(http://www.stefanringeling.org/druckgrafik/begegnung.jpg) 
A specter is haunting Germany, and it is this time not in the "Communist Manifesto" was published, but it is - as with Karl Marx - to financial matters.
How www.taubenschlag.de the site few days ago, reports that a youth office feels the district administrative office in the Baden-Wuerttemberg Rastatt now impelled, a family with deaf parents to custody for breach of parental deprivation duty of care to threaten, if the parents use their child no cochlear implant (CI).
What is it? For money, what else?
The family has dared to ask the welfare office of the council services for Gebärdenprachdolmetschung. Now the welfare office believes, however - and it is in Germany no longer alone, the author of several other cases including well known in the area of inclusive schooling - if the child with a CI would be used, one could eventually permanently save costs while by the repair action on hearing but the integration is alive in society significantly more feasible.
Are we now back to the point that people with disabilities only be considered for cost considerations?
The trend is clearly in that direction. When should we read recently hampered by political spokesmen of the government coalition, the workshops for disabled people are increasingly reduced in favor of employment in the primary labor market, that sounds in the ears of the disability self-help movement initially as Schallmeienklang. If you read, however, the - dürfitge - justification of the statements by a little more intense, makes you quickly realized that here - as often in political discourse as well as device makers - namely the vocabulary of the disability movement is used, the underlying moment but is not such that the claims could be enough to equal participation. It is the protagonists of both the social welfare authorities and the political establishment to one and only one point, namely that - in their view, far too expensive - "stifle" integration assistance financially.
basically requires the district of Rastatt, the parents that their child they "fix" social conformity can. Here one must ask the question well, what then of the Basic Law Article 3, paragraph 3, sentence 2, no one should be discriminated against because of his disability, actually still has a predictive value? This is human life - and that we had before sixty-five, seventy, seventy-five all before - on his "value" towards declared.
added Why the disability movement for decades argued about to be recognized as socially equivalent if now is not a general social outcry, that a standing in the middle of the company group of people in danger of being discriminated against heavily by financial factors?
It is a tiny step from the civilized people of the cultural breakdown. We need a clearly offensive and open "Integrate" discussion about the extent to which disabled people in society need or not the Company is subject to an obligation to be as accessible and antidiscriminatory embody that as a disabled person not afraid again so must have, only because of his disability as sheer play ground are treated in public life.
"Nothing about us without us"? It is to be rather the principle that is to negotiate with us, and not over our heads.
Where is the outcry about societal empathy, what threatens to be as we now politically and administratively pressed by the administration wanted?
If one looks now that the municipal associations ggw. fight for a constitutional amendment so that the Argen should remain (the Federal Employment Agency has no real interest in it), then but not because it is the service providers to the supposed power from a single source is that in all the above groups of people just _not_ work. No, by all whining how much Hartz IV would cost but especially municipalities: Through the merging of social and unemployment assistance especially the local authorities discovered a massive savings that they have in recent years partly expanded sent in that they they even have a flat rate of accommodation costs relating to a large extent, especially with similar computational tricks which is already the rule unconstitutional sentence was justified.
us not fool ourselves: It was last of all and zuallerwenigst about people actually get back to work (seven million recipients of basic security and the welfare money that would be a rather lofty claim). It was - on the claim that the alleged effects of globalization - one and only aim to reveal, at the bottom of the population a savings potential, enabling businesses made possible by a substantial reduction of the remuneration levels on the low-wage sector until the sharholder value really prmonient in to make the foreground. Therefore one must not even be a leftist that sees itself in the final analysis, a Professor in the sense result is not significantly different. And that's what was politically but also deliberate. What is unique to the SPD as a party and the alleged civil rights Greens can not blame-oriented, is that they are the Basta-Chancellor in his miserable Muskelspielchen in Parliament and is still followed by his confidence in the case have "lie down on the cross" can be.
If I already read today, however, in part, the current government coalition could "wash their hands of it" pilates, and finally it was not created in the Hartz legislation involved, showing once again the consummate political hypocrisy argument. First, the black and yellow all Hartz package of course supported, so it has always corresponded to their political convictions. To another, Who could the current government coalition at the federal level than prevent them to adopt an actual growth acceleration law by the rule sets on the existence of minimum necessary ggw. to the 480, - € would have been increased? As I read again today in SPIEGEL online - and one might almost think it would go directly to the money of the writing editor: What the government is going to cost everything again?
So what! As the speculators have driven the economy almost in the ditch "has no longer a man asked how expensive the whole thing could well be. Since it was at one time only on a "bird's do or die." an economy is in danger, every possible means is right, it is contrary to even the very any market model. Is it "only" seven millions of basic security and social welfare concerned, may be saved funny straight on, the clientele may be yes, on the one hardly defend, on the other it has not the money, the ruling parties for their own purpose tracking smear, as the hotel industry too obvious on a large scale may appear to be in the situation.
Here is the link to the opinion which I will discuss in the next few days, probably even more: http://