writes:
If it is worthy, then pay for it from the general fund. There is no reason for a special tax (or tax increase) to fund this.
September 24, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
"Who is more deserving than the developmentally disabled?"
The unborn, right?
September 24, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
lifeistooshort writes:
People with developmental disabilities are among our most vulnerable citizens. They are your neighbors, family members and, unfortunately, sometimes homeless as well. Without proper care they are much more likely than the average person to be sexually assaulted, robbed, unemployed and lack basic health care. We are all in this life together and rise or fall together. I have noticed a big change in people when suddenly their family has a child with Down's Syndrome, Autism, Cerebral Palsy or one of the many other conditions that can affect cognition. They finally get it. As the adoptive Mom of a child with CP, I can tell you disabling conditions can happen to anyone. Show mercy so that others can show it to you.
September 24, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
cometfc writes:
Re: Art (No 1 above). The language is such that the legislature cannot tap into this fund unless there is a state fiscal emergency declared. Also the language is such that the state legislature cannot "backdoor" withhold money currently going to people with DD and keep those funds as a backdoor tax increase into the general fund!!
Where would this money come from out of the current budget? Take it from K-12 money, transportation or higher education? Efforts to get additional money from the legislature last spring generated an additional $8 million versus the $190 million need. At that rate many on the wait lists would NEVER get any services. If you don't like how the legislature is doing their jobs, vote for someone else to serve.
Guess what would happen if the caregivers for these 12,000 turned them all over to the state to take care of when they reached 18 years old, thereby becoming "wards of the state"? Talk about a financial burden on the taxpayers. Amendment 51 is a cheap alternative.
Tabor demands that tax increases go to the public for a vote. Amendment 51 does just that. It is up to the citizens to vote for this if they think 12,000 people across the state with developmental disabilities waiting for years for services is unacceptable.
September 24, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
MCarol writes:
You would think that the general fund would be the place to go to to fund a programs that were specifically created for people with developmental disabilities. Colorado does have the Division for Developmental Disabilities that is designated to provide the supports needed by people with developmental disabilities, but there are over 4,000 people who have been waiting for years to get those supports. While they wait, they live with their parents, and everyone is aging, the person with the disability as well as the parents. They have been waiting while some in the legislature have been trying to cut what some people call bloated budgets. It is not fair to people who are so vulnurable to make them wait, and face emergencies when their families can no longer take care of them, while so many other issues take precedence.
Think of how a few cents more you might spend could help someone, and don't make people with developmental disabilities bear the brunt of slow-moving bureaucracies and a public that assumes that someone else will take care. Vote YES on 51!!
September 24, 2008
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
anbthomas writes:
As a parent of a child with cerebral palsy, I know first hand the importance of passing Amendment 51. It's a small price to provide vital services for children and adults who, through no fault of their own, face tremendous burdens every day just getting by.
YES ON 51!
September 24, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
specialneedsmom writes:
I can really empathize with those of you who are worried about government spending. However, what you don't know is that there are no funds in the general fund to take care of this very serious issue affecting extremely vulnerable people. The disability community worked very hard to get more funding through the legislature before doing this and knew that the state had done all it could. The problem is that Colorado's population increases rapidly and the need is great.
While it is very disheartening to see that people can be against caring for those who are not able to care for themselves, I also have great faith that Colorado is a caring community that will know that our trusted advocates would not have asked for this money in this way unless families were suffering so much and that they believe the funds would go directly to services. I would caution voters to suspend their belief about there actually being funds available from some other program somewhere unless you have checked into that deeply because there are not funds and programs were cut deeply a long time ago. Vote Yes on 51...our most vulnerable people need community support. It takes a village.
September 24, 2008
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Stephanie writes:
I'm so saddened by the folks that admonish our government for wasteful spending. Are they doing anything to stop it OR are they buying their Starbucks? Thier Nintendo Wiis? Their BMWs? The newest TV? Going out to lunch-again?
The next time these same folks do buy that coffee, that game, that pair of jeans, that lunch, will they think of those who hardly have enough food, medicine, nursing services, a ride to a job, nonetheless the job training needed to have the job, a safe place to live? Two pennies on $10.00. Gas, prescriptions, groceries, utilities, and medical services are all exempt from this tax.
