Daily Digest - April 17: How Democracy Became a Luxury Good

Apr 17, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Government by the Few (All In with Chris Hayes)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren notes that we now have social science data that proves Occupy was right: our democracy is dominated by the wealthiest Americans.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Government by the Few (All In with Chris Hayes)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren notes that we now have social science data that proves Occupy was right: our democracy is dominated by the wealthiest Americans.

Happy Tax Day (The New Yorker)

Benjamin Soskis examines America's esteem for charitable donors over taxpayers, drawing on Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal's piece on the "voluntarism fantasy."

Millennial Perspective: Title X is Vital, Efficient, and Largely Unknown (National Priorities Project)

Tarsi Dunlop argues that Millennials should advocate for Title X, the nation's only federally funded family planning program, because of its massive impact on the lives of low-income women.

  • Roosevelt Take: Tarsi uses data from Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn's white paper, "The Title X Factor: Why the Health of America's Women Depends on More Funding for Family Planning."

Bill de Blasio’s Great Experiment (The Nation)

Jarrett Murphy looks at the New York City mayor's first 100 days, and finds that de Blasio is sticking to the progressive policies he proposed on the campaign. Unfortunately, the forces against him are strong.

Obama's Job-Training Unicorn: It's Time for Some New Ideas Already (The Guardian)

Pushing the same kind of job training programs isn't making any dent in the unemployment crisis, says Heidi Moore. She wants Congress to try something new, whether that's infrastructure fixes or direct hiring.

  • Roosevelt Take: A Roosevelt Institute report released last week, "A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency: 15 Ways We Can Create Good Jobs in America Today," provides more suggestions for government solutions.

New York Lawmakers Push to Raise Wages at Biggest Chains (NYT)

Kate Taylor reports that a group of New York City-based Democrats has proposed a bill to mandate a $15-an-hour minimum wage for employees of businesses with $50 million or more in annual sales.

The Toughest Cop on Wall Street You've Never Heard Of (TNR)

Benjamin Lawsky at the New York Department of Financial Services is pushing stricter penalties on banks, and David Dayen says that could push federal regulators to toughen up.

Share This

Daily Digest - April 15: What Makes Taxes Worth It?

Apr 15, 2014Tim Price

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Read My Lips: More New Taxes! (New Republic)

Tax Day would be a time for celebration if there were a clearer connection between paying taxes and receiving the many valuable public services and benefits they fund, writes Jonathan Cohn.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Read My Lips: More New Taxes! (New Republic)

Tax Day would be a time for celebration if there were a clearer connection between paying taxes and receiving the many valuable public services and benefits they fund, writes Jonathan Cohn.

TurboTax Maker Linked to 'Grassroots' Campaign Against Free, Simple Tax Filing (ProPublica)

Giving taxpayers the option to use pre-filled tax returns could save them money and time, but tax software developer Intuit is lobbying hard against the proposal, reports Liz Day. 

Chances of Getting Audited by IRS Lowest in Years (AP)

Deep budget cuts have put such a strain on IRS resources that the agency audited only 1 percent of individual returns last year, writes Stephen Ohlemacher, and that number will drop in 2014. 

C.E.O. Pay Goes Up, Up and Away! (NYT)

Despite efforts to restrain the growth of executive pay through increased transparency and regulation, median CEO compensation grew 9 percent in 2013, hitting $13.9 million, writes Joe Nocera.

The Single Mother, Child Poverty Myth (Demos)

Family composition in the U.S. is not much different from that of Northern Europe, writes Matt Bruenig, but the European countries have much more generous welfare systems to keep children out of poverty.

What the French E-mail Meme Reveals About America's Runaway Culture of Work (The Nation)

French workers are often mocked because they continue to fight for work-life balance, writes Michelle Chen, but American work culture's disregard for those boundaries is the real historical outlier.

How 250 UPS Workers Fired for a Wildcat Strike Won Back Their Jobs (In These Times)

An outcry from union members, activists, elected officials, and customers forced UPS to reverse its decision to fire hundreds of drivers at a Queens facility for protesting a co-worker's dismissal, reports Sarah Jaffe.

