Democrats have pushed the fact that Senator Zarelli wants to eliminate Disability Lifeline, but is on a different disability program. I’ve never been a fan of accusing people of personal hypocrisy because they live differently from how they govern. So someone supports public transit, but drives a lot doesn’t concern me; I’ll take the transit, and if other people want to drive a lot with these gas prices, go for it. People who take farm aid and oppose it don’t concern me. And Zarelli opposing disability programs is much worse than the fact that he opposes the program while he benefits from a similar program. But the Tacoma News Tribune feels the need to not only defend him, but to make strange metaphors.
The two kinds of disabilities involved aren’t merely apples and oranges; they’re apples and zebras.
Are apples and zebras the most dissimilar things the Trib can think of? I mean you could eat both of them, for example. Here’s one of my nonsense lists to help them out the next time they want to grope for a metaphor about how things aren’t the same:
- Apples and plastic
- Apples and the concept of fear
- Apples and explosions
- Apples and cars
- Apples and people with black mold in their brain who benefit from the program that Zarelli wants to cut
- Apples and the people who Zarelli would make homeless with his awful budget
- Apples and the people who’ll die if we pass Zarelli’s budget
- Apples and declining state revenue as a share of the economy
- Apples and the concept of time
- Apples and mustaches
- Apples and TV shows
- Apples and Higgs particles
- Apples and corporations
- Apples and Unnecessary Capitalization
- Apples and Mispellin the word Misspelling
Apples and Rabbits
You have Zarelli and you have Roger Rabbit.
Zarelli is against helping those in need; Roger Rabbit is for a Christian-like compassionate approach to those who have fallen down (whether through their fault or bad luck).
Zarelli is against taxing the wealthy, no way, no how; Roger Rabbit supports reasonable taxes paid by everyone to provide public services that any of us might be forced to depend on someday if bad luck befalls us.
Zarelli served in the peacetime Navy, claimed to hurt his back, and has received taxpayer-supported disability benefits for years even though he can play golf, hunt, and fish.
Roger Rabbit enlisted in the Army, volunteered for Vietnam, and incurred injuries and illnesses in Vietnam which became chronic and from he has suffered his entire life since then, but after the war did not ask for, and has never received, government disability compensate, instead supporting himself by working.
Zarelli is indeed a hypocrite by opposing disability benefits for others while he himself feeds at the public trough; Roger Rabbit at least is consistent in being willing to pay taxes for programs he supports.
Yep, apples and rabbits, are two different things.
If the guy’s got a no-kidding disability, then he gets the payments. If he doesn’t have a no-kidding disability, then he shouldn’t get the payments. More investigation is needed here to determine if Zarelli really has a disability, or if he’s just gaming the system.
@3 Sounds like you support a big expensive bureaucracy to investigate and verify claims for veteran’s compensation.
In fact, society operates largely on the honor system.
We can’t afford enough traffic cops to catch everyone who speeds or blows stop signs, so we depend on drivers to voluntarily obey the law.
We can’t afford enough tax auditors to audit more than about 1% to 2% of all tax returns, so we depend on taxpayers to be honest in claiming deductions and tax credits.
We can’t afford enough bank examiners to minutely supervise every banking transaction, so we trust bankers to carry out their functions in an honest, ethical, and responsible manner.
When you apply for government benefits — whether it’s unemployment insurance, injured worker compensation, or veterans benefits — yes, your application and pertinent medical records are reviewed by a benefits specialist, but the system still depends heavily on self-policing and the integrity of the applicant because no government agency has the staffing required to fully verify claims. In the case of veteran’s benefits, establishing service connection is tenuous at best, and the veteran often is given the benefit of doubt.
I probably could have gotten veteran’s disability benefits years ago. I didn’t ask for such benefits, because I had a job and could work, so I figured I wasn’t disabled.
Zarelli has a couple of jobs (counting his legislative gig) and can support himself, but he asked for and received veteran’s benefits for a claimed injury that apparently isn’t impairing when it comes to either the occupational or personal enjoyment aspects of his life.
I obviously didn’t do what Zarelli did, in regard to taking advantage of a taxpayer-funded disability program. But then, I’m not a Republican either.
I have no doubt Zarelli legitimately receives payments from the Vet’s Administration. I wouldn’t presume to look at all vets and assume that they are gaming the system in order to get free money (Like Brad Owen’s son).
However, Zarelli made huge assumptions on who gets disability lifeline and made it a moral issue. And it is clear that it is more complicated than that. Yet, Zarelli couldn’t see that for one minute. So yes, to me it is still hypocritical. There are other programs too. There are folks who have received a qualifying disability under Voc Rehab whose disability resulted directly from drug abuse.
The point is not to eliminate that but to get folks who would be an utter drain on resources a leg up so they can support themselves.
Zarelli doesn’t seem to have an issue with getting work done at his day job(s). So, how is he disabled? It might have taken him a couple of years to get where he could do his day job(s) and I’m completely cool with paying people disability payments while they’re healing and maybe learning new job skills. But, once you’re back working full time those payments should stop.
Zarelli’s a welfare queen.
In Washington, March comes in like a female elk with a calf and goes out like a golden retriever with a hat phobia.
“@3 Sounds like you support a big expensive bureaucracy to investigate and verify claims for veteran’s compensation.”
No, this claim could be easily verified by the VA to determine if it’s valid or not. The VA could use existing staff, so any additional expense would be minimal but potentially highly embarrassing to Zarelli.