From the Institute for Public Accuracy, http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1920:
Co-editor of the two-volume "Poverty in the United States: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics and Policy" and author of "Welfare's End," Gwendolyn Mink said today:
"The stimulus package currently working its way through Congress would temporarily extend Medicaid eligibility to unemployed workers who are receiving unemployment insurance. Though much-needed and welcomed, Medicaid expansion does not repair the tattered safety net. It is a relief measure, by definition short-term and palliative. The COBRA proposal would expand COBRA eligibility for long-term workers and for workers over age 55 who lose their jobs. Though a useful health insurance bridge between jobs or until Medicare kicks in at age 65, the COBRA proposal advances a privatized solution to health coverage rather than expanding the safety net to guarantee health care for all. Neither health proposal takes us toward universal health care, and so neither proposal renews or redesigns the social contract -- unless palliative crisis intervention is meant to replace durable social protections that promote the long-term economic security of individuals.
"If the president and Congress truly are interested in repairing the safety net, they would immediately lift the time limits on welfare eligibility so that poor families can survive hard times. If the president and Congress truly are interested in universal health care, they would expand Medicare rather than tinker with Medicaid and COBRA. If the president and Congress truly are interested in investing in the economic security of all Americans, they would start by assuring that the stimulus package assists everyone -- including women, who need reproductive health care, living-wage jobs, comparable pay, and recognition for caregiving."
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
WHAT/WHO IS THE "MIDDLE CLASS"?
This morning, at a Democracy journal forum on the future of the Democrats, the main message conveyed was that Obama must stick to his "narrative" about the middle class. One panelist observed that moderates gave Obama his victory, showing that his message of moderation made sense to lots of people ("he out-moderated the Clintons," said one panelist). Another panelist suggested that the First Hundred Days be dedicated to the Middle Class. That means choosing the right issues, yet another panelist agreed, noting that "Obama didn't really talk about the minimum wage during the campaign because middle class people aren't affected by the minimum wage, they're not minimum wage workers. So he shouldn't focus on those sorts of issues now." The panelists, by the way, were described and/or self-described as part of the progressive community.
Who exactly is the Middle Class that moderate politicians aim to please? The political middle -- as in "centrists"?....Or as in the statistical mean? People who earn less than $250,000/year, as the president-elect suggests? People who earn between $30,000 and $75,000/year, as Charles Schumer implied when he identified the "middle quintile" in his 2007 paean to the Middle Class, Positively American?
At this political juncture, it's useful to remember what Schumer wrote in his book. He exerts enormous, centralized power over the Democratic message as chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Candidate Obama promoted Schumer's version of the Democratic message as he courted Middle Class support over the course of his campaign.
In Positively American, Schumer assigned the following characteristics to the Middle Class. According to Schumer, a middle class person is:
*a homeowner with a mortgage
*a property taxpayer
*someone whose wife works because she "has to" (I guess the iconic middle class person is a man)
*has an income between $30,000 and $75,000 per year
*is a "regular" person
The Middle Class, then, does not include poor people. Later in the book Schumer adds some normative qualities to the Middle Class, most important among them that the Middle Class represents "homogenization," as compared to folks who are "group-identified" (I think that means women and people of color).
If the Democratic Party is going to make the Middle Class its defining cause, we need to agree on some common definitions about who's in and who's out -- both of the class itself and of the bounty of power.
Does being for the Middle Class mean being for or against unions? For or against free trade agreements? For or against Paid Family and Maternity Leave? For or against affirmative action? For or against including transgendered people in the expansion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual/gender identity/orientation? For or against more war in Afghanistan?
Who exactly is the Middle Class that moderate politicians aim to please? The political middle -- as in "centrists"?....Or as in the statistical mean? People who earn less than $250,000/year, as the president-elect suggests? People who earn between $30,000 and $75,000/year, as Charles Schumer implied when he identified the "middle quintile" in his 2007 paean to the Middle Class, Positively American?
At this political juncture, it's useful to remember what Schumer wrote in his book. He exerts enormous, centralized power over the Democratic message as chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Candidate Obama promoted Schumer's version of the Democratic message as he courted Middle Class support over the course of his campaign.