New on Next New Deal

What is Economic Growth Without Shared Prosperity? 

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network National Field Strategist Joelle Gamble argues that economic policy should focus on improving life for all Americans, not just those at the very top.

Share This

A Millennial’s Case for Fixing Social Security

Apr 11, 2014Brian Lamberta

Instead of giving up of Social Security, Millennials should push an easy fix for the so-called funding crisis: lifting the earnings cap.

Instead of giving up of Social Security, Millennials should push an easy fix for the so-called funding crisis: lifting the earnings cap.

As a public policy student, I’m used to hearing lively debates and diverse perspectives from my professors, fellows students, and course materials. There is one issue on which they consistently agree: apparently, Social Security cannot work for my generation. Polling data confirms this sentiment. Between half and three-quarters of Millennials do not expect Social Security to exist when we retire. Despite all of the rhetoric and doubts, I know that Social Security can work for Millennials – but it’s crucial that we fix the program.

I learned the importance of Social Security during my summer internship at The Alliance for Retired Americans, which was part of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network’s Summer Academy program. I learned that Social Security is the primary source of income for most seniors. The internship also taught me all about the program and its current issues, inside and out.

To give some background, Social Security is the widest reaching public benefit program in the United States. Starting at age 62, almost all Americans are eligible to receive monthly checks based on the amount they or their spouse paid into the program during their working years, with the benefit amount increasing for those who delay taking payments. The benefits of Social Security for retirement must be earned – 12.4% of nearly everyone’s yearly income below an annually adjusted cap is taxed to fund the program. For 2014, the cap is set at $117,000. Any income above $117,000 is completely ignored, so a person earning $1,000,000 will pay a 2.2% tax rate in 2014 and person earning five-figures will pay a 12.4% rate. To put it another way, a millionaire finishes paying her Social Security taxes by mid-February (at the latest) while the average American pays those taxes all year long.

Currently, there is a funding gap, which is often overstated as a “crisis.” Based on the Social Security Administration’s own predictions, only about three-quarters of benefits can be paid after 2033. Poor planning regarding the retirement of the Baby Boomers did not cause this gap. In preparation for the retirement of the Baby Boomers, we amended Social Security during the 1970s and 1980s; their retirement is almost entirely funded. This lapse (“the crisis”) is directly linked to the unintended consequences of reforming the taxable earnings cap in the 1970s.

Since 1975, Congress has linked annual cap increases to the average growth in wages. Post-World War II wage growth has consistently favored higher earners, who already had total incomes above the cap. This led to two disturbing trends, the first of which is shown in this chart, taken directly from the Social Security Administration’s website:

 

 

As seen here, the cap used to reduce taxes for many more Americans, but since the 1970s it's leveled out from reducing taxes for the top 15% to helping just the top 6%, establishing its status as a tool for the mega-rich to avoid paying taxes. Since the wealthiest Americans have benefitted most from wage growth in recent years, the amount of income that is untaxable for Social Security purposes has increased from 10% to 17% since 1975. In essence, the funding gap is a result of an antiquated and poorly calculated tax break that allows the wealthiest Americans to avoid paying their fair share.  

Social Security can remain in perpetuity if we scrap the cap. Historically, regular adjustments have been applied to program to ensure its continued solvency, and this obvious change should be no different.

Millennials: I urge you look more deeply into this issue and better understand the facts as the debate continues. Most of the money that our grandparents use to pay their bills comes from Social Security, so simply letting the program crumble would have disastrous effects. As a generation, we are far less likely to have union-backed pensions and extra money for savings. Fixing Social Security could be more necessary for our generation’s retirement stability than any before us.

Brian Lamberta is an urban studies and public policy student at the CUNY Macaulay Honors College at Hunter College and currently serves as the Northeast Regional Communications Coordinator for the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network.

