– Unemployment among those with disabilities hovers around 80 percent. A disabled person cannot effectively compete in the private sector. The ADA requires companies to supply any reasonable accommodation; therefore, companies will often choose a candidate with similar, if not slightly inferior skills to avoid paying for or dealing with the modifications. Because hiring decisions is not public record, it is impossible to claim discrimination. This problem most clearly happens in entry level positions, making it challenging for disabled people to create a competitive resume.

– The cost of living for many disabled people is much higher than average, regardless of where you live. This is when you factor into account the doctor visits, medication, and even some small things that often aren’t even thought of (such as buying pre-made food because cooking is oftentimes out of the question, for one reason or another) — not to mention the cost of hiring a caregiver in order to help disabled people with things they can’t do themselves. In other words, at the same salary a disabled person has a significantly decreased standard of living as the non-disabled person at the same or comparable salary.

– The severe lack of affordable ADA approved housing forces disabled people to either live at home with their parents, or pay far above market average for suitable housing. Section 8 housing does little to alleviate this problem, given the years-long waitlist. Even if one gets in section 8 housing, nine times out of ten, they need extra modification to make it usable.

– “Disabled” bathrooms come with issues. The ADA requires every public place to have at least one stall for disabled people. Oftentimes though, the business in question will complete the minimum amount of work, and the end result is an unusable mess.

While the ADA was a bipartisan bill passed in 1990, the Democrats have been the major benefactors. Democrats’ focus on social welfare make them a natural home for the disabled community. I believe there is a conservative case to make swaying more disabled people to vote conservative.

I attended this past CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). One thing stood out to me more so than anything else: I was, by far, the youngest wheelchair user there. I met this one other guy – he had a spinal cord injury, but he looked older than 30. Everyone else who had a wheelchair/scooter was older (75+ probably), and as such were likely not disabled from birth or had to live a significant portion of their adult life with a disability. Of the 10,000 or so attendees, only a fraction of 1 percent were disabled. Now, CPAC is a highly partisan and specialized conference and probably isn’t a good cross section of the population. However, there was a clear lack of disabled conservatives.

In Arthur C. Brooks’ book, A Conservative Heart, he says people value worth over money. This remains true for the disabled community, many of us would rather earn a living than simply get a check for $1,000 in our mailbox every month. As noted above, however, getting work as someone who is disabled is challenging, to say the least. A possible solution is to offer incentives to hire disabled workers. The federal government already has a similar program for ex-convicts. So, why not implement a program for those who have a disability?

A solution to the increasingly evident cost-of-living disparity between disabled and non-disabled people is have the government give cost-of-living raises to those disabled people who are employed, rather than Social Security. Allowing the company in question to offer competitive salaries while allowing their disabled employees to have a comparable standard of living. If necessary it can be capped at a certain maximum income.

The housing crisis that disabled people face can be solved a variety of ways one is to create a program like section 8, only strictly for disabled people, instead of low income families. It would be fairly easy to police, by just requiring a doctor’s note stating they have an ADA approved disability. Another option would simply be to give disabled Americans priority over those who simply qualify under low-income requirements.

If conservatives were to champion these reforms, much of the disabled community would join the movement. For many of us who have disabilities, our priorities aren’t that of national security, or even the economy, necessarily. It is instead a matter of merely survival versus thriving, and for too long we have been ignored.

Many conservatives would probably blanch at this governmental overreach. The free market is not equipped to handle those with disabilities, so the government can and should have a role. The free market relies on a voluntary exchange of goods of roughly equal value. Those who have a disability require an inordinate amount of resources for comparatively little in return. The government is equipped for exactly that.  The founders wanted the government instituted to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for their posterity, and that includes their disabled posterity. To truly live to the founders’ ideals, conservatives must champion the rights of the disabled.