The Obama Budget: Weak on Reproductive Health

Feb 9, 2015Andrea Flynn

Family planning is both vital for econoimc stability and a solid investment with strong returns, so why wasn't it better funded in the President's budget?

Family planning is both vital for econoimc stability and a solid investment with strong returns, so why wasn't it better funded in the President's budget?

Last week President Obama unveiled a 10-year budget that reflects the ambitious and progressive agenda he laid out in his State of the Union address. With investments in infrastructure, education, and economic supports for the middle class, the President’s funding plan aims to lift up low-income families and address the growing and historic U.S. class divide. But Obama has fallen short on one area that is critical to women and families: reproductive health.

There were hopes that the president would request a significant increase for Title X – the nation’s only program dedicated to providing quality, affordable reproductive health services – and also the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, a 1976 law that prohibits women from using federal health benefits such as Medicaid to pay for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. But Obama did neither.

Given conservative control of Congress, President Obama’s budget has little chance of being passed as is. But as John Cassidy pointed out in the New Yorker this week, the budget is as much a political document as it is an economic one. “The White House is using it to frame the political debate for this year and for the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election – an effort that began with the State of the Union address,” Cassidy wrote. Obama had an opportunity to show that reproductive health is a critical component of any agenda meant to lift up low-income families, and one the federal government must invest in if their other efforts are to bear fruit. But he missed that opportunity.

The president’s $300 million request was a modest increase from last year’s budget of $286.5 million – Title X’s first increase since 2010 – but still leaves the program woefully underfunded. Title X has still not recovered from the drastic cuts it endured between 2010 and 2013, when lawmakers cut the budget from $317 to $278 million, and as a result prevented 667,000 patients from receiving care. Family planning experts estimate that in order to completely fulfill the nation’s unmet need for reproductive health care, Title X would require somewhere in the ballpark of $800 million, a far cry from today’s budget.

Title X is like the little engine that could of public programs. It prevents more than one million unintended pregnancies annually, and thereby avoids nearly 600,000 unplanned births and more than 400,000 abortions. Without Title X, the U.S. unintended pregnancy and abortion rate would be 35 percent higher among adult women and 42 percent higher among teens. Not to mention that in 2010 every dollar invested in Title X saved $5.68. How’s that for a return on investment?

Not only is the program underfunded, but in states across the country conservative lawmakers have implemented restrictions that have prevented Title X funds from actually going to family providers, effectively chipping away at what was once a robust health safety net and exacerbating a pre-existing shortage of reproductive health providers. It is largely low-income women, women of color, immigrant women, and young women who are left without anywhere to turn for preventative care.

And what happens when those women find themselves needing to terminate a pregnancy? Between the restrictions set forth under the Hyde Amendment and the rapidly shrinking network of abortion providers, they have few options. In 1976 – just three years after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion – Congress passed the Hyde Amendment and made abortion the only medical procedure ever banned from Medicaid. Ironically, Medicaid covers all the costs related to family planning and pregnancy.

By this point, you might be thinking this is all irrelevant, thanks to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). If only. While the ACA has extended care to scores of women who were previously uninsured, conservative opposition has diluted its potential impact and many people will remain without health coverage. Indeed, nearly four million women will be left without coverage this year thanks to conservative opposition to expanding Medicaid. In addition, federal restrictions ban many immigrants from Medicaid, the contraceptive mandate has been compromised and contraception is now your boss’s business, and this term the Supreme Court may very well take federal subsidies away from millions who need them in order to afford health insurance.

We need an increased investment in reproductive health now more than ever. If we are serious about improving the circumstances of low- and middle-income U.S. families, we must extend critical care and services to all of those who need and want them, and also shape the political debate in a way that will give all women and families all of the tools – not just a select few – that they need to thrive.

When the president, who espoused his support for reproductive rights in his State of the Union address, doesn’t push for a significant expansion of reproductive health care while he is putting his political capital behind broader education, income, and work-family supports, it signals that reproductive health, perhaps, is not as critical as these other issues. It suggests that with other supports women can lead economically secure lives, even if they cannot control their fertility and determine the timing and size of their families. That is simply not the case.

