Womenstake

The Other Deficit

by Julie Vogtman, Counsel,
National Women's Law Center

In Congress, some Members justify their opposition to extending unemployment benefits and other steps to aid families and states in crisis on the grounds that such spending will burden our children with a greater deficit. But failure to make these investments will effectively increase an already severe deficit in human potential that is sure to have lasting repercussions. We need to do more, not less, to end the cruel—and costly—cycle of poverty.

The Urban Institute just released a new report on "Child Poverty Persistence: Facts and Consequences." Its conclusions are sobering:

• 37 percent of children live in poverty at some point prior to adulthood. 
• Black children are far more likely than white children to experience poverty; while 70 percent of white children are never poor, only 23 percent of black children escape poverty altogether. 37 percent of black children are persistently poor (i.e., poor for 9 to 18 years), compared with only 5 percent of white children.
• 13 percent of all children, 8 percent of white children, and 40 percent of black children are born into poverty. 31 percent of white children and 69 percent of black children who are born poor go on to spend at least half their childhoods living in poverty, and 21 percent of children born into poverty spend at least half their early adult years (ages 25 to 30) living in poverty.
• Children born poor are three times more likely to fail to complete high school than those not poor at birth. 
• 36 percent of black men who are poor at birth are consistently employed as early adults—33 percentage points lower than the corresponding figure for black men not born into poverty (69 percent). Only 34 percent of all men who were persistently poor as children are consistently employed as young adults. Women who were poor for at least half their childhoods are only about half as likely to attain consistent employment as their counterparts who never experienced poverty as children.
•  32 percent of persistently poor children go on to spend their early adult years living in poverty.  Only 1 percent of children who are never poor experience poverty in early adulthood.

These findings make clear that the cost of failing to address poverty is exorbitantly high. Indeed, a 2007 study estimates that the cumulative costs to the U.S. economy of childhood poverty—from lost productivity and earnings, as well as the costs associated with higher crime and poorer health in later years—are about $500 billion per year (approximately 4 percent of GDP). 

A Boost for Children and Families

by Helen Blank, Director, Leadership and Public Policy, 
National Women's Law Center 

On July 15, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education recognized the importance of high-quality early care and education for children when it approved an increase of $700 million in funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and an $866 million increase for Head Start for FY 2011. This funding maintains a large portion of the child care and Head Start increases included in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

This is good news for children and families who rely on child care and Head Start in their daily lives. If enacted, these funds will help to ensure that thousands of low-income families continue to get help affording the child care they need to ensure that their children are safe and well cared for while their parents work. New Head Start and Early Head Start classrooms will remain open. Investments to improve the quality of child care will also continue.

Congressman David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has included child care and Head Start among the key investments to which he has pledged to give top priority for funding as the process moves forward. While these appropriations still need to be voted on by the full committee and the House, and the Senate must pass its own appropriations measure, the House has taken an important first step.

Take 2: Deficits Are No Problem If the Issue Is Tax Cuts for Heirs of Multimillionaires

by Katherine Gallagher Robbins, Senior Policy Analyst, 
National Women's Law Center

While the heirs of billionaires like George Steinbrenner are lucking out in 2010, struggling Americans cannot catch a break. Up to 2.5 million workers may lose unemployment benefits by the end of this week.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) cited the deficit as a key reason for not extending these benefits saying, "The only reason the unemployment extension hasn't passed is because our friends on the other side have refused to pass a bill that doesn't add to the debt."

So, when Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) (who voted to block the extension of UI benefits and is supporting other costly tax cuts for millionaires) and Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) announced that they would try to get Congress to act this month on a measure reducing the estate tax next year for the heirs of the very rich, we wondered what the effect on the deficit would be.

Because Congress allowed the estate tax to expire at the beginning of the year, the heirs of the very wealthy get an additional windfall in the form of $14.8 billion in tax savings that would otherwise have gone to the U.S. Treasury. (The estate tax returns to its pre-Bush tax cut level on January 1, 2011.) In comparing how extending unemployment benefits and prominent estate tax proposals would affect the deficit over the next decade, Ezra Klein shows that extending unemployment benefits would be a drop in the deficit bucket while various proposals regarding the estate tax would set America back by hundreds of billions of dollars.

