Disability rights advocates urge to raise wages for attendants
EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) – Hours before the Texas Legislature reaches its March 14 deadline to file any bills for the 89th legislative session, advocates for the disabled community rallied to call on the state to increase wages for personal care attendants, who people with disabilities depend on for their everyday needs.
'Personal care attendants and people with disabilities demand their fare share of the pie!'
That was the rallying cry from advocates who used Pi Day – celebrated on March 14 – as a parody to voice their concerns.
Members of the Volar Center, The Personal Attendant Coalition of Texas, and the El Paso Desert ADAPT – a disabled rights advocacy group – demanded that the Texas Legislature increase the minimum wage for personal care attendants from $10.60/hour to $20/hour, to help alleviate a shortage and high turnover in the workforce.
'Right now, these individuals don't get anything. They don't get benefits, they don't get time off, they don't get holidays. We work 365 days a year for $10.60 an hour. Sometimes, these clients don't have enough hours. And so, you're going from one side of the city to the other side of the city just trying to make ends meet,' Roberto Oporto, the purchasing coordinator for the Volar Center for Independent Living, said.
Oporto has been a personal care attendant for decades and said he went into the workforce to care for his mother, who became handicapped due to an accident.
'Right now, attendants don't have livable wages and that's why there is a big turnover or a big issue with the recruitment and retention of the attendance workers. Not only can they get better wages at other places like working at restaurants, they also get benefits. They also get vacation time. They also get sick leave and things that our attendants don't obtain right now,' Josue Rodriguez, an organizer with El Paso Desert ADAPT, said.
'I've never had so much trouble trying to recruit an attendant to assist me. Sadly, the base wage for attendants in Texas is not nearly enough at $10.60 per hour. We've got to have $20 per hour to adequately compensate attendants for the vital work they perform daily,' Luis Enrique Chew, Executive Director for the Volar Center, said.
Advocates also shared concerns that many people with disabilities are struggling to find accessible and affordable housing.
'You can't go down the street any day without seeing a number of people with disabilities in need of housing,' Rodriguez said.
Advocates also spoke on the federal government's attempt to cut Medicaid funding and programs that the disabled community heavily depends on, even as funding remains scarce.
'We are very concerned (at) the lack of understanding from the Department of Government Efficiency. There's about 600 centers for Independent Living across the nation. We provide five core services: Independent living skills training, advocacy, nursing home relocation, transition services, and sensitivity training with the ADA,' Chew said. 'We provide a lot of independent living skills so people with disabilities can live out in the community instead of institutions such as nursing homes…people with disabilities deserve to live their life like anybody else.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump policy bill could bring $160 million hit to state budget
Section D subcommittee chair Rep. Bill Mercer, R-Billings, outlines the Section D portion of House Bill 2 during the second reading floor discussion on the budget for the next biennium on March 22, 2023. (Photo by Blair Miller, Daily Montanan) Changes outlined in President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill impacting Medicaid expansion, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and taxes could be a $160 million hit to Montana's state budget, according to an estimate this week from the Legislative Fiscal Division. Legislative Finance Committee members met this week and, among numerous topics, heard a report from the Legislative Fiscal Division on impacts of federal legislation. A couple of Democrats described the potential reductions as 'staggering' and 'frightening.' Trump's tax cuts would reduce revenue from the taxable income of Montana by $122 million, said Josh Poulette, with the state's fiscal division. The changes could mean 'either less general fund coming in or more general fund that needs to go out,' Poulette said during the finance committee meeting. Additionally, if the federal bill was signed into law in its current form, the state would be on the hook for more than $26 million in SNAP benefits if it was to keep the program running as it is now. Legislators heard the report Tuesday, and at the meeting, the committee discussed potential dates for a special session of the Legislature to address the reductions should one be needed. Trump's bill could be signed into law soon. While speaking with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Thursday, U.S. Senator Steve Daines said lawmakers in the Senate are trying to get it on the president's desk by July 4. Daines also said the Congressional Budget Office is wrong in its forecast of revenue projections and that the bill will 'make some of the largest cuts, true spending cuts, to this runaway spending from the federal government in American history.' The biggest direct hit to the state's budget would be the reduction in taxable income. It means the state would have more than $120 million less in its general fund because the law changes deductions. SNAP would become more expensive because the state would be required to provide a match. The federal government currently pays for the cost of all SNAP benefits. 