In Positively American, Schumer assigned the following characteristics to the Middle Class. According to Schumer, a middle class person is:
*a homeowner with a mortgage
*a property taxpayer
*someone whose wife works because she "has to" (I guess the iconic middle class person is a man)
*has an income between $30,000 and $75,000 per year
*is a "regular" person
The Middle Class, then, does not include poor people. Later in the book Schumer adds some normative qualities to the Middle Class, most important among them that the Middle Class represents "homogenization," as compared to folks who are "group-identified" (I think that means women and people of color).
If the Democratic Party is going to make the Middle Class its defining cause, we need to agree on some common definitions about who's in and who's out -- both of the class itself and of the bounty of power.
Does being for the Middle Class mean being for or against unions? For or against free trade agreements? For or against Paid Family and Maternity Leave? For or against affirmative action? For or against including transgendered people in the expansion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual/gender identity/orientation? For or against more war in Afghanistan?
INTERPRETING the ELECTION: The End of the Equality Era?
The end of the Bush Era is something to celebrate, as are the progressive possibilities opened up by Democratic control of both Congress and the White House. But it's not clear to me that we've reached the end of the Republican Era, or that Democratic control means progressive policy outcomes.
President-elect Obama explained his victory Tuesday night as a "defining moment," but given his temporizing, moderating, and triangulating discourse throughout the campaign it is fair to ask what, exactly, has been "defined"? If we look to simultaneous electoral blows to equality and social justice, we need to wonder who will win the war of mandates and how the Democrats will define their agenda.
In California marriage equality endured a fatal collision with an electorate intent on making heterosexual marital privilege a constitutional protection. Florida and Arizona also banned gay marriage. In Nebraska, the war against affirmative action scored another victory, and in Colorado a similar ban on affirmative action is on the brink of an electoral majority (at this writing). Voters in Arkansas, meanwhile, prohibited unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents.
President-elect Obama spoke little about equality issues on the campaign trail. In fact, he won admiration from the white commentariat for not discussing race and for not discussing poverty. The commentariat didn't notice (or didn't care) that he barely mentioned gender issues, other than the relatively safe issue of "equal pay for equal work," and few took issue when he justified his bigoted same-sex marriage policy position on religious grounds. So it should be no surprise, really, that voters in California and elsewhere embraced exclusionary measures aimed to enforce inequality even as they cast their ballots for the first Black president.
If the commentariat (and many Democrats) have their way, Obama's silence on equality issues will mark the end of the Equality Era. By "equality era" I don't mean that equality actually has been achieved. But grassroots struggles for equality -- of rights, opportunities, resources, recognition, respect -- as well as policy steps toward equality have been at the core of progressive politics for several decades.
The revival of the Clinton-era mantra of "helping the middle class" (read: White, genderless, not-poor) and the rise of its cousin, the new mantra of "post-racial politics," further disfranchises the economically, socially, and politically disfranchised by stigmatizing the politics of democratization as divisive and anti-majoritarian.
For example, in their naked exhuberance about "post-racial" (read: post-equality) America, numerous journalists and analysts on MSNBC on the morning of election day declared that an Obama victory would mean that "we have overcome," that "the era of racial recrimination is over," that there can be "no more blaming White America," and that "the left can't trash-talk America anymore." For many, the defining moment that was this election means that the social movements of the 1960s, along with their 21st century heirs, can be put out to pasture (along with the entire Baby Boom generation, if Tom Brokaw's analysis is correct).
While the "middle class agenda" does leave many progressives uncertain about the direction the Obama Administration will take, for some progressives race and gender are fringe issues that distort movement toward economic justice. Progressives who think this way imagine that universalistic economic guarantees will lift all boats, as if the intersecting inequalities of race, gender and class don't create separate inequalities that can only be cured by directly addressing race and gender as distinct, linked experiences of subordination and marginalizaton. There's no such thing as an economic policy that's good for all workers, for example, if elements of that policy do not correct wage discrimination against women and minorities, provide paid family and maternity leave, or target innovations to end the racialized distribution of poverty.
What a bitter irony, if the election of the first person of color to the presidency also dissipates equality imperatives and de-legitimizes equality politics. There is great danger that we are already on a course toward treating race, gender, sexuality, and poverty as irresponsible "wedge" issues promoted by irresponsible advocates from a bygone era. I hope "change" means we can change this course.
President-elect Obama explained his victory Tuesday night as a "defining moment," but given his temporizing, moderating, and triangulating discourse throughout the campaign it is fair to ask what, exactly, has been "defined"? If we look to simultaneous electoral blows to equality and social justice, we need to wonder who will win the war of mandates and how the Democrats will define their agenda.
