Bush Didn't Misspeak: The GOP Wants to Dismantle Reproductive Health Programs

Aug 5, 2015Andrea Flynn

Last night Jeb Bush made a slip of the tongue that let us know just where he stands on reproductive health. “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues,” he said at an event in Nashville. In a way, he’s right: We actually need much more than half a billion dollars to fully meet the need for publicly funded reproductive health services.

Last night Jeb Bush made a slip of the tongue that let us know just where he stands on reproductive health. “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues,” he said at an event in Nashville. In a way, he’s right: We actually need much more than half a billion dollars to fully meet the need for publicly funded reproductive health services. Bush has since backtracked on his comment, which came on the heels of Senate Republicans’ failed attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, but we should not be fooled. His remarks and the recent furor that led to said defunding attempt are a clear illustration of the resentment GOP lawmakers and candidates have for our nation’s reproductive health programs, and reflect their resolve to diminish them.

It’s important to consider Bush’s remarks and the attacks on Planned Parenthood in the political context of the past four years. As Elizabeth Warren indicated in her impassioned speech before the Senate this week, over the past five years Republican state lawmakers have passed nearly 300 new restrictions on reproductive health access. In the first quarter of 2015, lawmakers in 43 states introduced a total of 332 provisions to restrict abortion access, which is increasingly out of reach for women throughout the country. Republicans have voted more than 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which has dramatically improved women’s health coverage and access. In the fall of 2013, the party orchestrated a costly government shutdown motivated by their opposition to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate. And in June, House Republicans proposed eliminating funding for Title X, the federal family planning program.

When conservatives talk about “women’s health” funding, they aren’t talking about funding for abortion. Federal law already prohibits public dollars from being spent on abortion or abortion-related care. They’re talking about funding for family planning and other reproductive health services (pregnancy counseling, cancer screenings, STD treatment, etc.), which mainly comes through Medicaid and Title X, two programs that are consistently in conservative crosshairs.

There are no two ways about it: Funding for public reproductive health programs is far below where it should be. Today funding for Title X is 70 percent lower than it was in 1980 (accounting for inflation). If funding for this program had kept up with inflation over the last 35 years, the current funding level would be $941.5 million. In 2015, Congress appropriated $286.5 million for Title X (down from $317 million in 2010).

Congress approved these funding decreases (and Republican senators have proposed even further cuts while their House colleagues have proposed complete elimination of Title X) despite a growing need for services. The Guttmacher Institute reports that between 2000 and 2010, the number of women who needed publicly funded contraceptive services and supplies grew by 17 percent and by 2013 had grown by an additional 5 percent (an additional 918,000 women). Guttmacher attributes this to an increase in the proportion of adult women who are poor or low-income; the current U.S. public family planning program is only able to serve approximately 42 percent of those in need. Turns out “half a billion” isn’t quite enough.

"Title X-funded health centers provide essential preventive care to millions of women and men across the country and are often the only source of health care they receive all year," said Clare Coleman, President and CEO of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association. "The network of publicly funded family planning providers has long been underfunded despite a growing need for these vital services."

Title X-funded clinics—of which some, but not all, are Planned Parenthood providers—are the backbone of the nation’s reproductive health care system, ensuring that low-income individuals, young people, immigrants, and women of color are able to access affordable, quality reproductive health services. Every year, nearly 5 million individuals rely on these providers for birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, pregnancy testing, and a range of other preventive services. In 2012, Title X clinics helped women avert 1.1 million unintended pregnancies that would have otherwise resulted in 527,000 unplanned births and 363,000 abortions. In addition to the extraordinary health benefits, Title X is smart economics. It’s estimated that every dollar invested in family planning yields a taxpayer savings of $7.09, and that Title X-funded clinics save more than $5 billion annually in pubic spending.  

Conservative lawmakers have spent much more time in recent years finding ways to restrict access basic health care than they have solving the actual problems that plague women and families like pay inequity, low wages, weak worker protections, and a lack of work–family benefits. If recent events are any indication, they’re not going to veer from that course now. Jeb Bush’s recent remarks, the hoopla over Planned Parenthood, and the relentless assault on reproductive health and rights is a clear reminder of where issues central to women and families fall on the priority list of conservative lawmakers: dead last.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter at @dreaflynn.