This graph is from Ezra Klein's Blog in the Washington Post. To read the full article, click here.

It’s Not Your Great-Grandmother's Social Security

by Joan Entmacher, Vice President for Family Economic Security,
National Women's Law Center

Social Security turns 75 next month, and we're getting ready to celebrate the anniversary of this enduring, successful, and vitally important program. But we also celebrate the changes that have made the program even better for women since President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it into law on August 14, 1935.

A few highlights in the history of Social Security, from a women’s perspective:

• 1939:  Social Security becomes a family insurance program, not just a worker retirement program. Spouses and children gain protection against the loss of income when a worker retires or dies.
• 1950:  Coverage was expanded to domestic and farm workers, and benefits were significantly increased.
• 1956:  Disability insurance was added.
• 1965:  Divorced spouses become eligible for benefits if married for 20 years.
• 1972:  Automatic cost of living adjustments were enacted, protecting benefits from being eroded by inflation over women's longer lifespans. The widow's benefit was increased to 100 percent of the worker's benefit, if both spouses claimed at their full retirement age.
• 1977:  Marriage duration requirement reduced to 10 years.  Supreme Court ruled that requiring widowers but not widows to show dependency was unconstitutional.

For those of you who are thinking, that's interesting, but will Social Security be there for me and my grandchildren? The answer is yes. Social Security can pay 100 percent of promised benefits until 2037, and 76 percent of benefits after that, even with no changes, from the payroll taxes it receives. Currently, it has over $2.5 trillion in reserves in interest-bearing U.S. Treasury bonds, entitled to the full faith and credit of the United States. There is a long-term shortfall in Social Security's finances, but it's manageable — indeed, it’s about the same cost as extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans. 

We're working to protect and strengthen Social Security. We hope you'll join us in that campaign—and in celebrating Social Security!

If the Issue Is More Tax Cuts for Millionaires, Deficits Are No Problem

by Katherine Gallagher Robbins, Senior Policy Analyst, 
National Women's Law Center

Many families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, and some members of Congress are blocking assistance, citing concerns about the deficit. Yet Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) called again this week for giving the biggest tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans. While the White House wants to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire on schedule, Senator Kyl and Senator Gregg have gone on record stating that they support extending these tax breaks to even the richest Americans. According to projections from the Tax Policy Center extending these tax cuts (as well as the AMT patch) for the wealthiest Americans next year would mean that millionaires would get back a whopping $128,832, while families making between $40,000 and $50,000 each year would get an average of $836 back in their pockets.

The true cost of extending these tax cuts for America’s richest elite are clear in contrast to how this money could help the Americans who have been hit the hardest by the recession. Average unemployment insurance benefits are $310 per week, so six months of unemployment benefits would total $8,060. For the average increase each millionaire would see in his tax return, 15 people could have unemployment benefits for half a year. At a time when these same Senators supported filibusters that blocked an extension of unemployment benefits to millions of out-of-work Americans, it is hard to stomach the idea of giving the biggest tax breaks to those who need them the least.

Temporary Child Care Relief Not Enough for Erie County Families

by Stephanie Robinson, Intern,
National Women's Law Center

On July 2, Erie County, New York officials announced that they will once again begin accepting applications for child care subsidies after a three-month freeze, thanks to a one-time infusion of federal economic recovery funding. The county will continue to accept applications until the funds run out. However, this is only a temporary fix. Without additional federal funding, the county will struggle to maintain child care assistance for families. 

In an effort to reduce the program's deficit, the Erie County Department of Social Services had tightened eligibility requirements for the program from 200 percent of the federal poverty level (an income of $36,620 for a family of three) to 125 percent of poverty ($22,888 for a family of three) as of January 2010 and, in April, stopped accepting new applications altogether. From April to July, Erie County's Department of Social Services turned away 100 families per month looking for child care assistance and cut 700 families from the program. 