An agenda without bold investments in reproductive health is not a comprehensive agenda for women and families. And if women cannot access quality and affordable health care, they will not be able to make the most of the other important initiatives the president has proposed.

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

Share This

Daily Digest - January 29: Without Food Stamps, How Many Kids Would Go Hungry?

Jan 29, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Census Says 16m U.S. Children are Living on Food Stamps, Double the Number in 2007 (The Guardian)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Census Says 16m U.S. Children are Living on Food Stamps, Double the Number in 2007 (The Guardian)

One in five American children would go hungry without food stamps, writes Jana Kasperkevic, which makes continued Republican efforts to cut the program especially worrying.

The Tax Loophole (Almost) Everyone Should Want to Close (Medium)

James Kwak breaks down the step-up in basis for capital gains loophole and why he thinks it ought to be eliminated: because it's strange that our system rewards dying with unsold assets.

  • Roosevelt Take: In his white paper on tax reform, Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz also argues against this loophole.

Fed Says It Will Be Patient in Raising Interest Rates, Citing ‘Solid’ Growth (NYT)

Binyamin Appelbaum reports on the Federal Reserve's latest statement and what it will mean for raising interest rates. At this point, rates won't be raised until at least June.

Don’t Mess With Government Giveaways to the Well-Off (WaPo)

Paul Waldman says the uproar over a suggested change to 529 college savings plans shows which welfare programs are safest: those that are open to all, but give most of their financial benefits to the upper-middle class.

Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis (Bloomberg Business)

Now called "nonprime" mortgage bonds, Jody Shenn says that this time the investment firms that originate the deals plan to retain the bulk of the risk instead of shifting it to other parties.

Obama Is Finally Getting Credit for the Recovery (TNR)

Danny Vinik says that the Republican arguments claiming the recovery happened in spite of the president's policies are falling apart, leaving no other option but to give him credit.

'Housing First' Policy for Addressing Homelessness Hamstrung By Funding Issues (TAP)

Rachel M. Cohen says that "housing first" policies are pretty clearly a more effective way to fight homelessness, but without sufficient funding and housing stock, can't be fully put into action.

Share This

Did Ending Unemployment Insurance Extensions Really Create 1.8 Million Jobs?

Jan 27, 2015Mike Konczal

According to a new study by Marcus Hagedorn, Iourii Manovskii and Kurt Mitman (HMM), Congress failing to reauthorized the extension of unemployment insurance (UI) resulted in 1.8 million additional people getting jobs. But wait, how does that happen when only 1.3 million people had their benefits expire?

The answer is by going off the normal path of these arguments in models, techniques and data. The paper has a nice write-up by Patrick Brennan here, but it’s one that doesn’t convey how different this paper is compared to the vast majority of the research. The authors made a well-criticized splash in 2013 by arguing that most of the rise in unemployment in the Great Recession was UI-driven; this new paper is a continuation of that approach.

Gold Standard Model. Before we go further, let’s understand what the general standard in UI research looks like. The model here is that UI makes it easier for workers to pass up job offers. As a result they’ll take a longer time to find a job, which creates a larger pool of unemployed people, raising unemployment. In order to test this, researchers use longitudinal data for individuals to compare the length of job searches for individuals who receive UI with those who do not.

This is the standard in the two biggest UI studies from the Great Recession. Both essentially use individuals not receiving UI as a control group to see what getting UI does for people’s job searches over time. Jesse Rothstein (2011) found that UI raised unemployment “by only about 0.1 to 0.5 percentage point.” Using a similar approach, Farber and Valletta (2013) later found “UI increased the overall unemployment rate by only about 0.4 percentage points.” These are generally accepted estimated.

And though small, they are real numbers. The question then becomes an analysis of the trade-offs between this higher unemployment and the positive effects of unemployment insurance, including income support, increased aggregate demand and the increased efficiency of people taking enough time to get the best job for them.