Share This

Daily Digest - April 9: The Social Safety Net is Popular Because It Works

Apr 9, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The One Part of the Charity vs. Social Welfare Argument That Everyone Ignores (The Week)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The One Part of the Charity vs. Social Welfare Argument That Everyone Ignores (The Week)

Building on Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal's piece in Democracy Journal on the myth that private charity could replace government, Matt Bruenig argues that the status quo bias – "let's hold on to what works" – protects social safety net programs once they're in place.

Bill to Restore U.S. Unemployment Insurance Likely to Deadlock in Congress (The Guardian)

Dan Roberts reports that John Boehner will not allow a vote on extended unemployment insurance, which lapsed in December, without provisions to encourage job growth, though the GOP hasn't offered any big ideas.

Labor Department Intervenes on Behalf of Hearst Interns (ProPublica)

In its first amicus brief in an unpaid internship lawsuit, the Labor Department urged the court to use stricter standards to determine whether an unpaid internship is permissible, writes Kara Brandeisky.

Banks Ordered to Add Capital to Limit Risks (NYT)

Federal regulators will increase the leverage ratio, which measures the amount of capital a bank must hold against its assets, writes Peter Eavis. Supporters say this rule is simpler and easier to enforce than other parts of financial reform.

Fed Gives Banks More Time on Volcker Rule Detail (Reuters)

Douwe Miedema reports that banks will get two additional years, through July 21, 2017, to sell off collateralized loan obligations, which the Volcker Rule deems too risky for banks to invest in.

The Unexpected Benefit of Telling People What Their Coworkers Make (The Atlantic)

On Equal Pay Day, many spoke up for pay disclosure as a way to reduce the wage gap. Emiliano Huet-Vaughn's research shows that pay transparency also significantly increases worker productivity.

New on Next New Deal

Is Short-Term Unemployment a Better Predictor of Inflation?

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal argues that we should not ignore long-term unemployment while analyzing how the economy is doing. That makes the Great Recession data make more sense, he says, but isn't applicable today.

Share This

The Internet Responds to the Voluntarism Fantasy

Apr 8, 2014Mike Konczal

My recent Voluntarism Fantasy piece (pdf) for Democracy Journal has gotten a fair amount of coverage. So I'm going to use this post, which will be updated, to keep track of the links to other people engaging, if only so I can respond in the future.

The piece was also reprinted at The Altantic Monthly.

Reddit thread with comments.

In favor of the piece:

Michael Hiltzik covers the argument in the LA Times' opinion page and EJ Dionne in the Washington Post's opinion page.

Matt Bruenig notes that the way we discuss this reflects a deep status quo bias at The Week.

Elizabeth Stoker, channeling Niebuhr, makes the strong Christian case that charity and government social insurance go together at The Week.

Sally Steenland of Center for America Progress also addresses the fantasy in this article.

Erik Loomis makes an excellent point that in addition to the rest of the 19th century state, the "federally subsidized westward expansion was also part of this welfare state, as Republicans especially explicitly saw the frontier as a social safety net that would alleviate poverty without directly giving charity to people."

James Kwak agrees that there's "No Substitute for the Government" here.

Jordan Weissmann argues that "Charity Can’t Replace the Safety Net" over at Slate.

I discuss the piece on the Majority Report with Sam Seder (also in-studio video here).

Less in favor:

Marvin Olasky, author of the Tragedy of American Compassion (which is one focal point of the article), responds in World.

Philathrophy Daily ran two articles critical of the piece, both at the forefront of the voluntarism fantasy's worldview. The first is from Hans Zeiger and the second from Martin Morse Wooster, who breaks out the paralipsis "I could argue that Mike Konczal and the Roosevelt Institute has a hidden agenda: to force the U.S. to accept Soviet-style communism ... I won’t make that argument because I know it isn’t true."

Rich Tucker at Townhall says that I do "a better job than Barack Obama did explaining the president’s 'You didn’t build that' philosophy," which I'll take as a compliment.

Reihan Salam has a set of responses at The Agenda.

Howard Husock argues that  charitably-funded, non-governmental programs are better than government at helping help individuals thrive at Forbes.

Don Watkins at the Ayn Rand Institute has a five part (!) critical response; you can work backwards from the fifth part here.