In California marriage equality endured a fatal collision with an electorate intent on making heterosexual marital privilege a constitutional protection. Florida and Arizona also banned gay marriage. In Nebraska, the war against affirmative action scored another victory, and in Colorado a similar ban on affirmative action is on the brink of an electoral majority (at this writing). Voters in Arkansas, meanwhile, prohibited unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents.
President-elect Obama spoke little about equality issues on the campaign trail. In fact, he won admiration from the white commentariat for not discussing race and for not discussing poverty. The commentariat didn't notice (or didn't care) that he barely mentioned gender issues, other than the relatively safe issue of "equal pay for equal work," and few took issue when he justified his bigoted same-sex marriage policy position on religious grounds. So it should be no surprise, really, that voters in California and elsewhere embraced exclusionary measures aimed to enforce inequality even as they cast their ballots for the first Black president.
If the commentariat (and many Democrats) have their way, Obama's silence on equality issues will mark the end of the Equality Era. By "equality era" I don't mean that equality actually has been achieved. But grassroots struggles for equality -- of rights, opportunities, resources, recognition, respect -- as well as policy steps toward equality have been at the core of progressive politics for several decades.
The revival of the Clinton-era mantra of "helping the middle class" (read: White, genderless, not-poor) and the rise of its cousin, the new mantra of "post-racial politics," further disfranchises the economically, socially, and politically disfranchised by stigmatizing the politics of democratization as divisive and anti-majoritarian.
For example, in their naked exhuberance about "post-racial" (read: post-equality) America, numerous journalists and analysts on MSNBC on the morning of election day declared that an Obama victory would mean that "we have overcome," that "the era of racial recrimination is over," that there can be "no more blaming White America," and that "the left can't trash-talk America anymore." For many, the defining moment that was this election means that the social movements of the 1960s, along with their 21st century heirs, can be put out to pasture (along with the entire Baby Boom generation, if Tom Brokaw's analysis is correct).
While the "middle class agenda" does leave many progressives uncertain about the direction the Obama Administration will take, for some progressives race and gender are fringe issues that distort movement toward economic justice. Progressives who think this way imagine that universalistic economic guarantees will lift all boats, as if the intersecting inequalities of race, gender and class don't create separate inequalities that can only be cured by directly addressing race and gender as distinct, linked experiences of subordination and marginalizaton. There's no such thing as an economic policy that's good for all workers, for example, if elements of that policy do not correct wage discrimination against women and minorities, provide paid family and maternity leave, or target innovations to end the racialized distribution of poverty.
What a bitter irony, if the election of the first person of color to the presidency also dissipates equality imperatives and de-legitimizes equality politics. There is great danger that we are already on a course toward treating race, gender, sexuality, and poverty as irresponsible "wedge" issues promoted by irresponsible advocates from a bygone era. I hope "change" means we can change this course.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
GOING FORWARD: Economic Justice for Women
Here are 10 policies to start us on the path to economic justice for women:
*Strengthen laws prohibiting and remedying discrimination in employment, including pay discrimination
*Re-value work performed by women in the labor market through comparable worth policy for active workers and retirement income adjustments to correct for women's lifetime income losses due to wage inequality
*Index the minimum wage to provide a living wage
*Provide universal, quality child care
*Guarantee universal, quality health provision through a single-payer system
*Expand unemployment insurance for workers who leave or lose jobs when child care breaks down; to deal with domestic violence; or to avoid sexual harassment
*Amend the Family Medical Leave Act to provide paid family leave for workers who leave employment to bear or adopt a child; care for sick family members; or assist elderly kin
*Provide paid sick days for workers to deal with their own medical issues
*Guarantee a caregiver’s allowance to provide an income (and economic recognition) for the work of raising children or caring for family dependents
*Apply a caregiver's income credit to the Social Security system's income history and benefits calculation for retirees
*Strengthen laws prohibiting and remedying discrimination in employment, including pay discrimination
*Re-value work performed by women in the labor market through comparable worth policy for active workers and retirement income adjustments to correct for women's lifetime income losses due to wage inequality
*Index the minimum wage to provide a living wage
*Provide universal, quality child care
*Guarantee universal, quality health provision through a single-payer system
*Expand unemployment insurance for workers who leave or lose jobs when child care breaks down; to deal with domestic violence; or to avoid sexual harassment
*Amend the Family Medical Leave Act to provide paid family leave for workers who leave employment to bear or adopt a child; care for sick family members; or assist elderly kin
*Provide paid sick days for workers to deal with their own medical issues
*Guarantee a caregiver’s allowance to provide an income (and economic recognition) for the work of raising children or caring for family dependents
*Apply a caregiver's income credit to the Social Security system's income history and benefits calculation for retirees
Saturday, August 23, 2008
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM - Trade
for a good discussion of the Trade plank, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/breaking-draft-copy-of-de_b_117549.html
Friday, August 22, 2008
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM - Faith, Fatherhood, and the Death Penalty
Faith:
The platform repeats the 2004 celebration of faith, directly borrowing language: "We honor the central place of faith in our lives." (p. 48) This is part of a troubling new mainstream consensus that faith is a necessary public value that makes "our nation, our communities, and our lives...vastly stronger and richer." According to this view, the historic separation of faith/religion from public/policy decision-making and governance has been due to misundertandings of the Constitution and the secular base on which it stands.