Share This

Hillary Clinton's Economic Agenda is Good for Women, But Should Be Even Bolder

Jul 16, 2015Andrea Flynn

Hillary Clinton gave her first major economic policy address earlier this week and outlined her goals for lifting wages for the middle class, expanding social services, and addressing growing economic inequality. She said that an important ingredient to strong economic growth is women’s workforce participation, and promised to knock down many of the barriers that hold women—and our economy—back.

Hillary Clinton gave her first major economic policy address earlier this week and outlined her goals for lifting wages for the middle class, expanding social services, and addressing growing economic inequality. She said that an important ingredient to strong economic growth is women’s workforce participation, and promised to knock down many of the barriers that hold women—and our economy—back. But she failed to mention one issue that is critical to the economic wellbeing of women and their families: access to reproductive health care. 

It was encouraging to hear Clinton acknowledge the important role that women play in the U.S. economy. After all, women’s entrance into the workforce in the 1970s and 1980s is credited with driving a fifth of GDP growth. But over the past 15 years, their participation in the labor market has declined from 60 to 57 percent, not a major decline but certainly a trend in the wrong direction. The U.S. now ranks 19th out of 24 advanced countries on this measure. America’s dismal status can be blamed in large part on the lack of generous and sensible work and family polices we see in other OECD countries. These include paid sick leave, paid family leave, and affordable child care. Another factor is the stubborn wage gap that disadvantages women—and particularly women of color—throughout their working lives and beyond. Clinton indicated that addressing these inequities is a primary focus of her economic agenda. Doing so would significantly improve the lives millions of women and their families. 

But we must do all that and more. Without access to comprehensive, quality, and affordable health care, including the full spectrum of reproductive health care—maternal health care, family planning, and abortion care—women and their families will not be able to take full advantage of the economic opportunities available to them.

I’m not worried that Hillary isn’t going to be a strong supporter of reproductive rights. In her Roosevelt Island campaign launch, she called out Republicans who “shame and blame women, rather than respect our right to make our own reproductive health decisions.” Her campaign sharply criticized House Republicans for passing a 20-week abortion ban earlier this year, saying, "Politicians should not interfere with personal medical decisions, which should be left to a woman, her family and her faith, in consultation with her doctor or health care provider." Historically, she has been an advocate for reproductive rights in both domestic and international policy.

But it would be powerful if she could also articulate reproductive health as a critical component of economic security, as we at the Roosevelt Institute did in our recent blueprint for reversing economic inequality. Voters understand reproductive health as an economic issue. New polling from Virginia shows that 64 percent of voters there believe that a woman’s financial stability is dependent on her ability to control whether and when she has children, and 68 percent believe laws that make it harder to access abortion can have a negative impact on woman’s financial security. Polling conducted in New York and Pennsylvania showed similar results.

This isn’t just a matter of opinion; the evidence illustrates that reproductive health access has economic benefits for families. Studies have shown links between family planning access and greater educational and professional opportunities for women, as well as increased earnings over women’s lifetimes. Women report that using birth control has allowed them to better take care of themselves and their families, to stay in school, to support themselves financially, and to get or keep a job and pursue a career. And when women don’t have access to reproductive health care, they are economically disadvantaged. Take the results of the recent Turnaway Study, which has shown that women who seek but are denied an abortion are three times as likely as those who access the procedure to end up below the federal poverty line two years later.

In light of these findings, a progressive economic agenda will be incomplete if it does not include access to comprehensive reproductive health care. Lack of access to those services has significant health and economic costs. Women of color, immigrant women, and poor women all experience higher rates of chronic disease, unintended pregnancy, and lower life expectancy than women with higher incomes. U.S. women of color are 3–4 times more likely than white women to die of pregnancy-related causes, and infants born to those women are 2.4 times more likely than those born to white women to die in their first year of life. In some regions of the United States, the maternal mortality rate among Black women is comparable to that in some Sub-Saharan African countries. These disparities impact women’s quality of life. They inhibit these women’s ability to care for themselves and their families, to play an active role in their communities, and to participate in the workforce and achieve economic security. There is no more important time than now to advocate for a broader progressive agenda. Attacks on reproductive health access are at an all-time high and access to basic health services is being rolled back at a rapid rate.

The right and ability to make decisions about our bodies is a fundamental building block of our social and economic wellbeing. We can’t expect people to separate the physical, social, and economic demands and stresses they experience. Are women supposed to worry about their need for an abortion without worrying about the job they might lose if they take a day off to get one? Do they stress over needing to put food on the table for their kids without also worrying about how they will pay for birth control, student loans, and rent? No. For the vast majority of people in this country, life is messy and complicated and overwhelming, and everyday families have no choice but to juggle each of these issues simultaneously.