This very modest tax increase will help alleviate some of the huge burden that families face every single day. Are you thankful every single day that you personally have no clue how hard it is to raise a child with a developmental disability?
VOTE YES ON 51. This is my .02.
September 24, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ebzanadi writes:
Whenever people see the word "tax increase" they freak-out.
Let me clarify the increase would be a tax for 1 cent per $10.00 for the first year of approval materialistic items such as going out to dinner or buying a new shirt...you can't afford 1 cent?
NOTE: the tax doesn’t apply to groceries, gas nor medications...DO YOUR RESEACH.
I work for an agency located in Denver Colorado that provides services and I can verify that this money would go towards to children and adults in need. Colorado ranks 47th in the nation for providing services to the Developmentally Disabled…47 is BAD. This is due to people not wanting to help and assist in their community with providing their “spare change”. I understand these are hard times for everyone…but you can’t honestly afford 1 cent?
This is a NEED not a WANT for the Developmentally Disabled population...every one has spare change...check on the floor of your car.
************VOTE YES ON 51************
http://endcoloradowaitlist.org/
September 24, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
robinbolduc writes:
My son is 11 - he has multiple disabilities. He is currently on a waiting list for support services for children who require 24 hour line-of-sight care and supervision. He does not sleep at night and requires constant care when he returns home from school. We are a single-income family as someone needs to take care of his intense needs. We are not alone - we are simply one of many families struggling to meet the needs of our children. My son's future relies on the services that he receives now. He will wait for several more years to move through the waiting list. Then he will receive services until he is 18 and then he will hit another waiting list - this list may take 15 years to move through. We can discuss whether there is waste in the current budget; an endless debate based on our individual definition of the role of government. The politics of government spending is an important issue and it needs to be addressed. That will take precious time that my son simply does not have to wait as the opportunity of his childhood slips away. And then, unmet needs will mean even more costlier needs as an adult. This small tax is an investment in our children's and our community's future. Having a child with severe disabilities is a "club" that no one expects to join and no one wants to join. This is assurance that help is there when you, your family, or your neighbor needs it.
September 24, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Special and Steph,
The difference is that we earned our money. The government did not earn our money. They stole it. And now they are wasting it. I want to waste my own money. Take the money out of food stamps or public transportation, which is far from self-sustaining, and thus not worth the price we put into it. Take the money from after school programs or parks.
I don't care what the cause is. Support a tax increase, and in two years, the same people will come back to you asking for even more money, in the name of some other horrible injustice that the government thinks it has the duty to fix.
I do empathize with the needs. I don't support the method.
September 24, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
nogreenie writes:
Absolutely NO! Nothing against funding for the disabled, but this is a ridiculously high allotment ($186 million/yr) and NEW SALES TAX statewide for a single special-needs group. Heck, Amendent 51 would be half the sales tax increase (0.2%) as the metro area's FasTracks tax approved in 2004. Total sales tax has climbed well over 8% in my community...no mas!
September 24, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Simmsie writes:
Oof....really guys? I know times are hard but it is the basic responsibility of society to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Due to budget constraints implemented in 1992, there is no room for growth....nothing. By 2012 there will be more people waiting for services then recieving them. Two cents on every ten dollars...dig deep.
Yes on 51! Taking care of people who need it most.
September 24, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Buckwheat writes:
OK....Why not take the money that the UN wants us to contribute to Africa (or at least Colo's portion) and put it into this fund.. How about a little "we take care of our own first."
September 24, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
deb writes:
Truly, citizens in Colorado that truly understand what a developmental disability is must know that our children are truly vulnerable. My son has Angelman Syndrome. In 2002 he had surgery to correct the life threatening curve in his spine and was paralyzed during surgery. Is this his fault? No! Is it his fault he was born with a Chromosomal anomolie? No! Have my husband and I depleated our own life savings and retirement? Yes!