Anarchist Kevin Carson sees "the welfare state nevertheless as an evil necessitated by the state-enforced model of capitalism, and ultimately destined to wither away along with economic privilege and exploitation" in his response.

I'll add any more as they happen. (Last updated April 11th.)

My recent Voluntarism Fantasy piece (pdf) for Democracy Journal has gotten a fair amount of coverage. So I'm going to use this post, which will be updated, to keep track of the links to other people engaging, if only so I can respond in the future.

The piece was also reprinted at The Altantic Monthly.

Reddit thread with comments.

In favor of the piece:

Michael Hiltzik covers the argument in the LA Times' opinion page and EJ Dionne in the Washington Post's opinion page.

Matt Bruenig notes that the way we discuss this reflects a deep status quo bias at The Week.

Elizabeth Stoker, channeling Niebuhr, makes the strong Christian case that charity and government social insurance go together at The Week.

Sally Steenland of Center for America Progress also addresses the fantasy in this article.

Erik Loomis makes an excellent point that in addition to the rest of the 19th century state, the "federally subsidized westward expansion was also part of this welfare state, as Republicans especially explicitly saw the frontier as a social safety net that would alleviate poverty without directly giving charity to people."

James Kwak agrees that there's "No Substitute for the Government" here.

Jordan Weissmann argues that "Charity Can’t Replace the Safety Net" over at Slate.

I discuss the piece on the Majority Report with Sam Seder (also in-studio video here).

Less in favor:

Marvin Olasky, author of the Tragedy of American Compassion (which is one focal point of the article), responds in World.

Philathrophy Daily ran two articles critical of the piece, both at the forefront of the voluntarism fantasy's worldview. The first is from Hans Zeiger and the second from Martin Morse Wooster, who breaks out the paralipsis "I could argue that Mike Konczal and the Roosevelt Institute has a hidden agenda: to force the U.S. to accept Soviet-style communism ... I won’t make that argument because I know it isn’t true."

Rich Tucker at Townhall says that I do "a better job than Barack Obama did explaining the president’s 'You didn’t build that' philosophy," which I'll take as a compliment.

Reihan Salam has a set of responses at The Agenda.

Howard Husock argues that  charitably-funded, non-governmental programs are better than government at helping help individuals thrive at Forbes.

Don Watkins at the Ayn Rand Institute has a five part (!) critical response; you can work backwards from the fifth part here.

Anarchist Kevin Carson sees "the welfare state nevertheless as an evil necessitated by the state-enforced model of capitalism, and ultimately destined to wither away along with economic privilege and exploitation" in his response.

I'll add any more as they happen. (Last updated April 11th.)

Share This

Daily Digest - April 4: McCutcheon Makes Money Speak Louder

Apr 4, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Big Money in Politics (ABC World News)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Soros speaks with Brian Ross about political spending in the post-McCutcheon era, with no limits on aggregate campaign contributions.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Big Money in Politics (ABC World News)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Soros speaks with Brian Ross about political spending in the post-McCutcheon era, with no limits on aggregate campaign contributions.

Supreme Court Decision Opens Floodgates for More Campaign Cash (Real News Network)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Tom Ferguson discusses how the McCutcheon decision will affect American democracy. He says that without public campaign financing, just a few people get to control the system.

Fast Food Workers Will Protest Again Today. Here's What They're Up Against. (MoJo)

When fast food workers rally for a $15-an-hour wage, they're facing a well-funded and well-coordinated restaurant industry. Erika Eichelberger runs through the numbers from a new report on the restaurant lobby.

Emails Show Sen. Corker’s Chief of Staff Coordinated with Network of Anti-UAW Union Busters (In These Times)

Mike Elk reports on leaked documents showing that members of Tennessee Senator Bob Corker and Governor Bill Haslam's staffs worked directly with anti-union groups during the union drive at the Chattanooga Volkswagen plant.

Ryan Budget Gets 69 Percent of Its Cuts from Low-Income Programs (Off the Charts)

With $3.3 trillion of the budget's $4.8 trillion in non-defense spending cuts coming from programs that support low-income Americans, Richard Kogan questions the rhetoric of the Ryan budget helping the poor.