Progressives know that. Now is the time for them to put forth an economic agenda that will address all aspects of our economic wellbeing—not just those that have historically been politically palatable. 

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter at @dreaflynn.

Share This

Once Again, the ACA Survived SCOTUS -- But the Fight Isn't Over Yet

Jun 25, 2015Andrea Flynn

Today the Supreme Court decided in favor of the government and the more than 6 million individuals who now have health coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies. The 6–3 King v. Burwell decision—which determined that individuals in all states, not just those that established their own health exchanges, could be eligible for federal subsidies—is a win for President Obama, for the law more broadly, and for the health and economic security of millions of women and their families.

Today the Supreme Court decided in favor of the government and the more than 6 million individuals who now have health coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies. The 6–3 King v. Burwell decision—which determined that individuals in all states, not just those that established their own health exchanges, could be eligible for federal subsidies—is a win for President Obama, for the law more broadly, and for the health and economic security of millions of women and their families. As I described in my recent policy note, the ACA has expanded women’s access to care, improved the quality of their coverage, and in the process increased women’s economic security. Today’s decision ensures that—for the time being—the law will continue to do all of those things and more.

The ACA expanded coverage to 16.5 million people and elevated the floor of coverage for women. Since 2010, 8.7 million women have gained maternity coverage; 48.5 million women with private insurance can access preventive services with no cost-sharing; and as many as 65 million women are no longer charged higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions. In 2013, the number of women who filled their birth control prescriptions without co-pays grew from 1.3 million to 5.1 million, and the share of women who had access to birth control with no out-of-pocket costs grew from 14 percent to 56 percent. This has been a significant improvement over the pre-ACA system in which women had to pay out of pocket for preventive services like pap smears and breast exams, were routinely charged more than men, and many couldn’t afford maternity coverage during pregnancy.

Over the past five years the ACA has begun to ease the financial burdens of health coverage and care for women, who are more likely than men to live in poverty. Today more than two-thirds of low-wage workers are women—half of them women of color—and many work long hours with no health benefits. Wage inequality causes Black and Latina women to lose approximately $19,000 and $23,279 a year, respectively. A loss of subsidies would have been especially harmful to women of color, who represent nearly half of all uninsured women eligible for tax credits in states using the federal exchange. Those subsidies are the only path to insurance for 1.1 million Black women, approximately 2 million Latinas, nearly a quarter-million Asian women, and more than 100,000 Native American women. Many of those women live in one of three states: Florida, Georgia, or Texas.

When women have good coverage and access to care, they are better able to make decisions about the timing and size of their families. They are able to prevent illnesses that cause them to miss work force them to lose a paycheck, and threaten their employment. They have healthier babies and children. Fewer out-of-pocket medical costs free up more money for food, childcare, education, housing, transportation, and savings. Health coverage won’t singlehandedly solve the serious challenges facing low-income women and families. Indeed, our country’s soaring inequality and persistent injustices demand sweeping social and economic reforms. But without the very basic ability to care for their bodies, visit a doctor, plan the timing and size of their families, and make independent reproductive health decisions, women will never be able to take full advantage of other economic opportunities.

Today’s decision is especially important for women considering conservative lawmakers’ relentless attempts to roll back access to reproductive health care. Consider that just yesterday House Republicans voted to completely eliminate Title X (the federal family planning program), to expand religious exemptions allowing employers and insurers to opt out of covering anything they find morally or religiously objectionable, to implement new abortion restrictions with no exception for the life or health of pregnant women, and to renew the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits Medicaid coverage of abortion.

So the ACA is safe for now, and the Supreme Court’s ruling will allow the law to become even more ingrained in our social and political fabric. However, we can be sure the vitriolic political opposition is not over. The GOP presidential hopefuls didn’t waste any time letting their constituents know today’s decision wouldn’t stop their attempts to undermine the law. And conservative lawmakers on the Hill will continue to push budget proposals that would unravel the law’s most important components and reduce funding for social programs critical to the wellbeing of low-income families. We should celebrate the King v. Burwell decision, but we must not stop making the case that for women and families, comprehensive, affordable health coverage—and by extension, care—is as much a matter of health as it is economic security.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter at @dreaflynn.

