Marc Cooper responds

[Marta Russell]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

> Local oversight boards might be useful, especially for those who are
> already on the recipient lists. But what of people who are entitled to help
> but have not received it, because they don't know that it exists, or
> because there are too many obstacles that discourage applications, etc.?
>

  Thanks for the reading suggestions.
I would see a function of the oversight board being community outreach in as many
forms as possible to make people aware of government programs and to set up some
advocate organization to assist with getting services.  For example, the
Protection and Advocacy organizations both assist with disability program access
(thought probably not nearly enough because of lack of funding these days), and
will take the state on when state decisions are in conflict with a person's right
to services.  It also does some monitoring of these awful institutions and I think
P & A can file class action lawsuits to get better services though this may have
to be done by Legal Aid.

I realize that oversight boards can become as corrupt as anything else, but at
least with government there is some public arena to contest wrongful actions.  I
watched a guy with Muscular Dystrophy try to get a power wheelchair out of the
Jerry Lewis group, M.D.A.  and all he could do was beg because M.D.A. had recourse
to make any decision they liked.  John Nunzer died without his wheelchair.
Government at least has avenues open to get some justice with enough public
pressure.

The welfare state was constructed brick by brick (as David Stockman told us) not
only by Democrats but by Republicans manipulating the process. It is certainly
flawed as the outcome of capitalist perogatives but sometimes we do manage to get
improvement. The children's SSI program was expanded by the Zebley case which
directed Social Security to evaluate each individual seperately to determine if
more than one disability factored into qualifying as "disabled." Some disabilities
were not on the official lists, so this opened up the rigid rules. The court also
ordered to the government to conduct outreach to populations who had been
underserved.  The SSI rolls did grow after the decision due both to both factors.
The court decision countered the Reagan era move to restrict access to SSI. But
then come Huffington, Sam Donaldson, Newt and the gang to accuse the program of
widespread fraud and abuse. You know the rest, the welfare "reform" legislation,
along with ending poor women's entiitlement to aid, cut back access to SSI for
immigrants and children.

Marta