So, for those who think we're all a bunch of deadbeats, how about a walk in our shoes! My son is (an I wish I could attach his picture here) the most joyful person you'd ever want to meet. I am worried and my husband is worried about what will happen if something happens to us. There is no tax on your gasoline, groceries, medical expenses or prescriptions, utilities. If you buy a $10.00 lunch then it's an additional 2 pennies. If you can afford to buy a $60.00 pair of shoes (my son can't) then you'd pay an additional 12 cents. You can thank the legislator who authored Tabor for the fix this State is in and Tabor is the reason for my son being on a waiting list. I'm 55 years old. My son is 20 years old. He'll be getting out of school and will lose all his services and lose all the skills he's gained in the programs that the school provided to get him out to work. My son works at CSU and they love him there. My son has value in this world and can be productive in society...not to mention that he points to pictures on Saturday asking to go to work even though his job isn't until Monday. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone wanted to go to work with as much enthusiasm as him? Please, Vote Yes on 51 because it's a tax that matters!
September 24, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
deb,
God bless your son. I love him, and I don't know him. My heart bleeds for everyone who cannot support themselves, especially the ones who were born incapable of it.
September 24, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
When they deport all the illegals in this state, stop the waste, then maybe I would vote for tax increase, and until then, nothing will get me to vote for one. Not when I see CDOT run plows around the highways in this area when it's just wet, a little blowing snow now and then along the roads. Drivers don't have the brains to slow down when they cross them, drive too fast for conditions. Total waste of money and fuel by the state. Use some of the tax from the increased gaming limits for this fund. it will pass...And get some back from those crooked Black hawk politicians who sunk it into their "historic" homes!
September 24, 2008
2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
specialneedsmom writes:
Deporting illegals has nothing to do with supporting people who are US citizens and citizens of Colorado who need help to live. Also, for nogreenie - the amount of money to be raised through this is just enough to actually do what needs to be done. It can cost $50-$60,000 a year or more to support a person who needs 24/7 supervision, assistance to get to the bathroom, feeding tubes, etc. That is why so much is needed. There are thousands waiting for these services. Parents are not able to do this for them. What happens is that in a 2 parent family, one has to give up their career to stay home with the child to take care of their needs. When they become adults, they are too heavy to lift, and the parents are aged and unable to do the job anymore. There have even been cases of parents dying before they got help for the children. These are suffering people who are here through no fault of their own. Imagine if you had a child in this situation. What would you need have happen for your child? Where would you turn - if you don't believe that goverment programs should help? What would you do if you had an adult child twice your size who needs significant behavioral interventions because of their condition who was threatening to kill you every day? Where do you think people go for this help? You would find out that without this funding, you would get no help at all because no insurance covers these things. No help from police. NO mental health centers or "institutions"...nothing. Every day your life would be like this. Imagine for a minute....that you had to lift your adult child from bed every morning and then maybe your back went out and you couldn't do it anymore. What would happen next? Nothing..because there is no in-home help without funding and again, no insurance because these people are adults...Think before you vote. Don't cause these people to suffer more because other people take or waste. Their lives are hard enough that they should not bear the burden of all the other social woes.
September 24, 2008
7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rick writes:
It seems that the definition of "disabled" is now broad enough to cover just about anyone.
September 24, 2008
8:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Simmsie writes:
Actually Rick, the Colorado definition of a developmental disability is below. The website http://endcoloradowaitlist.org provides a lot of useful information:
What is a "developmental disability"?
In general, the term "developmental disability" means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;is manifested before the individual attains age 22; is likely to continue indefinitely.
In Colorado, state statute (27-10.5-102) defines developmental disability as a disability that is manifested before a person reaches 22 years of age which constitutes a substantial disability to the affected person, and is attributable to mental retardation or related conditions which include cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism or other neurological conditions when such conditions result in impairment of general intellectual functioning or adaptive behavior similar to that of a person with mental retardation.
Yes on 51.
September 24, 2008
8:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Comenth13 writes:
I understand that people don't want to vote for a "tax increase." But at the same time, this money would go to help famlies that struggle every day. We get out of bed each day just like you, put our pants on one leg at a time just like you, and then we go to work, come home and cook dinner, care for our kids, and then add on top of all that all the medications and requirements of a child with special needs!
