How disabilities play into presidential campaigns

Two women gathered in Washington D.C. to encourage expansion of services for people with disabilities.

By Alfredo Santana. 

After the last round of caucuses and primaries,  it’s pathetic to read and watch the debates of the Republicans looking to become their party’s stalwart to the White House, particularly when the topics focus on social policy and healthcare for the elderly and people with disabilities.

It's not secret that Donald Trump’s mocking of a reporter from the New York Times with a disability who tried to interview him about two months ago sloshed him in the list of fear-mongering Caucasian businessmen willing to ridicule the most vulnerable to hold on to their power trip.

Trump has pelted filthy, fetid remarks against Muslims and Latino immigrants that amount to libelous claims to sweet the ears of its white-clobbered electorate base. He’s the sewage king of banal theories of unabashed crime, drug smuggling from across the Mexican border and terrorism injected via Middle-Eastern cells. The great majority of migrants, both from Mexico and the Middle East are productive and reenergizing people who improve decadent segments of urban neighborhoods, rack resources to start microenterprises, and renew crime-ridden areas with the purpose to have a new start in life, and for their offspring.

His adversaries, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are against a policy to reform immigration, want to slash social security benefits and want to roll back Obamacare. With that, they would wipe out coverage for people with previous medical conditions unable to find coverage before the passage of the Affordable Care Act and the expansion of Medicare.

Trump, on the other hand, hasn’t burped anything about these social programs, although it’s widely expected he would ax them. Folks with disabilities and the elderly would feel most of the brunt.

Trump’s political circus has garnered the attention of media critics, (even LA Times columnist Steve Lopez wrote a column about these dirtbags,) which has kicked up TV ratings in all networks that host them. 

But Trump’s total disregard for specific social programs set him as an infamous character with a business degree that led to four bankruptcies. He's also a candidate with dubious ties to New York mafias that funneled resources to built one of his real estate properties. His lax ethics rupture his qualifications to be a serious contender. In addition, he’s vomited misogynist comments against women, and has a penchant for official divorces, unlike nobody else vying for the White House.

As the race draws to Super Tuesday, a prized electoral day that carries a myriad of states with much more diverse population, Trump and his boxing ring pals would be forced to shade light on specific plans to address social investment to include, or who knows, to exclude and discriminate a much larger electorate.

Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have promised to improve Obamacare, and expand benefits and services to people with special needs. Sanders wants to make public universities free of charge, while Clinton said she favors a set of changes to encourage better financial packages with lower to zero interest charged to poor students. Something similar would apply to adults who’ve lost their jobs and try to retool for new careers.

To me, the choice is clear. I hope the American voters think twice sooner, and steer toward candidates with true compassionate programs for people in constant need of our support.