New on Next New Deal

In the Wake of McCutcheon, Can Democracy Tame Capital?

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch ties the McCutcheon v. FEC decision to Thomas Piketty's new book, Capital in the 21st Century, as the Supreme Court has just increased the power of wealth in this country.

Farewell, Campaign Finance Restrictions, and Hello, Mega-Donors

Jeff Raines, Chair of the Student Board of Advisors for the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network, looks at the McCutcheon decision and the state of campaign finance law and considers what's to come in the 2014 elections.

Share This

Daily Digest - April 3: Once Upon a Time There Was No Safety Net

Apr 3, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Faith in Values: The Conservative Fairy Tale About Government (CAP)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Faith in Values: The Conservative Fairy Tale About Government (CAP)

Sally Steenland draws on Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal's argument against "the voluntarism fantasy" to argue for the strength of the progressive narrative, in which government and private entities work together to help society.

  • Roosevelt Take: Mike debunked the idea that private charity could take the place of government in fighting poverty in Democracy Journal.

The Supreme Court’s Ideology: More Money, Less Voting (The Nation)

Connecting the dots between yesterday's decision in McCutcheon v. FEC and other recent decisions on voting and campaign finance, Ari Berman says that the same groups are favoring secret money and voting restriction.

  • Roosevelt Take: Jeff Raines, Chair of the Student Board of Advisors for Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network, argued in October that McCutcheon was really about how much influence we allow the wealthiest Americans to have over our elected officials.

Will Disclosure Save Us From the Corrupting Influence of Big Money? (TAP)

Paul Waldman raises the question of whether campaign finance disclosure is enough to limit political corruption, because he thinks the courts could one day use disclosure as justification to eliminate all contribution limits.

Are The Views Of America's Wealthiest Undermining Democracy? (Forbes)

A new study on the opinions of the top 0.1 percent of Americans shows that they hold substantially different political views, and their high rate of campaign contributions may mean those views get more attention from policymakers.

A Union Aims at Pittsburgh’s Biggest Employer (NYT)

Steven Greenhouse reports on the Service Employees International Union's efforts to unionize the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, where workers say great benefits don't matter when they can't afford the health insurance.

New on Next New Deal

Labor Law that That Would Support Organizing in Today’s Economy

In the fifth piece in his series on his new report on labor reform, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch begins to lay out some of the possible ways to strengthen labor laws.

Taking on Big Business Wage Theft

Harmony Goldberg, the Program Manager for the Roosevelt Institute's Future of Work Initiative, argues that government needs to strengthen enforcement and change laws so that workers aren't forced to sue in order to get their fair wages.

Share This

The ACA in Threes: The Good, The Bad and the Ways to Make it Better

Mar 31, 2014Richard Kirsch

With the first open enrollment period ending today, consider some successes, outrages, and bug fixes for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch will debate implementation issues and the future of the ACA with the Heritage Foundation's Robert Moffit tonight at New York University. For more information, click here.

The Good: Three Big Successes of ACA:

With the first open enrollment period ending today, consider some successes, outrages, and bug fixes for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch will debate implementation issues and the future of the ACA with the Heritage Foundation's Robert Moffit tonight at New York University. For more information, click here.

The Good: Three Big Successes of ACA:

The Affordable Care Act is saving peoples lives: Already. Like Kathy Bentzoni, a Pennsylvania school bus driver, who dropped her old insurance because it was expensive and rejecting claims because of her pre-existing conditions. After getting ACA coverage at $55 a month, she was able to seek care: “They found my hemoglobin level was 5.7, and the normal is 14. I needed a transfusion. It was due to a rare blood disorder. Where would I be without Obamacare? ER, 3 units of blood, multiple tests in the hospital and a 5-day inpatient stay without insurance? Probably dead.” Kathy was not alone in that fear – studies show that tens of thousands of people each year die because they don’t have health coverage.