Share This

Hillary Clinton's Rooseveltian Challenge: Carrying Forward the Four Freedoms

Jun 19, 2015Anna Eleanor Roosevelt

It’s important that Hillary Clinton chose a place that honors my grandfather to officially launch her campaign and unveil her vision for our nation. In doing so, she sought to claim the Rooseveltian style of leadership and to position herself as the person who will carry forward the Roosevelt legacy of action, insight and advancement.

Now that the crowds have gone home, can she live up to the challenge she is setting for herself?

It’s important that Hillary Clinton chose a place that honors my grandfather to officially launch her campaign and unveil her vision for our nation. In doing so, she sought to claim the Rooseveltian style of leadership and to position herself as the person who will carry forward the Roosevelt legacy of action, insight and advancement.

Now that the crowds have gone home, can she live up to the challenge she is setting for herself?

My grandparents shaped our nation and the world in ways that were deeper and further reaching than almost any other figures of the 20th century. Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt took America from the brink of total economic collapse and laid the groundwork for the greatest stretch of prosperity we’ve ever experienced.

They fought for democracy and against horrific regimes the likes of which the world may never have recovered from and used that moment to form a strong global alliance that is still in place today. They did all of this through the New Deal—by rewriting the rules of our capitalist system so that it works for everybody, and by building the postwar international system linking our economic and security interests as one global family.

They put rules in place to make capitalism work for the many as opposed to a few at the top—including rules for our financial system to protect consumers and control risk. The New Deal invested in America’s future through roads, bridges, modern electric systems, schools, and other essentials of a modern society. The Roosevelt administration expanded protections and rights for workers and families and gave them a seat at the bargaining table and ensured their security after retirement. They created a path to the middle class for millions of Americans.

But the Roosevelt record and so many of the strides we made through the New Deal have been undermined over the past 35 years as so many of those rules, investments, and protections have been rolled back. As a result, the American middle class lifestyle is almost as far out of reach today for most Americans as it was when my grandfather took office, and the future looks dim.

My grandparents took office four years after the Great Depression hit; our next president will be sworn in less than a decade after the Great Recession hit. The gap between those at the top and the rest of us is at a point last seen before the New Deal. Workers and America’s families face an entrenched wealthy class seeking to control who benefits from our economy and our political process. And there is growing unrest in the world as radical militants seek to undermine and destroy the very concept of democracy by taking advantage of our dysfunction.

Just as they were 83 years ago, the American people are desperately hungry for action and leadership to fix the imbalances in our economy and society.

A recent CBS/New York Times poll showed that the majority of Americans—rich and poor, men and women, Republicans and Democrats—agree that income, opportunity, and influence are unfairly concentrated at the top and that these disparities are growing. Further, Americans support government action to address this inequality and rewrite the rules of our economy.

For all my grandparents accomplished, so much of their work is still left unfinished. The beautiful park from which Secretary Clinton spoke celebrates the fundamental Four Freedoms my grandfather laid out in his 1941 speech as essential to democracy and to all of humanity: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. Yet for many in our own nation and across the world, those essential freedoms have yet to be fully realized. Another unfinished act proposed by my grandfather was a second bill of rights guaranteeing every American access to the central pillars of economic security—employment and a living wage, decent housing and medical care, public education, adequate food and clothing, and healthy leisure. The work of ensuring that the good ideas of the New Deal are equally available to women and to communities of color also remains incomplete.

Now is truly the time to hand the baton to the next great leader committed to completing this work.

If Hillary Clinton wants to follow in the footsteps of Franklin and Eleanor, then she must not just reflect on their legacy but carry forward their energetic leadership and relentless pursuit of bold solutions.

Clinton must summon the courage to once again fundamentally rewrite the rules of our economy, restore balance, challenge entrenched power, and seek a New Deal for the 21st century.

The American people will follow that kind of leadership.

Anna Eleanor Roosevelt is Chair of the Roosevelt Institute's Board and President and CEO of Goodwill NNE.

Share This

The Economic Narrative in Hillary Clinton’s Launch Speech

Jun 16, 2015Richard Kirsch

In her campaign launch speech on Roosevelt Island, Hillary Clinton talked about her fight for an “economy that works for everyday Americans, not just those at the top.” That rallying cry is becoming the core economic message of more and more Democrats.