Like most families with a disabled family member, we are a one income household. My daughter was born with a rare genetic disease that causes her to grow tumors inside her nervous system. She is developmentally behind, and her medical bills are out of control. She is in the hospital at least once a month for several days at a time, not to mention all the surgeries she's been through. That means taking time off work for the one of us that is working, and employeers don't give a week of vacation per month. As you can imagine, her medical bills are constant and expensive. And her medical treatment is mandatory for her survival, so it just isn't something that can be cut back on. She has a tube coming out of her side to drain her kidney so it won't die, and she has done chemo as well. And did I mention she's only 20 MONTHS OLD!!!!! She can't go to daycare, so someone has to be home with her. Like others here, we have already drained all accounts possible and still can't provide everything she needs.
This amendment is vital to helping children and adults like my daughter. This money is going to families who need it the most. My daughter is currently on the waiting list for services, and until she is granted those services we will continue to struggle in silence like so many other families. It is easy to turn a blind eye or demand another answer that could take years to come to light when you are not faced with the heartbreak of a disabled family member. I hope that all of you who oppose this amendment get the chance to live just one day in the shoes of someone caring for a person with disabilities. Maybe that will make you understand the REAL needs of our community, and the urgency in which those needs have to be met!
September 25, 2008
7:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
My granddaughter is developmentally disabled. Her mother smoked meth while she was pregnant. The child has been diagnosed with autistic tendencies and needs extra help in school and at home.
That said, I will vote against this amendment. Our state wastes money and is always asking the taxpayers for more, more, more. The excuses are rampant and the lies are more creative every time. If they really intended that this money would help the disabled I would consider it. It isn't going to increase any spending on disabled.
Even if the language forbids decreases in the current budget, it doesn't consider that the money from this will free up general fund money by allowing the disabled expenditures to remain the same instead of increasing them because they will have the money from this to take the place of increases.
It sounds terrible and selfish to say it but, there is plenty of money in the system for the disabled and other needy CITIZENS. Just get rid of bilingual education and put 10% of that money in the fund for the disabled. The rest can go to good causes.
Our legislature wastes much more money than it spends wisely. Yes, money goes for roads and welfare and infrastructure like the police and fire departments. It's the money that is outside of those budgets that is in question. First let's see how much money they got from Ref C and where it went. From what I've read, most of it is going to buy votes or pay back friends with state contracts.
Vote NO and then donate, if you wish, to those programs that support disabled children. A direct donation would be much better and would not hurt those who just can't afford another dime.
The politicians are trying to get a slush fund for such things with Amendment 59. It will kill TABOR so there won't ever be another refund and all the refund money will go in a sack with the word, "EDUCATION" scribbled on it.
Until they stop paying too much money for unnecessary programs, and start cracking down on waste and fraud, don't give them any more money to spend. It won't end up helping the children. It never does.
September 25, 2008
7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
It's a tax increase. While it is ear-marked for one category, it basically allows the State to stop using general funds for the same use thereby shifting the $180 million currently into some other spending program.
It is not the function of the government to care for the people but rather to provide a safe environment in which for them to live.
September 25, 2008
8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
Why would the formerly conservative RMN recommend redistribution of your income?
When a 50% increase in the fastrax budget as provided in Amendment 51 could provide roads and rail on all of the routes, the RMN prefers to ask those sitting in traffic to pay for this. $2.5 Billion for 12,000 people.
Colorado may be 47th in funding for this, but we are 1st in K-12 and 50th in roads, everyone has to compromise.
The Post recommendations are 100% liberal, if the RMN isn't going to be even 50% conservative, how are you useful?
September 25, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
cometfc writes:
Re: P_myers661 and Mike_in_Hartsel.. Unlike the Vote to approve the lottery in 1982 and the more recent Ref. C, the language of Amendment 51 prohibits the state from withholding CURRENT funding to the department of developmental disabilities. This has often been used as a "backdoor" tax increase into the general fund. But the Legislature can't do that this time because of the language in the Amendment. Therefore money raised as a result of Amendment 51 will be added to funds currently being allocated to help people with developmental disabilities.
The people that Amendment 51 will help did not chose to have a developmental disability. Through no fault of their own, they need our help. Once a person with a developmental disability turn 18 years old they reach their "majority" and if they can not take care of themselves become "wards of the state". So I would say it is the responsibility of government to help these people!!!!