This is not what HMM do in their research. Either in terms of their data, which doesn’t look at any individuals, or their model, which tells a much different story than what we traditionally understand, or their techniques, which add additional problems. Let’s start with the model.

Model Problems. The results HMM get are radically higher than these other studies. They argue that this is because they look at the “macro” effects of unemployment insurance. Instead of just people searching for a job, they argue that labor-search models show that employers must boost the wages of workers and create fewer job openings as a result of unemployment insurance tightening the labor market.

But in their study HMM only look at aggregate employment. If these labor search dynamics were the mechanism, there should be something in the paper about actual wage data or job openings moving in response to this change. There is not. Indeed, their argument hinges entirely on the idea that the labor market was too tight, with workers having too much bargaining power, in 2010-2013. The end of UI finally relaxed this. If that’s the case, then where are the wage declines and corporate profit gains in 2014?

This isn’t an esoteric discussion. They are, in effect, taking a residual and calling it the “macro” effect of UI. But we shouldn’t take it for granted that search models can confirm these predictions without a lot of different types of evidence; as Marshall Steinbaum wrote in his appreciation of these models, when it comes to business cycles and wages predictions they are “an empirical disaster.”

Technique Problems. The model’s vagueness is amplified by the control issue. One of the nice things about the standard model is that people without UI make a nice control group for contrast. Here, HMM simply compare high-UI and low-UI duration states and then counties, without looking at individuals. They argue that since the expiration was done by Congress, it is essentially a random change.

But a quick glance shows their high benefits states group had an unemployment rate of 8.4 percent in 2012, while their low benefits states had an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent. Not random. As the economy recovers, we’d naturally expect to see the states with a higher initial unemployment rate recover faster. But that would just be “recovery”, not an argument about UI, much less workers' bargaining power.

Data Problems. Their county-by-county analysis is meant to cover for this, but this data is problematic here. As Dean Baker notes in an excellent post, the local area data they use is noisy, confusing based on whether the state is where one works versus lives, and is largely model driven. The fact that much of it is model-driven is problematic for their cross-state county comparisons.

Baker replaces their employment data with the more reliable CES employment data (the headline job creation number you hear every month) and finds the opposite headline result:

It's not encouraging that you can get the opposite result by changing from one data source to another. Baker isn’t the first to question the robustness of these results to even minor changes in the data. The Cleveland Fed, on an earlier version of their argument, found their results collapsed with a longer timeframe and excluding outliers. The fact that the paper doesn’t have robustness tests to a variety of data sources and measures also isn’t encouraging.

So data problems, control problems, and the vague sense that this is just them finding a residual and attribute all of it to their “macro” element without enough supporting evidence. Rather than turning over the vast research already done, I think it’s best to conclude as Robert Hall of Stanford and the Hoover Institute did for their earlier paper with a similar argument: “This paper has attracted a huge amount of attention, much of it skeptical. I think it is an imaginative and potentially important contribution, but needs a lot of work to convince a fair-minded skeptic (like me).” This newest version is no different.

 
Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

According to a new study by Marcus Hagedorn, Iourii Manovskii and Kurt Mitman (HMM), Congress failing to reauthorized the extension of unemployment insurance (UI) resulted in 1.8 million additional people getting jobs. But wait, how does that happen when only 1.3 million people had their benefits expire?

The answer is by going off the normal path of these arguments in models, techniques and data. The paper has a nice write-up by Patrick Brennan here, but it’s one that doesn’t convey how different this paper is compared to the vast majority of the research. The authors made a well-criticized splash in 2013 by arguing that most of the rise in unemployment in the Great Recession was UI-driven; this new paper is a continuation of that approach.

Gold Standard Model. Before we go further, let’s understand what the general standard in UI research looks like. The model here is that UI makes it easier for workers to pass up job offers. As a result they’ll take a longer time to find a job, which creates a larger pool of unemployed people, raising unemployment. In order to test this, researchers use longitudinal data for individuals to compare the length of job searches for individuals who receive UI with those who do not.