'This would be tied to the payment error rate of the state. So essentially, the feds do a backward looking error rate calculation for SNAP, and they've got historical data on that,' Poulette said during the meeting. 'Montana's error rate has hovered in that 78% range over the years. That would equate to Montana having a 15% match requirement that would come out to a cost of about $26 million additional state funds per year.' Medicaid expansion, meanwhile, could see 27,000 people dropped. Medicaid covers about 13% of all workers in the state. The Montana Legislature this session approved an extension removing the Medicaid expansion sunset date. One of the big changes the federal bill makes is increased work requirements to be eligible for benefits. Montana already has this law on the books, but it's never been enforced, and the Biden Administration did not approve the state's request to add the stipulation. Most people on Medicaid expansion already work, and in Montana, the number of people who are enrolled in the program and work is 72%. Another 7% are caretaking, 2% are retired and 10% are acutely ill or disabled and have serious barriers to employment. Poulette also said there is 'essentially a ban' on new taxes on medical providers. Those taxes are often pumped into the Medicaid program, he added. Rep. Connie Keogh, a Missoula Democrat and a member of the committee, called the impact to the budget 'frightening' during Tuesday's meeting, while Rep. Paul Tuss, D-Havre, said during the meeting the numbers were 'staggering.' Gov. Greg Gianforte's office did not respond to a request for comment. However in a recent 'Leave Us Alone' podcast episode, the Republican governor did speak on the topic. 'If you believe in limited government, the best way to produce that is to limit the amount of money government collects,' Gianforte said. 'Let's leave it in the people's pockets.'
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Town hall tour centers on agriculture in Mitchell visit
Jun. 12—MITCHELL — On Wednesday evening, Dakota Wesleyan University hosted a town hall that brought together fewer than 50 local farmers and community members for a focused conversation on the challenges facing South Dakota's agriculture sector. The event was part of a statewide series organized by Nikki Gronli, former USDA Rural Development state director and former vice chairperson of the South Dakota Democratic Party, and Julian Beaudion, a Democratic Party candidate for U.S. Senate, aimed at giving South Dakotans a platform to share their concerns. Previous town halls in Rapid City, Aberdeen, Vermillion, and Sioux Falls attracted larger crowds and allowed participants to raise a wide range of issues, including cuts to Medicaid, the Department of Education, and the impact of trade tariffs. For the Mitchell meeting, however, organizers decided to narrow the discussion to focus solely on agriculture, a vital part of South Dakota's economy and culture. "We decided to switch things up for this town hall," said Gronli. "Instead of letting people bring up any topic like before, we wanted to try focusing on just one issue and see what the response would be." Joining Gronli and Beaudion on the panel were Marcia Bunger, a farmer and former administrator at the USDA's Risk Management Agency under President Joe Biden, and Al Merrill, a third-generation farmer from Parker. The discussion covered key agricultural concerns including economic pressures, federal policies, labor shortages, and funding for research and innovation. Bunger opened by outlining the tough financial outlook for farmers this year. According to Bunger, corn prices have fallen below $4 per bushel and soybeans are under $10, while costs for seeds, fertilizer, and equipment remain high. Many farmers face losses ranging from $50 to $100 per acre on corn, with even greater losses on soybeans. "Farmers are not going to make any money this year," Bunger said bluntly. This economic pressure was not new, she said, recalling the 2017 trade war with China that sent corn prices tumbling below $3 per bushel. "Tariffs get placed on the backs of farmers every time there's political tension," she said. Labor shortages were also a key topic, especially regarding the reliance on immigrant workers for harvesting fruits, vegetables, and dairy production. Bunger described how immigration enforcement actions have disrupted farming communities. "When ICE shows up and just drags people away, it hurts the farms, and it hurts families," Bunger said. Merrill added that many immigrant workers are eager to work and are essential to the farm economy. Beaudion emphasized the interconnectedness of these issues. He pointed out that South Dakota farmers export nearly a billion dollars in products through West Coast ports, which also rely on immigrant labor. The panelists agreed that immigration is both a human and economic issue that