The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for content, style and space available. Opinions expressed are those of the authors, not those of the American Council of the Blind, its staff or elected officials. "The Braille Forum" is not responsible for the opinions expressed herein. We will not print letters unless you sign your name and give us your address.
Guide dog relief plans 'woefully inadequate'
This is a comment on the information in the October "Braille Forum" in the article reporting on the September board meeting. In the section concerning guide dog relief areas at conventions, the actions which are being proposed for the future were listed. In my opinion, these actions are woefully inadequate.
As a guide dog handler who is conscientious about picking up after my dog, I don't use the relief areas. I choose to pretend that they do not exist. Why? Because no matter how well they have been handled, they have been stinking, disease-festering, filthy messes. This is not due to the valiant efforts of those who have tried to have them be otherwise. It is because both the plans designed by the convention committee and by GDUI and the financial resources allocated to pay for those plans have been so inadequate as to be ludicrous.
I believe that the only solution which would solve the problem of unusable relief areas is to have them supervised 24/7. They must be cleaned and disinfected continuously. In addition, those who do not clean up after their own dogs should be warned after the first time and then removed from the hotel after that. In my opinion, there is no excuse for not cleaning up after your dog. If someone is unable to perform this function, and there are people who can't, they should provide themselves with the support they need to assist them.
Will this relief area care cost more money? Of course it will. Should everyone who goes to conventions pay the cost? Absolutely. One dollar added to everyone's registration fee would do the job just fine. If that isn't enough, other sources of support can be found. Let's get to it right away!
Though no one can go back and make a brand-new start, anyone can start from now and make a brand-new ending.
-- Stan Greenberg, South Burlington, Vt.
Social Security privatization
There are two very divergent, but equally sound viewpoints on Social Security privatization. My work career was from 1950 to 1995. For most years I paid the maximum amount into Social Security, yet my return on investment is a lousy 2 percent. Many retired government employees have been able to opt out of Social Security during their work career, and both their and their employers' 7.65 percent contributions went into mutual funds that paid an average 11 percent annual return instead of the lousy 2 percent of Social Security. If many state and local employees can opt out of Social Security that provides an average $35,000 per year in retirement benefits instead of the maximum $14,500 that I now receive at age 66, why can't all employees have this same freedom of investment choices?
During my work career, each of my five employers provided disability insurance as a part of my pay. When I became legally blind from normal pressure/low tension glaucoma in mid-1994 and took medical disability retirement in early 1995, my Reliance Insurance disability paycheck until age 65 was reduced by the Social Security Disability Insurance payment of about $14,000 annually. In summary, if my 45 years of Social Security had been invested in a privatized account I would have received my entire Reliance Insurance Disability check, without a Social Security payment deduction, and my privatized Social Security would have continued to accrue at the rate of 11 percent annually until I started annual withdrawal at age 65 at a $35,000 annual rate instead of the actual current $14,500 non-privatized Social Security rate. Social Security is a lousy deal for those who work a full career.
In retirement my Social Security, after tax, does not even cover my $17,000 annual health care costs. If I had been able to invest my Social Security at the prevailing mutual fund rate, as I did with my savings, I would have about $275,000 in my Social Security privatized fund and I could amortize that at a payment rate of $35,000 annually instead of the current $14,500 annually.
Since my Social Security only provides 10 percent of my last five years of employment gross income, it is only because I did save and invest in privatized funds that I am able to enjoy retirement. Yes, since the economic downturn that started April 2000, I have lost about 30 percent of my total combination of mutual funds, municipal bonds, AA bonds, and money market funds in investments, but that's only 19 months in 45 years that a loss has occurred. Each year my funds in Social Security return less than the rate of inflation. Since 1995 my medical costs have increased at a rate triple the rate of inflation. A fixed Social Security payment, adjusted for only about 1/3 the rate of medical care inflation, does not cover medical costs.
I absolutely agree that those who have vision have a responsibility to save, invest, and also to insure that they are covered by disability insurance during their working career.