In her campaign launch speech on Roosevelt Island, Hillary Clinton talked about her fight for an “economy that works for everyday Americans, not just those at the top.” That rallying cry is becoming the core economic message of more and more Democrats. In their announcement speeches, Bernie Sanders called for “an economy that works for all and not just the one percent,” and Martin O’Malley for “an American economy that works again for all of us.”

That may seem just rhetoric, but it’s an important advance. The story of an economy, government, and democracy that work for all of us, not just the wealthy, has proven to have tremendous narrative power. Seeing the Democratic candidates embrace it is a major advance, particularly since a huge communications weakness of Democrats—unlike Republicans—is that they each think they need to say different things.

But stories need more than a quest; they need to be able to explain who the villains are and what they did wrong, who the heroes are and how they realize the quest. What is the rest of the story in Clinton’s address, and how much of it does she get right?

Near the top of her speech, Clinton contrasts an economy that works for all with trickle-down theory: “Instead of an economy built by every Americans, for every Americans, we were told that if we let those at the top pay lower taxes and bend the rules, their success would trickle down to everyone else.”

Who were the ones telling us that—the villains of the story, who were pushing trickle-down? Unfortunately, for a speech that mostly is progressive, Clinton begins by bolstering austerity economics. Her first villains are Republicans, whom she blames for squandering “surpluses that could have eventually paid off our national debt,” noting that “Republicans twice cut taxes for the wealthiest, borrowed from other countries to pay for two wars, and family incomes dropped.”

This is bad economics in a very confused narrative. Tax cuts on the rich and government borrowing are not the causes of stagnant wages. And by putting balanced budgets on a pedestal, Clinton undercuts the centrality of government spending to pulling the economy out of a recession, creating jobs, and investing in the policies she calls for later in her speech. Instead, her story supports austerity policies. Yes, it’s true that tax cuts on the rich rob the government of money to invest in job creation and exacerbate income inequality. But that view is buried under the “balance the budget” frame.

Later in her speech, Clinton blames Republicans who “trip over themselves promising lower taxes for the wealthy and fewer rules for the biggest corporations“ and “pledge to wipe out tough rules on Wall Street, rather than rein in the banks that are still too risky, courting future failures.”

Clinton is looking to tap into popular resentment against the forces behind those Republican actions without assigning those forces responsibility. Another example: “You see corporations making record profits, with CEOs making record pay, but your paychecks have barely budged.” The passive language in that last clause hides what’s really going on: corporations reward CEOs while pushing down wages.

On the other hand, the one time Clinton actually puts the blame squarely on the economic villains is at a key moment in her story. Here, repeating a key theme of the Roosevelt Institute’s “Rewriting the Rules” report, she says that rather than solely blaming “advances in technology and the rise of global trade” on “displaced jobs and undercut wages,” she points her finger at Wall Street. “The financial industry and many multi-national corporations have created huge wealth for a few by focusing too much on short-term profit and too little on long-term value…too much on complex trading schemes and stock buybacks, too little on investments in new businesses, jobs, and fair compensation.”

So if “top-down economics” doesn’t work, what does? Clinton declares, “I’m running to make our economy work for you and for every American.” But while she provides a long list of policies to do that, all of which would be positive, she doesn’t explain an organizing idea that contrasts with trickle-down. Democrats need that, because without it, they don’t have an understandable narrative to compete with the Republican story about businesses being the job creators and government regulations—even those that people like—hurting business and the economy.

Fortunately, we have that organizing idea, which O’Malley supplies in one simple phrase: “A stronger middle class is not the consequence of economic growth—a stronger middle class is the cause of economic growth.”

This is the same powerful, organizing idea that we communicate in the progressive economic narrative when we say, “working families and the middle class are the engines of the economy,” and that billionaire businessman Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu explain by saying, “we build the economy from the middle-out, instead of trickle-down.”

Clinton declares correctly that, “Growth and fairness go together. For lasting prosperity, you can’t have one without the other,” but she doesn’t explain why. It’s an easy but crucial step to make the point that policies that are fair, like raising the minimum wage, are key to boosting the economy by putting more money into people’s pockets to spend in their communities.

This missing explanation would give more umph to the superheroes in Clinton’s story: hard-working Americans. “You worked extra shifts, took second jobs, postponed home repairs… you figured out how to make it work…You brought our country back.” It would be an easy and transformative lift for her to explain to Americans that they are not just heroes for working through the pain. They are heroes because when they have good jobs and can care for and support their families, they drive the economy forward.