This is the standard in the two biggest UI studies from the Great Recession. Both essentially use individuals not receiving UI as a control group to see what getting UI does for people’s job searches over time. Jesse Rothstein (2011) found that UI raised unemployment “by only about 0.1 to 0.5 percentage point.” Using a similar approach, Farber and Valletta (2013) later found “UI increased the overall unemployment rate by only about 0.4 percentage points.” These are generally accepted estimated.

And though small, they are real numbers. The question then becomes an analysis of the trade-offs between this higher unemployment and the positive effects of unemployment insurance, including income support, increased aggregate demand and the increased efficiency of people taking enough time to get the best job for them.

This is not what HMM do in their research. Either in terms of their data, which doesn’t look at any individuals, or their model, which tells a much different story than what we traditionally understand, or their techniques, which add additional problems. Let’s start with the model.

Model Problems. The results HMM get are radically higher than these other studies. They argue that this is because they look at the “macro” effects of unemployment insurance. Instead of just people searching for a job, they argue that labor-search models show that employers must boost the wages of workers and create fewer job openings as a result of unemployment insurance tightening the labor market.

But in their study HMM only look at aggregate employment. If these labor search dynamics were the mechanism, there should be something in the paper about actual wage data or job openings moving in response to this change. There is not. Indeed, their argument hinges entirely on the idea that the labor market was too tight, with workers having too much bargaining power, in 2010-2013. The end of UI finally relaxed this. If that’s the case, then where are the wage declines and corporate profit gains in 2014?

This isn’t an esoteric discussion. They are, in effect, taking a residual and calling it the “macro” effect of UI. But we shouldn’t take it for granted that search models can confirm these predictions without a lot of different types of evidence; as Marshall Steinbaum wrote in his appreciation of these models, when it comes to business cycles and wages predictions they are “an empirical disaster.”

Technique Problems. The model’s vagueness is amplified by the control issue. One of the nice things about the standard model is that people without UI make a nice control group for contrast. Here, HMM simply compare high-UI and low-UI duration states and then counties, without looking at individuals. They argue that since the expiration was done by Congress, it is essentially a random change.

But a quick glance shows their high benefits states group had an unemployment rate of 8.4 percent in 2012, while their low benefits states had an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent. Not random. As the economy recovers, we’d naturally expect to see the states with a higher initial unemployment rate recover faster. But that would just be “recovery”, not an argument about UI, much less workers' bargaining power.

Data Problems. Their county-by-county analysis is meant to cover for this, but this data is problematic here. As Dean Baker notes in an excellent post, the local area data they use is noisy, confusing based on whether the state is where one works versus lives, and is largely model driven. The fact that much of it is model-driven is problematic for their cross-state county comparisons.

Baker replaces their employment data with the more reliable CES employment data (the headline job creation number you hear every month) and finds the opposite headline result:

It's not encouraging that you can get the opposite result by changing from one data source to another. Baker isn’t the first to question the robustness of these results to even minor changes in the data. The Cleveland Fed, on an earlier version of their argument, found their results collapsed with a longer timeframe and excluding outliers. The fact that the paper doesn’t have robustness tests to a variety of data sources and measures also isn’t encouraging.

So data problems, control problems, and the vague sense that this is just them finding a residual and attribute all of it to their “macro” element without enough supporting evidence. Rather than turning over the vast research already done, I think it’s best to conclude as Robert Hall of Stanford and the Hoover Institute did for their earlier paper with a similar argument: “This paper has attracted a huge amount of attention, much of it skeptical. I think it is an imaginative and potentially important contribution, but needs a lot of work to convince a fair-minded skeptic (like me).” This newest version is no different.

 
Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

After Four Decades with Roe, U.S. Women Still Need Abortion Access, and So Much More

Jan 23, 2015Andrea FlynnShulie Eisen

As economic inequality takes center stage in politics, it's important to remember that reproductive justice and bodily autonomy are just as essential for secure lives.

As economic inequality takes center stage in politics, it's important to remember that reproductive justice and bodily autonomy are just as essential for secure lives.