Medicaid enrollment is a bigger success than expected: Not only is Medicaid enrolling people who are eligible for the first time – 4.6 million of them – but almost another 2 million more are enrolling who were eligible before, but had not applied. In the big push to get people to sign up for the ACA, many people who have been eligible in the past applied for the first time.

Seniors on Medicare are saving money, getting better care: While most seniors don’t think that the ACA has anything to do with them, it does. Last year, 37 million people on Medicare – seniors and people with disabilities – received free preventive care. Since the law was enacted, 8 million people enrolled in Medicare have saved $10 billion on prescription drugs, as the prescription “donut hole’ closes. And for the first time in 30 years, hospital readmission rates for people on Medicare are coming down, because hospitals are now penalized for pushing people out before they are ready.

The Bad: Three Outrages Against the ACA

States that have refused to expand Medicaid: In an example of partisan politics killing people, Republicans in 24 states have refused to expand Medicaid, leaving 5 million people who would be eligible for coverage without any recourse.

Koch brothers campaign to discourage young people from signing up: In an example of billionaires killing people, the Koch brothers have funded tasteless ads and campus beer parties in an attempt to keep young people from signing up for insurance on the exchanges.

Republican lies about job loss and the ACA: One advantage of the ACA is that it gives people the freedom to leave their jobs or reduce their work hours, and still be able to get affordable coverage. When the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 2.3 million American workers would gain this freedom over the next 8 years, Republicans falsely claimed that it would cost jobs. If anything, it will create jobs for people who fill in for those who take advantage of their new freedom. I thought Republicans liked freedom.

The Ways to Make it Better: Three Big Fixes for the ACA:

Allow Medicare to operate in the exchanges: The best way to bring price competition and access to virtually ever doctor and hospital in the exchanges would be to have Medicare offer a plan (without age requirements) in every exchange. This is the easiest and most effective way to bring back the public option.

Base the employer mandate on a play or payroll tax: As I’ve explained here, the best way to get rid of the convoluted system of employers paying a penalty for employees who work more than 30 yours a week, would be to have employers who don’t provide coverage pay a percentage of payroll for health care, just like employers now do for Social Security.

Lower the premiums and out-of-pocket costs: While the ACA is providing affordable coverage for millions – and will offer lower premiums than 29 million people are paying now – they are still too high for many families. And the out-of-pocket costs in the cheaper plans are way too high. The subsidies should be increased for middle-income people – funded by progressive taxes – and the high-out-of-pocket plans ended. 

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.

Photo of President Obama signing the Affordable Care Act copyright George Miller, via Creative Commons license.

Share This

Higher Education Financing Needs a Better Deal Than This

Mar 31, 2014Raul Gardea

Bipartisan budget proposals seek to address the debt-burden on students, yet merely underscore the need for a drastic overhaul of post-secondary education financing.

Bipartisan budget proposals seek to address the debt-burden on students, yet merely underscore the need for a drastic overhaul of post-secondary education financing.

The White House’s latest proposal for easing student-debt is a noble but ultimately bankrupt effort, which misses the forest for the trees. The plan includes an expansion of income-based repayment (IBR), makes the American Opportunity Tax Credit permanent past the current 2017 cut off, and places a cap on loan forgiveness for public sector workers. Yet like most college affordability proposals that have come out of Washington, the current plan offers Band-Aid “reforms” that fail to cut to the heart of the structural problems in how we finance higher education. Instead of trying to fix the debt, the conversation should center on solving why students should need to take out such massive debt in the first place, a discussion few in Washington are eager to have.

A common critique of debt forgiveness is that such policies encourage students to take on a heavier financial burden and leads to schools hiking tuition to compensate. On paper, tuition deferral methods like IBR coupled with loan forgiveness are sound. This method shifts the costs from the individual to the taxpayer, as they should if we still value higher education as a public good. Currently, students who demonstrate need can enroll in “Public Sector Loan Forgiveness” (PSLF) which is an IBR plan that forgives debt after ten years of public sector or non-profit employment. The new proposal lifts the needs-based eligibility requirement to allow larger numbers of individuals to sign up, but places a $57,500 cap on forgiveness for public sector workers and requires payments for twenty-five years instead of ten for any amount over that.