Clinton concludes her speech with her version of the progressive meta-narrative, “we all do better when we all do better.” She says, “we’re a better, stronger, more prosperous country when we harness the talent, hard work, and ingenuity of every single American.” That’s not just a statement of values, but a story about how we build that better, stronger, more prosperous country.

This early in the presidential race, Clinton is a few key steps from telling a powerful story about how we can build an America that works for all of us, not just the wealthy and powerful—the kind of story that, like the one told by FDR, can move the country to meet our biggest challenges. Those steps include not repeating conservative economic ideas because they are popular and not flinching from naming today’s “economic royalists,” in FDR’s language. The key is helping everyday Americans understand the economics behind why they are truly the heroes of our story.   

Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

Share This

New Polling on Inequality: What We've Learned (or, What We Knew All Along)

Jun 4, 2015Eric Harris Bernstein

New polling confirms what many of us long believed: The majority of Americans—rich and poor, men and women, Republicans and Democrats—agree that income, opportunity, and influence are unfairly concentrated at the top and that these disparities are growing. Further, Americans support government action to address this structural inequality and rewrite the rules of our economy.

New polling confirms what many of us long believed: The majority of Americans—rich and poor, men and women, Republicans and Democrats—agree that income, opportunity, and influence are unfairly concentrated at the top and that these disparities are growing. Further, Americans support government action to address this structural inequality and rewrite the rules of our economy.

Contrary to the popular narrative that concern over inequality divides along partisan lines, the latest CBS/New York Times poll finds bipartisan agreement about numerous dimensions of the problem. 61 percent of respondents feel money and wealth should be more evenly distributed, while 66 percent believe that only the wealthy can get ahead in today's economy. In addition, 57 percent believe the government should do more to reduce the gap between the rich and poor. Perhaps most surprisingly, 74 percent of Americans—the third-largest cohort of the entire poll—agree that corporations have too much influence on American life and politics. That number includes 62 percent of Republicans.

Given the economic reality, these results are unsurprising. Years after the financial crisis, American families are still scraping by. Americans now understand that the fundamentals of our economy are not working to produce shared prosperity. There is popular and bipartisan support, it seems, for policies that will help rebalance our economy so everyone can participate and benefit.

Though the economic reality is grave, the broad consensus is encouraging. It implies the collective will to act and shows that the left–right gap in political ideology is not as large as some in Washington and in the media have suggested.

It also reaffirms what we at Roosevelt have long been sensing: across gender, political ideology, and all income distributions, not a single group feels that most Americans have a fair chance to get ahead and not a single group feels that the situation is improving. A mere 5 percent of those surveyed agree that the gap between rich and poor is shrinking, while a 10-point majority of Republicans agree that opportunity is skewed unequally toward a small minority at the top. 

Some groups are wary of the vague prospect of the government “doing more,” but when it comes to specific initiatives, the numbers shift back in favor of policies that will boost equality. On raising the minimum wage and taxes on earners making over $1 million per year, 71 and 68 percent are in favor, including 50 and 53 percent of Republicans, respectively. 

Issues like these, in addition to fair labor practices like paid sick and family leave, are no-brainers for Washington. At Roosevelt, we believe that reforms need to go deeper and wider, to strike a new balance between shared opportunity and the power that currently dominates our political economy.

At its core, this poll illustrates public desire for comprehensive reform, along the lines of the Rewriting the Rules agenda released by Roosevelt Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz last month. This includes reforms to monetary policy, trade policy, labor law, and checks on the dominance and dysfunction of the financial sector. Admittedly, some of our proposed reforms, like stronger union rights and a financial transactions tax, underperformed in this poll, but it is our honest assessment that with open dialogue and more public education, these issues would find widespread support. Structural reforms like these will not only shift the balance of power away from the top and toward all Americans, but will spur growth as well.

This is just the latest of indicators that inequality of wealth and opportunity are the defining issues of our time. Candidates from both sides of the aisle must respond to popular demand by delivering policies that will rewrite the rules of the economy for the benefit of all.

Eric Harris Bernstein is a Program Associate at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Marina Gorbis: Get Money Out of Politics to Make Room for Rational Decision-Making

May 7, 2015Laurie Ignacio

This week, Marina Gorbis from the Institute for the Future presents her idea on the best way to ensure a good economy in 25 years: Let’s get money out of politics.

This week, Marina Gorbis from the Institute for the Future presents her idea on the best way to ensure a good economy in 25 years: Let’s get money out of politics.