Yesterday’s 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision prompted a week of stark contradictions. Thousands of anti-choice protesters descended on Washington yesterday while the House of Representatives passed HR7, a bill limiting insurance coverage for abortions (after a broader abortion ban was – for the time – abandoned). Yesterday, Congressional Democrats re-introduced the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill meant to protect abortion access from the medically unnecessary restrictions that have already made the landmark decision meaningless in many parts of the country. And in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Obama professed his support for abortion rights, along with equal pay, paid sick and family leave, a minimum wage hike, and expanded health coverage. It’s all been a reminder of what has been won and just how much there is left to fight for – from abortion rights to economic security.

Over the past four years we’ve seen an unprecedented number of attacks on reproductive health – more than 200 between 2011 and 2013 – leaving many states with a scant number of abortion providers. Scores of women are now required to travel long distances, at great cost, to access not just abortion, but a wide range of comprehensive health services.

While reproductive health has certainly been the obsession of choice of conservative lawmakers in recent years, it hasn’t been the only issue in their crosshairs. In many ways, the increasing hostility to abortion and family planning is reflective of a broader war against the poor that is sure to persist under the new Congress. It turns out the same lawmakers who have championed abortion restrictions in the name of protecting women’s health have done very little to actually help women and families. Indeed, a recent report from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health shows that states with the most abortion restrictions also have some of the worst indicators for women’s health and wellbeing. So lawmakers are restricting access to health services at the same time they are dismantling the social safety net on which so many women and families rely. The overall impact has been devastating.

In states across the country, women are struggling under the burden of intersecting health and economic injustices. Let’s look, for example, at Kansas, where conservative Governor Brownback slashed business regulations, cut taxes for the wealthy, nearly eliminated income taxes, and privatized Medicaid delivery, all with the goal of making the state a conservative utopia. In the meantime, Kansas women continue to struggle with high rates of poverty, a lack of health insurance, un- and underemployment, and a persistent wage gap. Kansas is one of the sixteen states that refuse to participate in Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, leaving nearly 80,000 adults (half of whom are women) uninsured. It is the only state in the country that actually experienced an increase in its uninsured rate last year.

To make matters worse for women in Kansas, lawmakers eliminated abortion access from 98 percent of the state’s counties – in which 74 percent of the state’s women live – and passed House Bill 2253, a 47-page law comprised of countless and senseless abortion restrictions. It included a 24-hour waiting period; medically inaccurate pre-abortion counseling; prohibiting abortion providers from working or volunteering in public schools; banning University of Kansas Medical School faculty members from teaching students and residents how to perform abortions; and eliminating public health insurance coverage of all abortion services. And the list goes on. Sadly these laws are not unique to Kansas and they have significantly diluted the initial promise Roe held four decades ago.

The economic injustices described above, and those being felt by low-income families throughout the country, are starting to get the attention they deserve, and the policy solutions to address them are gaining traction (see the recent support for raising the minimum wage and instituting paid sick and family leave). But while economists and policymakers are increasingly focused on the pernicious impacts of inequality and economic insecurity, they rarely acknowledge how these issues intersect with reproductive health and rights.

Let us use the anniversary of Roe to remember there can be no economic justice without reproductive justice. We can’t win on one front while losing on the other. Reproductive health – a cornerstone of which is family planning and abortion – is not a frill. It is a core component of comprehensive health care, which is a basic pillar of every individual’s personal, social, and economic wellbeing.

What good is better and more equal pay if we can’t plan the timing and size of our families? What good is paid sick and family leave if there are no quality, affordable, and accessible providers to give us the care we need when we need it? We need all of it. Now. That’s just demanding a basic – very basic – floor of wellbeing. And that shouldn’t be too much to ask. Roe has served as part of that foundation for the last 42 years. But conservatives have successfully chipped away at it and will continue to do so until there’s nothing left to stand on. Perhaps we can seize upon the new energy around closing the inequality gap to remind our leaders that without bodily autonomy, we will never be secure.  