This life long Republican says vote YES on Amendment 51.
September 26, 2008
3:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
tromiano writes:
I'd like to have seen Ritter include this in his push for Amendment 58 rather than his proposed alternatives (transfer half of that $320 million to this cause instead). As a statute, this will not be permanently engraved in our constitution; I say yes on 51 and no on 58, and in two years, propose something similar to 58 with the money going to these programs, thereby enabling us to repeal 51.
September 26, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
While the language of this prohibits CUTTING the funding currently given to this cause, it does not prohibit freezing the amount so that there are no increases in funding to cover inflation and the expansion of the program. Next year, if this passes, they can fund this with the same amount, no increases. In very few years, the amount "freed up" for them to spend on fluff and feathers will be substantial. The disabled will be on the short end of this.
The obligation of the state to assist its citizens is a matter that is up for grabs in the legislature. It's a feel good appropriation that looks good on the political resume. If it was a priority, there would be no need for us to beg for assistance, to stand in line for service or to fear that our children will be left alone and ignored when we are no longer able to help them.
That is my fear for my grand daughter even though it is possible for her to attain normal adult abilities by the time she is 18. We are not young. It is quite possible that we will not both be alive to see her to that age. It is far safer to stop the piecemeal approach to our children and coordinate the assistance available to eliminate administrative costs and transfer those monies to actual assistance to those in need rather than duplicating paperwork and paying more clerks to enter data into multiple databases without coordination.
We have not applied for any assistance other than to receive the food stamps she is entitled to because we are grandparents raising a grandchild. That is to prevent her mother from collecting those food stamps.
She is on Medicaid because, even though we had private insurance, they never took her off of the program. Now that we are awaiting my husband's VA benefits to cover his time for surgery and rehab, she is once again on the program.
Other than that....we are alone and working to make her independent. Don't know how that will work yet. That's why I want these programs to spend more on the children and less on clerical doubleup.
September 26, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
jonas writes:
$16,195 per person in state aid?
September 28, 2008
9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
CAunt writes:
For those of you that are against the increase in sales tax did you happen to vote for the increase to build our baseball and football stadium? Why is it that people will vote yes for sports arenas but when it comes to education or helping members of our community with developmental disablities they don't think that tax dollars should be spent for such things. I understand that no one wants to pay an increase in sales tax, but if it can assist someone to be a more productive member of our community, in fact help them obtain jobs (which they will then pay taxes) this can only increase our tax revenues in the future, just like the baseball and football stadiums have done. This is an investment in the future of people who truly deserve it and in the future of Colorado. Vote yes on Amendment 51, money well spent.
October 3, 2008
6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
CAunt,
Because if the Denver Broncos were to move out of town, it would actually affect the majority of us.
October 12, 2008
9:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
womanatwittsend writes:
It appals and saddens me to read responses from people who are willing to deny a safe and secure life to those who are most vulnerable and in need simply because they have problems with other governmental spending issues! How hypicritical to say your heart bleeds and not be willing to spend a tiny penny more on a $5.00 purchase! How selfish it truly is to put your outrage at other govermental budgetary decisions above the needs of your own family member or that of those truly in need in this state.
I beg to differ with all those who would oppose this! The idea that the state simply needs to reallocate funds within it's budget or expect private charitible donations to resolve this problem is ludicrous. If the state truly cared enough about the Developmentaly Disabled citizens of this state they would've reallocated and made sure sufficient funds were budgeted years ago. The waiting list for these critical services didn't get to be 10 to 15 year long in the past 12 months!
The same holds true for the arguement that charitiable donations will resove this problem. The agencys that provide these services are all registered with the United Way and Combined Federal Campaign and have been for years. Nevertheless we still have a decade long wait list.
A tiny penny out of every $5.00 spent will not hurt any of us and will allow parents of developentaly disabled adult children the security of knowing their kids will be cared for in the event they cannot.
Times are tough, but as it's been said before it's NEVER the wrong time to do the RIGHT thing!
November 5, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
ConservativeCO writes:
How anyone could vote no on this, I do not understand.