requires bipartisan attention. One audience member suggested reviewing immigration policy every five years to adjust to changing needs. The group then turned to federal policy, focusing on the farm bill — a comprehensive piece of legislation that governs agricultural and food programs nationwide, typically renewed every five years. Since the 2018 farm bill has been extended twice, its uncertain future is causing concern among farmers. Gronli noted that some parts of the bill may be folded into a reconciliation act with a 2031 deadline, potentially creating confusion and overlap. Broader federal budget cuts also sparked discussion, including reductions to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits and local food programs. Beaudion explained that a 10% cut to SNAP could increase monthly food expenses for South Dakota families by approximately $267. Joel Allen, director of the McGovern Center at DWU, raised questions about the McGovern-Dole Food for Education program, the largest school-based feeding initiative globally, which faces funding uncertainties. Gronli confirmed that many food assistance programs have seen reductions. "These cuts affect the children of the next generation," Beaudion said. Merrill suggested that farmers would likely support a universal school lunch program to help children and strengthen communities. Another concern raised was the potential loss of USDA staff, with up to 25% of the workforce expected to leave by September. Gronli warned this could mean a significant loss of institutional knowledge in rural areas. "That's institutional knowledge walking out the door, and many of these federal workers hold some of the best jobs in small rural communities," she said. Industry concentration in meat processing also came under scrutiny. Frank Kloucek, a farmer and former state legislator from Scotland, highlighted the growing foreign ownership of major companies like Smithfield and Tyson. He advocated for restoring country of origin labeling (COOL), which requires meat products to be labeled with their country of origin, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting local producers. Kloucek also called for stronger enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, a law designed to promote fair competition and protect farmers from unfair practices in livestock and meat markets. Bunger shared an example from the poultry industry, where farmers who invested heavily in building barns lost contracts and insurance coverage after avian flu outbreaks forced companies to remove birds. Because the farmers did not own the birds, they faced substantial debt without compensation. "That sent shivers down my spine thinking about what could happen to our pork producers," she said. The panel also emphasized the importance of agricultural research and disease prevention. Merrill stressed ongoing investment in protecting livestock from diseases like avian flu and foot-and-mouth disease is essential to safeguarding the food supply. Kloucek lamented that short-term budget cuts threaten long-term research projects. "If you're not in it for decades, you're not really in it," he said. As the evening concluded, Beaudion encouraged attendees to stay engaged and communicate with elected officials. "Don't talk about nonsense. Talk about the things that matter to South Dakotans," he said.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Non-partisan report: Trump tax cuts would benefit wealthy at expense of poor
June 12 (UPI) -- The House-passed budget reconciliation bill promoted by the Trump administration would benefit higher earners at the expense of lower-income Americans, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday. The CBO's findings said between 2026 and 2034, after-tax federal benefits "would decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and top of the income distribution," the report said. "If you are a hardworking American that is struggling to take care of your family, you are going to love this legislation," Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said during an interview on Fox News last week. But the CBO report indicates that the top 10% of earners would receive the highest tax cuts. The CBO analysis shows that households earning up to $107,000 yearly will see an average tax cut of $1,200 annually through 2034. People making up to $138,000 annually will see a $1,750 tax cut; those earning up to $178,000 will see a $2,400 yearly benefit; those bringing in $242,000 will see a $3,650 benefit; and households earning up to $682,000 a year can expect an annual $13,500 tax benefit. A recent analysis by the Joint Taxation Committee reflected the results of the CBO report and also suggested that lower income Americans would benefit less from the legislation than higher earners. The budget bill, which has seen staunch opposition from Democrats, faith leaders and social service advocates, faces a tough road in the Senate, where even some members of the GOP have expressed concern about the depth of the cuts, especially to Medicaid services and SNAP benefits, which would fall most squarely on the most vulnerable Americans. Academics and scientists have also been critical of proposed reductions in research funding in the budget bill while adding trillions of dollars to the national debt.