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

Shulie Eisen is an independent reproductive health care consultant. Follow her on Twitter @shulieeisen.

Share This

Daily Digest - January 22: Going Beyond the State of the Union

Jan 22, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Obama’s Proposal On Inequality: Is It Enough? (Here & Now)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz speaks to Jeremy Hobson about the State of the Union, emphasizing that the president's proposals don't go far enough.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Obama’s Proposal On Inequality: Is It Enough? (Here & Now)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz speaks to Jeremy Hobson about the State of the Union, emphasizing that the president's proposals don't go far enough.

Is Net Neutrality the Real Issue? (Marketplace)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford believes that monopoly control of Internet service providers, and the payments they extract from content providers, could be a larger concern.

Obama Says Family Leave Is an Economic Necessity, Not Just a Women’s Issue (NYT)

Claire Cain Miller praises the president for recognizing that child care and paid family leave should be treated as national economic priorities.

The Grand Old Party … for the Poor? (MSNBC)

Suzy Khimm points out how Republican responses to the State of the Union tried to tie the party to anti-poverty efforts, despite continued support for policies that cut the safety net.

First Thing We Do, Tax All the Banks: Why Obama's Middle-Class Economics Plan Makes Good Sense (The Guardian)

David Dayen says that the president's proposal to tax banks on their liabilities, or what they owe, is a potential first step toward additional financial reform needed post-Dodd-Frank.

New on Next New Deal

Obama’s Middle Class Economics Has to be About Fairness and Prosperity

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch says the president's speech left out an important story about middle-class economics: these policies are better for the economy than Republican austerity.

Share This

Can Community College Systems and Infrastructure Handle Free Tuition?

Jan 9, 2015Rachel Kanakaole

The President's proposal for free tuition is exciting, but some parts of the plan may need revision if community colleges are going to be able to execute it.

“We don’t expect the country to be transformed overnight, but we do expect this conversation to begin tomorrow.”

The President's proposal for free tuition is exciting, but some parts of the plan may need revision if community colleges are going to be able to execute it.

“We don’t expect the country to be transformed overnight, but we do expect this conversation to begin tomorrow.”

The conversation President Obama’s domestic policy chief, Cecilia Munoz, is referring to is one that we are all familiar with: access to quality education. This extended conversation, which continued today with the president's speech at Pellissippi Community College in Knoxville, Tennessee, includes President Obama’s new proposal to make the first two years of community college completely free for students looking to transfer, or to get an associates degree or technical job training.

The president’s proposal, America’s College Promise, is looking to build a shared responsibility between the federal government, states, colleges. and students across the country to reexamine and reinvest in our education systems. Modeled after similar plans currently being adopted by states such as Tennessee, community colleges offering programs that fully transfer, or provide a degree or job training would be eligible for funding from the federal government to help make tuition free for students. The program would apply to half- and full-time students who maintain a minimum 2.5 GPA and make “steady progress” towards their goals. What exactly “steady progress” means remains to be clearly defined, along with many other details, such as where the federal funding will come from. President Obama says he will release those details in his State of the Union address on January 20.

Even without all of the specifics, I can say that as a current community college student, access to and affordability of classes is crucial in determining whether or not I will graduate in a timely manner. However, it is not solely lack of money that hinders us students from being able to complete a program in two years, but a combination of multiple infrastructural issues such as course offerings, classroom space, and most importantly, proper guidance to navigate the complex systems that are the basis of the college itself. America’s College Promise is not only aiming to provide the always-needed financial assistance, but also requiring colleges to adopt “promising and evidence-based institutional reforms to improve student outcomes,” such as the successful Accelerated Student in Associates Program (ASAP) at the City University of New York.  Programs such as ASAP provide much needed resources such as guidance, counseling, and schedule planning, which are all crucial components to graduating on time.

