Can Politicians Afford to Ignore a Voting Bloc of 60 Million

Today is the 35th anniversary of the ADA and I have a question — Can Politicians Afford to Ignore a Voting Bloc of 60 Million? Sixty million Americans live with disabilities -- a nation within a nation. Add in their parents, siblings, friends, and advocates. You’re looking at a voting bloc that touches well over half the country.

So, no — the smart money says you absolutely cannot write them off.

Many in power are acting like this community isn’t paying attention. That’s a mistake. They see what is in that “big beautiful” bill that recently became law. Cuts to Medicaid. The rollback of student loan forgiveness. Shrinking Pell grants. Financial burdens shifted from the federal government to states. The gutting of federal agencies. This gutting affects nonprofits doing work here and abroad in the areas of disability rights and community accessibility. So, yes, this 60+ million bloc of voters cares.

This voting bloc is a true reflection of America: red states and blue. MAGA and not. Immigrant and native-born. Wealthy, working-class, poor. Religious, secular. Straight or something else, every race, every identity. Republicans. Democrats. Independents. As well as military families and disabled veterans.

This voting bloc looks like everybody.

Here’s a warning to those in elected office and those who want to be: Wake up. Wise up. You have a choice. You can support and restore the programs and policies that matter to voters with disabilities — or you can pretend they don’t matter and face the consequences at the ballot box. 

Thank you. 

Common Grounder

Divide and Conquer: A Risky Strategy in Disability Funding

In its proposed FY 2026 budget, the Trump Administration has quietly but significantly shifted funding for University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs) to the Independent Living Services program. On paper, this may seem like streamlining — but in practice, it’s a potential recipe for administrative chaos and long-term harm to people with disabilities.

Here’s the issue: UCEDDs are funded under the Developmental Disabilities Act, while the Independent Living Services program and the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program fall under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Trump Administration’s proposal would move funds authorized under one law into a program governed by a completely different statute. Whether that’s even legal is questionable.

More importantly, it’s bad policy.

If this proposal goes through, funds that currently support university-based research and training programs — programs that train professionals, evaluate what works, and build evidence-based practices — would be controlled by state VR agencies. These agencies have no obligation to fund UCEDDs or their work. The money would likely flow directly to Centers for Independent Living (CILs), which provide vital services but are not structured to do research or professional training.

CILs do important work: they help people with disabilities develop the skills to live as independently as possible and connect them with needed services. But they’re not designed to evaluate best practices or train the next generation of disability professionals. Eliminating UCEDD funding could gut this essential infrastructure — and for what? A short-term funding bump for services, at the cost of long-term progress and sustainability.

There’s a better way.

Congress should preserve separate funding for UCEDDs and CILs. But it should also incentivize stronger collaboration between the two. Their missions are distinct but complementary. Universities generate evidence-based strategies and train practitioners. CILs apply those strategies on the ground, helping people put them into practice.

By keeping the two funding streams separate — while fostering partnerships — we can preserve what works and build something even stronger. The Trump proposal, in contrast, would sow confusion, diminish outcomes, and take years to repair.

It’s time to tell Congress: don’t let a misguided budget maneuver undermine the disability infrastructure we’ve spent decades building. Keep UCEDD funding where it belongs — and strengthen collaboration instead of forcing consolidation.

The Big Beautiful Bill — Those Odd Effective Dates? Strategic Moves, Not Accidents

I usually focus on disability issues, but this post goes broader—because everyone should understand what just happened.

The President signed the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” into law on July 4, 2025. It’s massive—many provisions, each with its own effective date. Some start right away, others next year, and a few won’t kick in for several years. Some are permanent; others vanish in a few years. None of this is random.

These dates were chosen with strategy in mind—timed for maximum political impact.

For example:

• Need a car? There’s a juicy tax break on car loans—for first-time buyers or growing families—but only through December 31, 2028. After that? Gone.
• High earners (think $500K/year) get to deduct up to $40K in state and local taxes (SALT)—but only through 2030. After that, the ceiling drops back to $10K.
• Seniors get a special $6,000 deduction for 2026–2028. After that, poof.

See the pattern? Benefits aimed at groups politicians want to impress—especially before the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

You don’t pay taxes on tips or overtime if you make under $150K—starting now through 2028. Perfect timing to win over working-class voters.

But it’s not all gain.

• Clean energy incentives? Slashed. The clean vehicle credit and the home energy upgrade credit were supposed to last till 2032. Now they’re axed early. Bad optics if you care about climate.
• College access? Tougher. Limits on student loans, tighter repayment plans, more demands on Pell Grant recipients. A strange move, considering MAGA families seek post secondary education too.
• And those new work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP? The feds have until late 2026 to finalize the rules. Expect a mess—and political fallout. 

This bill has a little something for everyone to love—or hate. But one thing is clear: it’s designed to shape voter behavior in 2026 and 2028.

No matter your political lean, do your homework. Pay attention to what’s really in the law—and don’t let candidates from either party sell you spin over substance

Thank you. 

Common Grounder