I hope that in part 2 of the article on Social Security privatization, "The Braille Forum" pursues a balanced discussion, not just a biased Democrat's opinion. If people are too illiterate to invest, give them economic training. If people don't want to invest, give them the option of continuing under the low investment return of the current Social Security system, or at least assure that everyone gets a return equal to that available in the U.S. Treasury long-term market. That has been a 7 percent average these past 45 years.
-- Joseph J. Neff, Indianapolis, Ind.
Leading Organization of the Blind?
Though an active member of the National Federation of the Blind, I subscribe to "The Braille Forum" -- which, with "The Braille Monitor," could be an excellent testimonial of how the blind in this country could work together harmoniously on the national, state, and local levels.
In the convention issue, you referred to the ACB as "the leading consumer organization of blind people in the USA and the world ...." "Just about a thousand people were gathered in the convention center," you said, "... astonished to be in the midst of so many other people who were blind and visually impaired."
That is all well and good. But I have been to NFB conventions with 2,000 to 3,000. That is no display of superiority; it is just a fact. So before calling yourself "the leading consumer organization of blind people in the USA and the world," would you please read at least one of our convention issues of "The Braille Monitor"? You will enjoy it.
I know this letter will offend some of you, most predictably founding members, who seem to literally hate us in the Federation passionately. I don't have that attitude toward you in the Council, especially not toward my good friends therein.
While I don't agree with everything in your magazine (for instance, your political liberalism is a thorn which we have to contend with in the Federation -- but we have conservatism), I look forward to it each month.
-- Jeff Frye, Overland Park, Kan.
Used audiocassettes needed
Christian Services for the Blind is a non-profit organization that sends out tapes for several magazines, and we are on a very limited income, as most of our income comes from donations. So used or new cassettes would be appreciated.
I have students from the South Pasadena school system that come over and receive the credit for doing their civic duties as they are required to donate so many hours per semester to one of the community groups. This would be a project for the students, to inspect the tapes and sort them according to length. All workable cassettes would much be appreciated. And if you could get the word out, we would more than be pleased to receive the cassettes.
Send the used tapes to Christian Services for the Blind, P.O. Box 26, South Pasadena, CA 91030-0026. If you have questions, you may contact us by phone at (626) 799-3935, by fax at (626) 403-9460, or by e-mail, [email protected].
If any of your readers are interested we have a library of braille books and tapes available for borrowing. They can write to us at the above address. We have a catalog available, free for asking. We do have a large list of blind and deaf-blind that subscribe to our books. So all of your readers are welcome to apply for our services. We are trying to keep the braille edition available for those readers that would like to receive our materials in the braille format.
So if you have any questions, please call me at the phone number listed above.
-- Dr. Franklin Tucker, Executive Director, Christian
Services for the Blind, South Pasadena, Calif.
Regarding employment
I wish to comment on the article with regard to employment which was written by Darian Hartman in the November 2001 issue.
In this article, first of all, she states that 70 percent of working age blind people are unemployed. The figure cited by the U.S. Census Bureau, the Department of Labor and the National Federation of the Blind is 74 percent at the present time.
Hartman states that "we can't change people, but we as blind people can change." Other minorities who are oppressed do not take this stand. Why should we? She also says that there is a self-esteem issue here. This may be, but there is also a prejudice issue, a discrimination issue, a bigotry issue, an issue of intolerance, and a hate issue, although the latter is not an absolute.
The reality here is that so many blind people who have skills and good appearance and qualifications just don't get jobs. Skills and appearance don't matter. It is a case of lowered or diminished expectations on the part of the ignorant sighted public, and also projection. This latter point is cited in the book "The Nature of Prejudice" by Gordon Allport.
Other minorities cite reparation as their goal or objective. We should, too. Other oppressed people say they were not paid for their work. This is true, and they should get paid. We, on the other hand, were not allowed to work, or to earn a decent wage. And just because I am working, and may get a better position, doesn't mean that I cannot come out of my ego and see the world from the point of view of those who are less fortunate. Peace!
-- Lucia Marett, New York, N.Y.