The Obama administration believes adopting research-backed programs, like ASAP, nationwide, will provide students with the additional help needed to successfully complete their education in two years. While in theory, the blanket adoption of specific programs such as these would benefit some students in some states, it most likely would not benefit all students in all states. Take my campus, San Bernardino Valley College, which is located in the bankrupt city of San Bernardino in Southern California. What works for the population in Knoxville, Tennessee will not necessarily address the needs of students 2,000 miles across the country that are from very different economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. It could also add extra pressure on already stressed community college systems by forcing college administrators, faculty members, and students to learn and navigate yet another assistance program on campus. It seems redundant to force a community college that already has counseling services, academic advisors, and multiple assistance programs of their own to adopt additional programs, instead of encouraging better technical and skills training for those already employed on their campuses in areas such as counseling, advising, and educational planning. Many schools already provide the pathways for that type of guidance and counseling to occur, they just need to be reexamined and reinvigorated instead of ignored and replaced.

Another major question this proposal brings up is one of capacity. Again, using my community college as an example, with close to 13,000 students enrolled full-time, classroom space is already extremely limited, financially and physically. Schools would be pressured to create additional course offerings to accomodate higher enrollment, which is already an issue colleges across the country have had great difficulty with.

So, can America’s College Promise truly be fulfilled? I believe so, but not until a few critical components are reexamined and rewritten. The intention is there, but thankfully this is not a final proposal and is continuing to undergo development.

Rachel Kanakaole is the Chapter Head of the San Bernardino Valley Community College chapter of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network and one of the New Chapters Coordinator for the Western Region.

Share This

Daily Digest - January 9: Charity and Government Are Not Interchangeable

Jan 9, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Mike Konczal and David Beito Debate Charity vs. Government (Stossel)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal counters right-wing arguments that charity can take the place of government in protecting social welfare.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Mike Konczal and David Beito Debate Charity vs. Government (Stossel)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal counters right-wing arguments that charity can take the place of government in protecting social welfare.

  • Roosevelt Take: Mike explained his argument on the "voluntarism fantasy" in greater depth in Democracy last year.

Europe’s Lapse of Reason (Project Syndicate)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz says that even as Europeans elect new leaders in their countries, their governments continue on a failed path of austerity, which must change.

House Democrats Swiftly Kill a Quiet Republican Plot to Protect Wall Street (The Guardian)

David Dayen says the work to stop this Republican anti-financial reform bill package demonstrates the Democratic strategy of making these economic fights very public.

Obama Plan Would Help Many Go to Community College Free (NYT)

The president's proposal would cover tuition for full- and half-time students who maintain a 2.5 GPA, report Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Tamar Lewin. It's a hard sell with a Republican Congress.

This Boehner/McConnell Obamacare 'Fix' Could Hurt Millions of Americans (LA Times)

Michael Hiltzik says readers shouldn't believe a GOP-authored op-ed's claims about changing the definition of full-time work under Obamacare. It's really a handout to employers.

America’s Workplaces Are Hostile to Families (The Nation)

Michelle Chen explores the ways that American employers make it difficult for workers to have children, as well as policy proposals that could fill the gaps.

Share This

Daily Digest - January 8: A Limited Internet? That's No Internet at All.

Jan 8, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Zero for Conduct (Medium)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says "zero rating," a practice of allowing mobile users to access a limited network of apps without data charges, is monopolistic and anti-innovation.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Zero for Conduct (Medium)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says "zero rating," a practice of allowing mobile users to access a limited network of apps without data charges, is monopolistic and anti-innovation.

Food Stamp Benefit Cut May Force a Million People Into 'Serious Hardship' (AJAM)

As some states end their waiver allowing unemployed childless adults access to food stamps, Ned Resnikoff reports that food banks and other charities don't feel able to fill the gap.

America is Optimistic About Jobs in 2015 Despite Stubbornly Low Wages (The Guardian)

Jana Kasperkevic looks at the wide range of data available about the economy and especially the labor market to explain why Americans should perhaps be more cautious in their optimism.

Why the Republican Congress’s First Act Was to Declare War on Math (NY Mag)

Jonathan Chait accuses the GOP of destroying the Congressional Budget Office's greatest power – its ideological neutrality – for the sake of passing tax cuts that won't fix the economy.

