Opinion
Democrats Salivate Over Zarelli Disability Story
Democrats are salivating over a story that AP reporter Mike Baker broke today—Republican budget chief Sen. Joe Zarelli (R-18, Ridgefield), the architect of the coup budget—gets a disability payment. Zarelli's budget eliminates the state's Disability Lifeline with a $90 million cut; the program serves disabled adults who can't work.
Zarelli's $601 monthly payment is from the federal government (from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs) for a back injury he says he sustained while serving in the Navy in the 1980s.
Zarelli stressed the difference between his disability payment and the state program. From Baker's article:
(Baker points out in his story that only about half of those who use the Disability Lifeline have problems with drugs or alcohol.)
I agree that Zarelli's vet affairs payment is substantively different from the Disability Lifeline and think the Democrats (Baker's story was forwarded to me by at least three different Democratic legislators as well as by legislative staffers and a few liberal activist groups) are overreaching on a gotcha.
However, Zarelli's response is also a reach. Molly Belozer Firth, Director of Public Policy for the Community Health Network of Washington, told me:
Perhaps a more apropos analogy for Baker's story is last year's conservative hit on workers' compensation that saved the state money by ultimately lowering payouts to injured workers.
Zarelli did not lead the charge on that effort, but Republican Sen. Jenea Holmquist Newbry (R-13, Moses Lake), pushed the bill through after putting together a coalition of centrist Democrats and Republicans (similar to Zarelli's budget coalition), upending the original liberal version of the bill that its own original sponsor, Seattle Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36), voted against.
Sen. Holmquist Newbury's version, which Zarelli voted for, eliminated Kohl-Welles' provisions—a 30 percent increase in disability payments, an investment in safety and health programs on the front end to save money, and a provision that would have cut off workers' comp pensions at federal retirement age for people whose injuries were not the main reason they were out of work—replacing them with a "compromise and release" bill, detested by labor unions, which allows companies to strike an agreement with workers for one-time lump sum payout instead of the mandated ongoing payment recommended by the state.
"We call it starve and settle,” Dave Groves of the Washington State Labor Council told PubliCola at the time, explaining that big companies will just hire fancy lawyers during their appeal process and “starve out” workers who will be “so desperate they’ll take the lump sum.” Groves pointed to the cruel logic of the bill, which was pitched as a way to save the statte money. “The only way to save money is if the company pays out less than they were supposed to under the claim system.”
The liberal house eventually killed this version of the bill.
I too may be reaching a bit myself by connecting Zarelli to the "compromise and release" bill. Though he joined the conservative coalition that passed it out of the senate, it wasn't his bill. But it is a key part of the agenda that his coalition has been hyping—it was reintroduced just yesterday.
Zarelli's $601 monthly payment is from the federal government (from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs) for a back injury he says he sustained while serving in the Navy in the 1980s.
Zarelli stressed the difference between his disability payment and the state program. From Baker's article:
Zarelli said the disability payments he gets are far different than the benefits provided in the state programs he's targeting for cuts, in part because he suffered his injury on the job. He said the people in the state system were making poor lifestyle choices — such as drug and alcohol addiction — and argued that lawmakers should be focused more on identifying ways to fix their problems.
"What I do know from those types of so-called disabilities is that aiding and abetting them does not make them better," Zarelli said in an interview. "If you enable people to participate in that type of a lifestyle — you support it and make it more comfortable for them — all you are doing is aiding in their demise."
(Baker points out in his story that only about half of those who use the Disability Lifeline have problems with drugs or alcohol.)
I agree that Zarelli's vet affairs payment is substantively different from the Disability Lifeline and think the Democrats (Baker's story was forwarded to me by at least three different Democratic legislators as well as by legislative staffers and a few liberal activist groups) are overreaching on a gotcha.
However, Zarelli's response is also a reach. Molly Belozer Firth, Director of Public Policy for the Community Health Network of Washington, told me:
Too often there are overgeneralizations made about the Disability Lifeline population that avoid understanding the individuals and why they count on the program. It is too bad because assuming that everyone on the program abuses substances ignores the fact that some individuals may only have started using alcohol to cope with the pain. It also leads people to believe that everyone is abusing substances, which is far from the case. The community health centers are working hard to make sure that this population can recover from the conditions that they have – to get them back on their feet and back to work. That is more important than overgeneralizations.
Perhaps a more apropos analogy for Baker's story is last year's conservative hit on workers' compensation that saved the state money by ultimately lowering payouts to injured workers.
Zarelli did not lead the charge on that effort, but Republican Sen. Jenea Holmquist Newbry (R-13, Moses Lake), pushed the bill through after putting together a coalition of centrist Democrats and Republicans (similar to Zarelli's budget coalition), upending the original liberal version of the bill that its own original sponsor, Seattle Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36), voted against.
Sen. Holmquist Newbury's version, which Zarelli voted for, eliminated Kohl-Welles' provisions—a 30 percent increase in disability payments, an investment in safety and health programs on the front end to save money, and a provision that would have cut off workers' comp pensions at federal retirement age for people whose injuries were not the main reason they were out of work—replacing them with a "compromise and release" bill, detested by labor unions, which allows companies to strike an agreement with workers for one-time lump sum payout instead of the mandated ongoing payment recommended by the state.
"We call it starve and settle,” Dave Groves of the Washington State Labor Council told PubliCola at the time, explaining that big companies will just hire fancy lawyers during their appeal process and “starve out” workers who will be “so desperate they’ll take the lump sum.” Groves pointed to the cruel logic of the bill, which was pitched as a way to save the statte money. “The only way to save money is if the company pays out less than they were supposed to under the claim system.”
The liberal house eventually killed this version of the bill.
I too may be reaching a bit myself by connecting Zarelli to the "compromise and release" bill. Though he joined the conservative coalition that passed it out of the senate, it wasn't his bill. But it is a key part of the agenda that his coalition has been hyping—it was reintroduced just yesterday.