Yet despite the White House’s claim that the proposal provides a “safeguard against raising tuition at high-cost institutions,” there is little reason to believe that will be the case. If the school has already been paid, and taxpayers will foot the bill in twenty-five years as the proposal stipulates, what incentive would there be for colleges to keep tuition low? Since schools have nothing at stake, it is likely that they will continue to increase tuition without regard for what happens to graduates. Students who may have considered serving their communities by pursuing careers as, say, public interest lawyers, relying on the promise of loan forgiveness after ten years are now having the rug pulled out from under them.  A quarter-century of indebtedness is simply absurd to imagine.

Republicans have also weighed in on higher education spending through their tax code reform proposals. They include repealing or consolidating various credits into a permanent American Opportunity Tax Credit, taxing PSLF, and repealing several tax breaks for students, among several other proposals. While this legislation will likely go nowhere as it is, several of these items could linger for a while and undoubtedly worm their way into more digestible, passable bills.

All this back and forth about restoring the promise of higher education hides the urgent need for a massive overhaul of the way the U.S. finances post-secondary education, something that Washington seems unwilling to do. Thinking back to the hopefulness of 2009 now seems like a lifetime ago. That year appeared to signal a turning point in history: a return to a strong, activist, solutions-oriented federal government. The 111th Congress was the most productive Congress in a generation. Certain sectors of the economy appear to be correcting course, with health care costs dropping and financial markets rising again. Yet the cost of a college education, an issue that President Obama is supposedly obsessed with, has continued to increase during this tenure. As his presidency winds down, it’s easy to feel like the window for passing any kind of comprehensive reform has shut. A large segment of our generation is chronically underemployed.  Students continue getting fleeced as the federal government hands out mortgages and lends to banks at lower interest rates. 41% of student loan holders are behind on their payments. Sen. Elizabeth Warren says government should not profit off the backs of students. As one of the few consistent voices advocating for this issue, she must get lonely.

Just as income inequality has become part of the national dialogue through grassroots efforts, reeling in higher education costs is something that requires broader strokes. Local efforts like the Kalamazoo Promise or San Francisco’s Kindergarten to College must be commended for expanding college access to students who might otherwise be shut out. But these programs assume higher education will remain exorbitantly expensive. Rather than trapping students in a debtor’s prison for twenty-five years, policymakers should be deep-diving into an audit of bloated university president and administrative pay, intercollegiate athletic subsidies, and educational outcomes per tuition dollar, among other things. During election years, the Obama White House tends to revisit its college affordability agenda, and this time is no different. But even without re-election to worry about, we have yet to see this administration truly go big on this issue. As campaign season heats up, access to an affordable higher education should be a bigger part of the conversation and indeed, must be a part of any serious policy agenda.

Raul Gardea is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network's Senior Fellow for Education.

 

Share This

The Contraceptive Mandate Finally Leads America Out of the Victorian Era

Mar 31, 2014Ellen CheslerAndrea Flynn

The Affordable Care Act demonstrates an affirmative, proactive step from government for women's access to reproductive health care, but conservatives are bent on moving backwards.

The Affordable Care Act demonstrates an affirmative, proactive step from government for women's access to reproductive health care, but conservatives are bent on moving backwards.

Contraception should be understood as a fundamental right of American women and a necessary foundation of human security. If that seems controversial, consider this: 99 percent of American women approve of birth control and the vast majority use it over many years of their lives. These women deserve and must continue to demand insurance coverage for the method of their choice, without qualification. That’s why the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is so important and potentially transformative. For the first time ever, all health insurance plans, whether paid for privately or with public subsidies, are required to cover all FDA approved contraceptives at no additional cost.

Family planning is essential to securing the health and rights of women, but it is also the foundation of sound economic and social policy. Tragically, however, U.S. subsidized family planning programs currently serve just over half of those in need.