Mothers Shouldn’t Have to Do It Alone

by Meredith Johnson, Intern,
National Women's Law Center

Last month, President Obama emphasized his support for a new "Fatherhood, Marriage and Families Innovation Fund" to promote responsible fatherhood initiatives nationwide. 

"When we talk about issues like child care and work-family balance," the President said, "we call them 'women's issues' and 'mothers' issues' ... But [mothers] shouldn't have to do it alone. The work of raising our children is the most important job in this country, and it's all of our responsibilities—mothers and fathers."

President Obama is right. And both mothers and fathers need help to ensure that their children have a chance at a better life. Unemployment is especially high among single mothers, and states are cutting critical services, yet Congress has yet to extend emergency assistance to struggling families and states. 

NWLC Joins Campaign to Strengthen Social Security

by Joan Entmacher, Vice President for Family Economic Security,
National Women's Law Center

The National Women's Law Center is proud to announce participation in the Strengthen Social Security Campaign. The Campaign, composed of dozens of allied organizations from across the human-needs spectrum, aims to reframe the public discourse around Social Security and protect this vital program from cuts in the name of deficit reduction.

As we’ve written before, Social Security hasn’t added a penny to the deficit. (In fact, Social Security has built up surpluses of trillions of dollars which are invested in interest-bearing U.S. Treasury bonds.) Bringing federal deficits under control requires responsible, progressive tax policy and responsible spending, not cuts to a program vital to the economic security of tens of millions of Americans—especially women.

Workers pay dedicated taxes into Social Security to ensure protection for themselves and their families when income is lost due to retirement, disability, or death.  They’ve earned these benefits—and they’re counting on them. When the time comes, we hope you’ll join with us in asking policy makers to protect and strengthen Social Security.

Let Them Eat Cake

by Joan Entmacher, Vice President for Family Economic Security,
National Women's Law Center

They don’t get it—or don't care.

Nearly 15 million Americans are unemployed, and nearly 7 million Americans have been out of work for over 6 months.

Yet, once again, a minority of Senators blocked help for millions of struggling families. Hold your Senators accountable for their actions by making a phone call today. 

Providing unemployment benefits and other assistance to families and helping states and localities protect jobs and services aren’t just compassionate. They are the best ways to help a fragile economy.

While your Senators are home, they need to hear from you. We can't let another week go by without giving families the support they need.

Tell your Senators that we need legislation that extends unemployment insurance benefits and emergency assistance for families in crisis. And it needs to include additional Medicaid funding for states, or else we'll face further cuts to health care, education, emergency assistance and other vital services for children and families. That's right, inaction means more pink slips.

We need your help. Contact your home offices and demand real help for families, states, and the economy.

Thank you for continuing to fight for women and families.

Hill Briefing Underscores Need for Action on the Local Jobs for America Act

by Julie Vogtman, Counsel,
National Women's Law Center

The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) recently co-sponsored a congressional briefing on "The Recession's Deepening Toll on Women." After Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners (LRP) presented results from a new poll showing most Americans believe the government should do more to promote economic recovery, Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Gwen Moore (D-WI) and Linda Sánchez (D-CA) shared their views on how the recession is affecting women—and how the Local Jobs for America Act can help. 

Some highlights from the briefing:

• According to a nationwide survey conducted by LRP, most Americans still feel very negatively about the state of the economy, with two thirds reporting that the downturn has affected their families. Despite talk of recovery, the majority of Americans—and especially low-income women and single moms—do not think their own economic situation is improving. 
• Although media reports have often focused on the higher rates of unemployment among men, Gail Cohen, Chief Economist for the Joint Economic Committee, presented data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicating that women’s job loss as a share of total job loss is extraordinary in this recession—30.3 percent of total job loss, compared with 14.4 percent in the 2001 recession and only 1.8 percent in the 1990s recession. Data also show that unemployment has spiked for single mothers, especially among minorities, at a current rate of 17.7 percent for African-American moms and 13.8 percent for Latinas. And married women have become the sole wage earner in many households as their husbands have lost their jobs; since the recession began, the percentage of married couples in which the husband is unemployed and the wife is working has more than doubled.