In addition to articulating a political norm that good citizenship takes faith, the platform provision on faith embraces institutionalized faith -- religious institutions such as churches -- as government's partner. Notwithstanding the establishment clause, the platform summarily declares: "there is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution."
Fatherhood:
The platform section on "Children and Families" (p.49) spends a lot of time talking about making sure children are raised right. In addition to enumerating some policies (eg., Head Start, health care) and parental actions (turn off the TV, help with homework) that would benefit kids, the section also discusses the importance of fathers. Mothers are not mentioned at all (unless a reference to maternal health counts).
I have written extensively elsewhere about what's so troubling about redefining mothers'/children's economic insecurity as mothers'/children's need for fathers. See also the writings of Anna Marie Smith and Julia Jordan-Zachery. Let me draw attention here to the fact that the platform adopts wholesale some rather questionable assertions about the vile consequences for children of growing up without a father. The inevitable result of this argument is pressure on mothers to enter into marriages with biological fathers in order to do right by their children. This bodes a return to patriarchal (and heterosexist) norms and rewards in family policy -- norms and rewards that impede equality for women who are mothers.
Embedded in this section are some useful commitments -- especially a reform of the child support enforcement system to make sure that support payments go directly to families. Also, the notion that family leave can also be availed by fathers is an important addition to the discourse.
However, neither child support reform nor the prospect of fathers taking leave to help raise children justify defining fatherhood as a central component of social policy.
Death Penalty:
The 2004 platform did not advocate the death penalty. One big "change" in the 2008 platform is reference to the death penalty in the "Criminal Justice" section. Although the wording points to discrimination in the allocation of the death penalty, the sentence expresses concern by first endorsing the death penalty: "We believe that the death penalty must not be arbitrary."
This is not exactly a surprise to anyone who heard Obama's response to the Supreme Court's ruling against the death penalty in child rape cases. He denounced the decision, saying that the death penalty is appropriate in these cases, and embracing "state's rights" to make the decision to make certain crimes punishable by death.
Not a surprise, but distressing nonetheless.
The platform repeats the 2004 celebration of faith, directly borrowing language: "We honor the central place of faith in our lives." (p. 48) This is part of a troubling new mainstream consensus that faith is a necessary public value that makes "our nation, our communities, and our lives...vastly stronger and richer." According to this view, the historic separation of faith/religion from public/policy decision-making and governance has been due to misundertandings of the Constitution and the secular base on which it stands.
In addition to articulating a political norm that good citizenship takes faith, the platform provision on faith embraces institutionalized faith -- religious institutions such as churches -- as government's partner. Notwithstanding the establishment clause, the platform summarily declares: "there is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution."
Fatherhood:
The platform section on "Children and Families" (p.49) spends a lot of time talking about making sure children are raised right. In addition to enumerating some policies (eg., Head Start, health care) and parental actions (turn off the TV, help with homework) that would benefit kids, the section also discusses the importance of fathers. Mothers are not mentioned at all (unless a reference to maternal health counts).
I have written extensively elsewhere about what's so troubling about redefining mothers'/children's economic insecurity as mothers'/children's need for fathers. See also the writings of Anna Marie Smith and Julia Jordan-Zachery. Let me draw attention here to the fact that the platform adopts wholesale some rather questionable assertions about the vile consequences for children of growing up without a father. The inevitable result of this argument is pressure on mothers to enter into marriages with biological fathers in order to do right by their children. This bodes a return to patriarchal (and heterosexist) norms and rewards in family policy -- norms and rewards that impede equality for women who are mothers.