The stakes are especially high for poor women, who cannot afford the high costs of the most reliable and desirable methods and experience much higher rates of early and unwanted pregnancy as a result. Single women in poverty head a growing percentage of U.S. households. In “Breaking the Cycle of Poverty: Expanding Access to Family Planning,” a new white paper released today by the Roosevelt Institute, we argue that addressing their needs, and opening up opportunities to them and their children, will require multiple policy interventions, but none can work if women are denied the right and the agency to make, and act on, well-informed decisions about their own bodies.

Decades of social science research demonstrate that access to reliable and affordable family planning methods promotes responsible decision-making and reduces unwanted pregnancy and abortion. It allows women to pursue educational and employment opportunities that strengthen their families and their communities. A majority of women who participated in a recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, for example, report that birth control enables them to support themselves financially, complete their education, and get or keep a job. Other recent studies also show that providing family planning services at no cost results in more effective contraceptive use, decreased rates of unintended pregnancy, and dramatic declines in abortion rates.

Many American conservatives, however, reject these claims. They blame single mothers for America’s rising tide of poverty and inequality, not the other way around. They insist that access to sexual and reproductive health information and services exacerbates social problems by promoting promiscuity and unintended pregnancy, when in fact, the exact opposite is true. They promote abstinence-education and marriage promotion programs that have been tried before and been discredited, because they simply do not work.

This conflict was front and center last week as the U.S. Supreme Court heard 90 riveting minutes of argument in Sebelius v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v Sebelius, a pair of cases brought by two privately held corporations owned by Christian conservatives. The owners claim that the ACA violates the religious freedom of employers forced to cover the costs of contraception. Much of the testimony turned on technical questions of whether corporations, as opposed to the individuals who own them, legitimately have rights to assert in this instance, and whether they may impose those rights on employees who don’t share their views. There were also important matters of scientific integrity at stake, with the plaintiffs claiming that Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) and morning-after pills constitute methods of abortion, despite overwhelming medical agreement and numerous reputable scientific studies showing that, like everyday birth control pills, they only act to prevent conception.

All but lost in the court’s conversation were larger concerns about the health and well-being of women and families – and of our society as a whole. The Supreme Court hearing comes in the wake of more than three years of persistent attacks by extreme conservative lawmakers who have already decimated publicly subsidized services in states across the country and left many low-income women without access to basic family planning and to other critical reproductive and maternal health care services.

As legal scholar and policy analyst Dorothy Roberts observed, “when access to health care is denied, it’s the most marginalized women in this country and around the world who suffer the most—women of color, poor and low-wage workers, lesbian and trans women, women with disabilities... And this case has far-reaching consequences for their equal rights. Birth control is good health care, period.”

Today, by government estimates, more than 27 million American women already benefit from the ACA’s contraceptive mandate, and 20 million more will enjoy expanded coverage when the law is fully implemented. Yet even by these optimistic assessments, many low-income women will continue to fall through insurance gaps, partly thanks to a 2012 Supreme Court ruling that enables states to opt-out of Medicaid expansion mandated by the ACA. More than 3.5 million – two-thirds of poor black and single mothers, and more than half of low-wage workers – will be left without insurance in those states.

Conservative opposition to contraception is not new. As we observe in our paper, the U.S. controversy over family planning dates back to Victorian-era laws that first defined contraception as obscene and outlawed its use. Those laws carried the name of Anthony Comstock, an evangelical Christian who led a nearly 50-year crusade to root out sin and rid the country of pornography, contraceptives, and other allegedly “vile” materials that he believed promoted immorality. Sound familiar?

It took nearly a century for the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse course and guarantee American women the right to use contraception under the constitutional doctrine of privacy first enunciated in 1965. The ACA promises us even more. It places an affirmative, positive obligation on government to provide women the resources to realize our rights. The question before us is simple: Do we turn back the clock and allow a new Comstockery to prevail, or do we move ahead into the 21st century by defending the full promise of the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate?

Read Ellen and Andrea's paper, "Breaking the Cycle of Poverty: Expanding Access to Family Planning," here.

Ellen Chesler is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and author of Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. She researches and writes about access to reproductive health care in the United States. You can follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

Share This

Pages