“We need to get money out of politics. Unless we do that, it will be hard to work on any other issue. It’s a fundamental issue that needs to be fixed,” and we must “limit election season to make space for rational decision-making to improve lives of everyday people and not big monied groups and lobbyists."

To learn more about money in politics, check out the following articles:

"The Top 10 Things Every Voter Should Know About Money in Politics, Center for Responsive Politics" (OpenSecrets)

"40 charts that explain money in politics" (Vox)

Marina Gorbis is Executive Director of the Institute for the Future, a nonprofit research and consulting organization based in Silicon Valley. She has brought a futures perspective to hundreds of organizations in business, education, government, and philanthropy.

Gorbis has blogged and written for BoingBoing.net, Fast Company and major media outlets, and is a frequent speaker on future organizational, technology, and social issues. Marina’s current research focus is social production and how it is changing the face of major industries, a topic explored in detail in her 2013 book The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World

Share This

Why Democrats Should Worry About Republicans' Newfound Economic Populism

May 7, 2015Richard Kirsch

It would be a huge mistake for Democrats to dismiss the newfound economic populism of Republican presidential candidates as obviously laughable given Republicans’ deep alliance with corporate America. Republicans are aiming to pull off a populist jiu jitsu, using anger at corporate influence over government to justify even more dismantling of government. It could work.

It would be a huge mistake for Democrats to dismiss the newfound economic populism of Republican presidential candidates as obviously laughable given Republicans’ deep alliance with corporate America. Republicans are aiming to pull off a populist jiu jitsu, using anger at corporate influence over government to justify even more dismantling of government. It could work.

The good news for progressives is that attention to the squeeze on the middle class and the capture of government by corporations is finally taking center stage in American politics. Pollsters for both political parties are advising candidates to recognize the struggle of families to meet the basics, and the cynicism about government being able to do anything about their problems because it's under the control of the rich and powerful corporations.

This should be a huge opening for Democrats who are aggressive in assigning blame to corporations and pushing for what should be the obvious solution: stand up to those powerful forces with tough measures. If the banks are screwing homeowners, government should enact regulations that stop bank rip-offs and make housing affordable. If corporations and the rich are profiting from huge loopholes in the tax code, close those loopholes and raise their taxes.

But Republicans on the campaign trail are offering a different solution: if government is captured, then shrink government. Marco Rubio laid it out most clearly in an interview on NPR:

And so I hope the Republican Party can become the champion of the working class because I think our policy proposals of limited government and free enterprise are better for the people who are trying to make it than big government is. The fact is that big government helps the people who have made it. If you can afford to hire an army of lawyers, lobbyists and others to help you navigate and sometimes influence the law, you'll benefit. And so that's why you see big banks, big companies, keep winning. And everybody else is stuck and being left behind.

Rand Paul, who champions free-market, anti-regulatory economics, began his announcement speech for president by declaring, "We have come to take our country back from the special interests that use Washington as their personal piggy bank, the special interests that are more concerned with their personal welfare than the general welfare."

And Carly Fiorina bounced off the scourge of Wall Street abuses, Elizabeth Warren, to turn around Warren’s argument: “Crony capitalism is alive and well. Elizabeth Warren, of course, is wrong about what to do about it. She claims that the way to solve crony capitalism is more complexity, more regulations, more legislation, worse tax codes. And of course the more complicated government gets — and it's really complicated now — the less the small and the powerless can deal with it."

It’s easy to laugh at their argument, which can be reduced to “if the fox is getting into the hen house, tear down the hen house.” But it would be foolish to do so. It starts where people are at, as one Republican message guru wrote after the election last fall: “[F]rom the reddest rural towns to the bluest big cities, the sentiment is the same. People say Washington is broken and on the decline, that government no longer works for them — only for the rich and powerful.”

The argument takes advantage of the record-high public distrust of government, reached in no small part because of decades of Republicans stripping government’s effectiveness at tackling problems and championing shrinking government and cutting taxes as the solutions for everything.

Having said that, the current political environment should still be winning turf for Democrats who are willing to tell their own version of the problem and solution. After all, building a hen house that keeps out the foxes is clearly a better way to be sure you get fresh eggs for breakfast. But winning the debate will take something Democrats are not always willing to do: naming villains and pushing solutions that will really address the problems facing American families.