Embedded in this section are some useful commitments -- especially a reform of the child support enforcement system to make sure that support payments go directly to families. Also, the notion that family leave can also be availed by fathers is an important addition to the discourse.
However, neither child support reform nor the prospect of fathers taking leave to help raise children justify defining fatherhood as a central component of social policy.
Death Penalty:
The 2004 platform did not advocate the death penalty. One big "change" in the 2008 platform is reference to the death penalty in the "Criminal Justice" section. Although the wording points to discrimination in the allocation of the death penalty, the sentence expresses concern by first endorsing the death penalty: "We believe that the death penalty must not be arbitrary."
This is not exactly a surprise to anyone who heard Obama's response to the Supreme Court's ruling against the death penalty in child rape cases. He denounced the decision, saying that the death penalty is appropriate in these cases, and embracing "state's rights" to make the decision to make certain crimes punishable by death.
Not a surprise, but distressing nonetheless.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM - Choice
This section of the platform signals an important change: it constructs "choice" in the reproductive context along a continuum of possibilities ranging from pregnancy termination to childbirth. (p.50)
The provision is clear and direct in announcing support for Roe v. Wade and opposing "any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." One problem here, though, is that Roe already has been weakened. Not only has the recent ruling on late term abortions significantly eroded the protections of Roe; the 1992 Casey decision dramatically undermined the framework for determining when and under what circumstances women may decide to terminate a pregnancy. So while the platform's unequivocal support for Roe should be applauded, we still need to ask whether the party actually will fight for a return for Roe and/or will fight to reverse the regulations enacted by many states to choke off the exercise of the pregnancy termination right.
Obama's recent efforts to temporize on the abortion issue do not suggest an intention to actively -- as well as "unequivocally" -- support the right announced in Roe v. Wade. Recent comments indicate a fixation on women's subjective decision-making: on one occasion, Obama declared he didn't think women should get abortions just because they are feeling "blue"; on another occasion he told Pastor Rick Warren that "women don't make the decision lightly." These sorts of comments, along with the embrace of parental notification provisions, imply that the central issue is women's judgment, not women's rights.
The platform's defense of Roe is not new -- the 2004 platform contains similar language. What is new is the effort to expand how we think about "choice" by coupling support for abortion rights with support for the decision to bear a child. The elements of this support are briefly listed -- pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and adoption programs. There's potential here, but the devil will be in the details.
The provision is clear and direct in announcing support for Roe v. Wade and opposing "any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." One problem here, though, is that Roe already has been weakened. Not only has the recent ruling on late term abortions significantly eroded the protections of Roe; the 1992 Casey decision dramatically undermined the framework for determining when and under what circumstances women may decide to terminate a pregnancy. So while the platform's unequivocal support for Roe should be applauded, we still need to ask whether the party actually will fight for a return for Roe and/or will fight to reverse the regulations enacted by many states to choke off the exercise of the pregnancy termination right.
Obama's recent efforts to temporize on the abortion issue do not suggest an intention to actively -- as well as "unequivocally" -- support the right announced in Roe v. Wade. Recent comments indicate a fixation on women's subjective decision-making: on one occasion, Obama declared he didn't think women should get abortions just because they are feeling "blue"; on another occasion he told Pastor Rick Warren that "women don't make the decision lightly." These sorts of comments, along with the embrace of parental notification provisions, imply that the central issue is women's judgment, not women's rights.
The platform's defense of Roe is not new -- the 2004 platform contains similar language. What is new is the effort to expand how we think about "choice" by coupling support for abortion rights with support for the decision to bear a child. The elements of this support are briefly listed -- pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and adoption programs. There's potential here, but the devil will be in the details.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM - Opportunity for Women
It's interesting that the Women's plank is titled "Opportunity for Women" -- not Equality for Women, Justice for Women, Economic Security for Women, or Rights for Women of All Races and Classes. "Opportunity for Women" is kind of a throwback construction of sex/gender inequality issues, a reminder of early second-wave agendas to let women into men's world.
There's nothing wrong with the plank's pledge to ensure "that our daughters ...have the same opportunities as our sons." (p.16) But is the right to aspire to men's jobs all the feminist struggle has been about?