Soaring Bond Prices May Sound an Economic Warning (NYT)

Peter Eavis cautions that incredibly low yield rates on U.S. Treasury notes could indicate a coming economic stall or downturn, according to historic patterns.

Workers' Wages Have Barely Grown in Decades. Here's What Obama's Doing About It. (TNR)

Danny Vinik speaks to Lawrence Mishel and Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute, who suggest the "Obama wage initiative" package of executive actions are making a difference.

Share This

Daily Digest - December 19: It's a Whole New Economic Policy-Making World

Dec 18, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Uncharted Interest Rate Territory (U.S. News & World Report)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Uncharted Interest Rate Territory (U.S. News & World Report)

Jason Gold points out that since interest rates have been declining for 33 years, none of today's lawmakers know quite what they're in for when the Fed begins to raise rates in 2015.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal says that raising interest rates is not the way to fight "financial instability."

The Greatest Tax Story Ever Told (Bloomberg Businessweek)

Zachary R. Mider shares the story of the very first corporate tax inversion, in which a company incorporates abroad to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The idea was invented by a liberal tax lawyer in 1982.

A Big Safety Net and Strong Job Market Can Coexist. Just Ask Scandinavia. (NYT)

The strong safety net programs in Scandinavian countries, which include far more direct aid, might be more effective at getting people to work than the U.S. tax subsidy model, writes Neil Irwin.

How ALEC Helped Undermine Public Unions (WaPo)

Alex Hertel-Fernandez explains that ALEC's attacks on public sector unions aren't new: ALEC-backed anti-union laws were enacted in some states a decade before the Great Recession.

Pro-Warren Protesters Take Their Fight to Wall Street (MSNBC)

Zachary Roth reports on yesterday's protest at Citigroup's New York City headquarters, where protesters denounced the Citigroup-crafted measure weakening Dodd-Frank in the spending bill.

From the E.R. to the Courtroom: How Nonprofit Hospitals Are Seizing Patients’ Wages (ProPublica)

Paul Kiel and Chris Arnold profile the Missouri hospital that sues the most patients in the state. Nonprofit hospitals are required to offer low-cost charity care, but that isn't particularly regulated.

Share This

Daily Digest - December 18: Can Subprime Lending Really Be Safe?

Dec 18, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Return of Subprime Lending (AJAM)

Matt Birkbeck says a new wave of subprime mortgages appear to be following much stricter rules and have far less usurious interest rates, but regulators are still watching closely.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Return of Subprime Lending (AJAM)

Matt Birkbeck says a new wave of subprime mortgages appear to be following much stricter rules and have far less usurious interest rates, but regulators are still watching closely.

Paid Maternity Leave Is Good for Business (WSJ)

Susan Wojcicki says that the United States is behind the rest of the world in not offering paid maternity leave to all mothers, and that such a policy makes good sense socially and economically.

Federal Reserve Says It Will Be ‘Patient’ on Interest Rate Timing (NYT)

Binyamin Appelbaum reports on the latest comments from Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen about when the Fed will start raising interest rates. The process won't begin before April.

Fired Walmart Worker Says She Had to Choose Between a Paycheck and a Child (The Guardian)

Lauren Gambino and Jessica Glenza profile one former Walmart employee who was still asked to work with dangerous chemicals after her doctor said they would endanger her pregnancy.

What Was the Job? (Pacific Standard)

Kyle Chayka says the gig economy brought with it a massive reinterpretation of what it means to have a job, leaving behind a disenfranchised workforce without any of the benefits it once enjoyed.

New on Next New Deal

Ten Years: Students Moving the Country Forward

Roosevelt Institute Vice President of Networks Taylor Jo Isenberg reflects on the Campus Network's tenth anniversary, and how Roosevelters can continuing pushing for a better country for all of us.

Two Contradictory Arguments That Dodd-Frank is Crony Capitalism

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal compares two mutually exclusive conservative analyses of what crony capitalism means and how to fix it, which suggest this isn't a useful concept in policy debates.

Share This

Pages