As I wrote in a column analyzing the messages that Democrats who won used last fall, naming specific villains is essential to demonstrating that the candidate understands who is responsible for the problem and is willing to stand up to those powerful forces. Because of our campaign finance system, this is more of a challenge for Democrats. If they actually take on the rich and powerful, it will result in less campaign cash. Republicans don’t have to worry about that, since their patrons understand the game.

Having named the villains, Democrats then need to propose bold solutions that demonstrate that they understand the depth of the problems people face, solutions that people can imagine might actually help. Naming bold solutions is another way to demonstrate to people that you are willing to take on the status quo.

In a debate—whether real or the virtual debates of ad campaigns—Democrats will win if they point out that what Republicans want to do is tear down the hen house, and then name the foxes and describe the fortified, fox-slaying house.

Of course, that’s the biggest question for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Will she name the villains and keep naming them, even though many of them will supply her campaign with funds? Will she advance bold solutions or try to duck tough issues? We know one thing: Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and the Draft Warren campaign will be making it tough for her to hide.

It’s a question not just for Clinton, but for every Democrat. Will Democrats be bold enough to advance a politics that meets the despair and cynicism of Americans with directness, honesty, and hope for a better future?

Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

Share This

Denise Cheng: To Prepare for the Future, Lower the Voting Age

Apr 22, 2015Laurie Ignacio

The Next American Economy's video series on “The Good Economy of 2040" continues this week with Denise Cheng from the MIT Center for Civic Media and the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Civic Innovation.

The Next American Economy's video series on “The Good Economy of 2040" continues this week with Denise Cheng from the MIT Center for Civic Media and the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Civic Innovation.

Cheng is an advocate of open government initiatives like open data and participatory budget projects. But if she had to pick only one thing to ensure a good economy in the future, she would lower the voting age to 16 “so people are actually getting their civic education while they’re still in high school," ensuring that "they have the best information to make an informed vote.”

Read more about initiatives to lower the voting age to 16:

"Scotland let 16-year-olds vote. The US should try it too.” (Vox)

"Hyattsville becomes second U.S. municipality to lower voting age to 16" (Washington Post)

Denise Cheng is an innovation fellow with the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Civic Innovation. She has an eclectic background in community building, the future of news, and labor in the peer economy—specifically, worker support around the growing pool of people who depend on piecemeal income. Cheng has spoken, written, and appeared widely in NPR, Harvard Business Review, and Next City, at the New Museum and Personal Democracy Forum, and more about the sharing economy. She received her MSc from MIT and is an affiliate researcher with the Center for Civic Media at MIT Media Lab.

Share This

What Policies Do Young People Want? Let Them Tell You.

Apr 8, 2015Joelle Gamble

As another presidential campaign season heats up, and candidates scrambled to create messaging, structures, and even gimmicks and swag in an attempt to engage young people, I can’t help but think about why we do what we do here at Roosevelt.

As another presidential campaign season heats up, and candidates scrambled to create messaging, structures, and even gimmicks and swag in an attempt to engage young people, I can’t help but think about why we do what we do here at Roosevelt.

Young people on college campuses are often asked to make phone calls, knock on doors, and campaign for existing agendas, but they’re rarely asked about their own policy ideas. Since 2004, we have been working to change that norm. At its core, the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network seeks to defy the public’s expectations of young people in politics today.

Over the past 10 years, we have built an engaged, community-driven network of students who are committed to using policy to transform their cities and states now and build the foundation for a sustainable future. We believe that broader participation in the policy process will not only improve representation but produce more creative ideas with the potential for real impact.

In this year’s 10 ideas journals, we present some of most promising and innovative ideas from students in our network. With chapters on 120 campuses in 38 states, from Los Angeles, California, to Conway, Arkansas, to New York City, we have the potential to effect policy ideas that transcend the parameters of our current national debate. Our student authors push for practical, community-focused solutions, from using pavement to improve sanitation in Louisville, Kentucky, to creating community benefit agreements for publicly funded stadiums in Lansing, Michigan, to building workforce development programs for agricultural literacy in Athens, Georgia. 

Policy matters most when we take it beyond the page and bring it to the communities and institutions that can turn it into reality. Many of the students in this year’s publication have committed to pressing for impact. They’re connecting with decision-makers in city halls and state capitols, armed with the power of their own ideas. 

The next generation of innovative minds and passionate advocates is here, and it’s changing this country one idea at a time.

Check 'em out!

Joelle Gamble is the National Director of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network.

Share This

Pages