Womenstake

Unemployment Among Single Mothers, Women of Color at Highest Level Since Recession Began

by Jasmine Tucker, Fellow,
National Women's Law Center

Stories about the July jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics generally noted that the unemployment rate stayed at 9.5 percent (slightly up for all women, slightly down for all men), 131,000 jobs were lost, and 14.6 million Americans, about the same number as in June, were unemployed. That news is grim enough—but when we went deeper into the data, we found even more alarming trends for women.

Unemployment for women who head families shot up to 13.4 percent in July from 12.1 percent in June. This marks the highest unemployment rate for this particularly vulnerable group since the recession began in December 2007 and the highest rate in over 25 years.

Unemployment among African-American women jumped from 11.8 percent in June to 12.9 percent in July. The situation was similar for Hispanic women, whose unemployment rate increased by 1.1 percentage points to 12.1 percent in July, marking this group's highest unemployment rate since 1986.

Billionaire Investment Managers Stick Poor Families with the Tab for Medicaid and Education Assistance

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

Last week, the Senate finally passed a measure extending enhanced Medicaid and education funding for states and localities. The aid is urgently needed to protect women's health, women's jobs, and services that women and their families depend upon. The House is coming back from recess to vote on the measure tomorrow.

But this critical assistance comes at a painful and unnecessary price. While part of the $26 billion increase in aid to states and localities is funded by closing international tax loopholes (raising $9.6 billion in revenues), the main way the bill is paid for is by cutting $11.9 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly Food Stamps) for low-income families. These cuts mean that in 2014, SNAP benefits will drop by about $59 a month for a family of four.

This isn't happening because everyone is being asked to sacrifice to get through tough times. It's because billionaire investment fund managers successfully persuaded a minority of Senators to block any attempt to make them pay taxes on their earnings at the same rate as ordinary mortals. 

Good News for Early Childhood from Our Smallest State

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

While a number of states have seen their waiting lists for child care assistance skyrocket, one small state has recognized that it is critical to maintain its investments helping families work and children succeed. Rhode Island passed its FY 2011 budget in June, demonstrating its continued commitment to children and families. The state, which actually guarantees child care assistance to all families earning up to 180 percent of the federal poverty level (an income of $32,958 for a family of three), will continue this guarantee in its FY 2011 budget. In addition, the legislature rejected a gubernatorial proposal for a 5 percent reduction ($1.1 million) in the rate it pays to child care providers serving low-income children. This will mean a lot to the low-income women in the state's child care workforce and we hope will allow these providers to maintain the quality of care they offer to children.

Pre-kindergarten programs will also benefit from the new FY 2011 budget. The state will continue to offer $800,000 to supplement the federal Head Start program. These funds will allow 129 low-income three- and four-year olds to receive Head Start comprehensive services. Meanwhile, Rhode Island's new budget will also provide some funding for free, voluntary high-quality prekindergarten programs that will be phased in over 10 years beginning in FY 2012. The state's pre-kindergarten programs will be offered in a range of settings, including child care, Head Start, and public schools. Until recently, Rhode Island was one of only twelve states that did not have a state pre-kindergarten program.

These budget decisions are good news for Rhode Island's children. Children and families would benefit if other states followed suit.

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.

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.

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. 

What Women (Business Owners) Want

by Rebecca Kahane, Intern,
National Women's Law Center

Helping small businesses is all the rage these days—and real help for real small businesses would be good news for women—and the economy. Between 1997 and 2002, the number of women-owned firms in the U.S. grew at nearly twice the rate of all U.S. firms (this is the latest data that’s available from the Census Bureau, but new data is scheduled to be released soon). Women-owned small businesses are expected to contribute significantly to future job growth. A recent study predicted that while women-owned businesses account for 16 percent of total employment today, they will be responsible for creating one-third of the 15.3 million new jobs anticipated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics by 2018.

But talking about helping small businesses is different from implementing policies that actually help small businesses. Too many policies justified on the grounds of helping small businesses do little or nothing to actually help them. As the daughter of small business owners, I find it exceedingly frustrating when policies that favor rich people and big business are justified using false claims of their effects on small business owners.

Anything to Avoid Raising Taxes on the Wealthy: Cut Social Security Benefits to Pay for the War?!

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

In recent weeks, responsible proposals to close tax loopholes for wealthy investment fund managers, business owners who disguise their earnings to avoid payroll taxes, and corporations that shift jobs and profits offshore have been scaled back — and successfully filibustered, killing those proposals along with urgently needed help for families and states. This week, opposition to a modest tax on large financial institutions threatened to bring down financial regulatory reform, and the proposal was quickly dropped.

Where do policy makers who are unwilling to raise taxes on billionaire hedge fund managers, financial institutions making huge profits thanks to taxpayer bailouts, and multinational corporations dodging U.S. taxes think they’ll get the revenue they need?

House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) has an idea. In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Rep. Boehner suggested paying for the war in Afghanistan by cutting Social Security benefits. Specifically, he suggested increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation, and limiting payments to those who need them. 

Aim Higher to Close Tax Loopholes and Create Jobs

by Reggie Oldak, Senior Counsel,
National Women's Law Center

We told you before Memorial Day that Congress was taking aim at a major tax loophole that allows extremely wealthy investment managers to pay lower taxes than teachers, nurses, and other hard-working Americans. They’ve lowered their sights, but we’re still working for a strong bill that will meet the urgent needs of unemployed women and men, and shrink tax preferences for the very rich and corporations.

The House voted in December 2009 to eliminate the "carried interest" loophole, taxing investment fund managers on their compensation at the same ordinary income tax rates that everyone else pays—up to 35 percent instead of the 15 percent rate for capital gains. A compromise provision in the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 (H.R. 4213) passed by the House on May 28 would partially close the loophole: ordinary income tax rates would apply to 75 percent of earnings, and 25 percent would still be taxed at the lower capital gains rate. While there’s no tax policy reason to prefer one group of earners over another, especially in a bill so ambitiously titled, this compromise also had been endorsed by Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-MT).  After three occasions on which the House had passed a bill closing the loophole, only to see it die in the Senate, the prospect of getting three-quarters of a loaf out of the Senate made us giddy.

Why Federal Assistance to States for Medicaid Is Important for Women

by Jessica Agarwal, Legal Intern,
National Women's Law Center

In the next week, the Senate will vote on a bill that extends for six months increased federal funds for Medicaid known as FMAP—the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage—which is basically the funding that states get for the federal share of Medicaid. The bill also includes other crucial provisions, such as a continuation of unemployment insurance. The House failed to include the FMAP extension in an important vote two weeks ago. FMAP is now hanging in the balance—if it is not extended, states facing budget shortfalls will be forced to further cut Medicaid and/or lay off thousands of workers, harming many women and families.

Falling state revenue has already led many states to reduce funding to Medicaid, education, welfare programs, and programs for the elderly and disabled and to layoff state government workers. Cuts to Medicaid and state jobs affect women and families the most. Nearly 75 percent of current adult Medicaid beneficiaries are women. Women are more likely than men to qualify for Medicaid because they are poorer, on average, and are more likely to rely on Medicaid coverage because their employers fail to provide health insurance. Women also hold the majority of jobs in the state public sector.