The policy elements of "Opportunity for Women" emphasize the labor market -- eliminating the glass ceiling, combating pay discrimination, supporting women as entrepreneurs. The labor market policy pledges may contain one very important new direction: comparable worth. Unfortunately, the references to titles of legislation, rather than to content, make it a little difficult to be certain about intended meaning. The plank commits to enacting the Lily Ledbetter Act, which would counter a 2007 Supreme Court ruling by restoring the status quo ante regarding when the clock starts on employment discrimination claims. The plank also commits to modernizing the Equal Pay Act, but doesn't say how. Current legislative proposals call for improving available remedies under the Equal Pay Act -- is that what is meant? Finally, the plank declares "we will pass the Fair Pay Act" -- but again, I'm not sure what is meant here. The Lily Ledbetter Act is often referred to as the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- so is the Fair Pay provision redundant of the pledge to enact the Ledbetter Act? Or does it refer to a current legislative proposal, introduced by Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton -- a proposal that calls for a comparable worth strategy to achieve pay equity? If the latter, this is important. The Fair Pay bill would require employers to pay employees in female-dominated jobs at the same rate as employees in equivalent male-dominated jobs.
Missing from the labor market fairness agenda is support for the Equal Remedies Act, which would lift the caps on damages available in sex discrimination suits under Title VII. Making the full menu of economic remedies available to victims of employment discrimination based on sex has been urgently needed since 1991, when the Civil Rights Act enacted the caps on damages in the first place. Support for the Ledbetter Act without support for Equal Remedies leaves women as second class citizens in the labor market.
The "Opportunity for Women" plank refers to the platform's work and family agenda, as well as to it's anti-poverty commitment, which together round out a strategy for opportunity. But the prize here is getting the same deal in the labor market as men get.
The only mention of women's gendered experiences come in strong language against sexism and domestic violence. So the victimization of women will be fought as antithetical to opportunity.
But the unique work done mostly and willingly by women -- caregiving -- figures here only as an exception to labor market participation (see the Work & Family plank). Attention to caregiving in its own right defies the opportunity paradigm and requires rethinking our framework for justice.
Real change -- bold thinking -- would incorporate consideration for caregiving into an agenda for women through such mechanisms as a caregivers' allowance, portable child care benefits, and remedies for income inequalities (including in retirement) that derive from the disproporationate societal allocation of caregiving responsibilities to women.
Real change would also match the affirmation of rights for all women across all class-based, race-based, and sexuality-based experiences of inequality as labor market participants and as caregivers.
Only in two other spots in the platform are women's rights mentioned -- in the provision on "Choice" and in one titled "A More Perfect Union." More on these pledges in a separate post.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM - Poverty
Like the Work & Family plank, the poverty plank expresses promising commitments -- especially the goal of cutting poverty in half within ten years. Notably, the plank explicitly notices that the majority of adults in poverty are women and links fair pay and support for mothers to poverty's cure.
But beyond admittedly welcome platitudes, the plank is mostly bromide. Expand the EITC; raise and index the minimum wage; strengthen unions; increase affordable housing -- we've heard this before. These are important ingredients of an anti-poverty policy, but they are not enough.
Real change would include consideration of expanded income programs, especially for caregivers; reformed and expanded unemployment insurance to assure income to workers who must leave jobs, whose jobs are taken away, who are stuck in part-time employment, or who need to overcome barriers to employment such as domestic violence, substance abuse, or mental health issues; the addition of a caregiver credit to the social security benefits calculation; paid family leave; universal child care; universal, single payer health provision; transportation offsets for low-income workers who must commute long distances to jobs; economic assistance for education and training; an end to labor market discrimination; a living wage.
But beyond admittedly welcome platitudes, the plank is mostly bromide. Expand the EITC; raise and index the minimum wage; strengthen unions; increase affordable housing -- we've heard this before. These are important ingredients of an anti-poverty policy, but they are not enough.
Real change would include consideration of expanded income programs, especially for caregivers; reformed and expanded unemployment insurance to assure income to workers who must leave jobs, whose jobs are taken away, who are stuck in part-time employment, or who need to overcome barriers to employment such as domestic violence, substance abuse, or mental health issues; the addition of a caregiver credit to the social security benefits calculation; paid family leave; universal child care; universal, single payer health provision; transportation offsets for low-income workers who must commute long distances to jobs; economic assistance for education and training; an end to labor market discrimination; a living wage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)