Richard Nixon Knew Family Planning Saves Taxpayer Dollars, But Today’s GOP Doesn’t Care

Oct 28, 2013Andrea Flynn

As the Affordable Care Act helps more Americans get health insurance, it's time to increase funding for Title X, because the need for family planning services is only going up.

As the Affordable Care Act helps more Americans get health insurance, it's time to increase funding for Title X, because the need for family planning services is only going up.

For more than 40 years, Title X has provided family planning and reproductive health services to millions of American women. More recently, conservative lawmakers have targeted Title X as part of their obsession with shrinking the social safety net and restricting access to women’s health care. Those same opponents are now likely to argue that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) focus on women’s health renders Title X unnecessary.  But as I argue in my new paper published by the Roosevelt Institute, that is simply not the case. In reality, the success of the ACA and the health of women across the country are dependent on even greater support for existing family planning programs.

Title X is the nation’s only program solely dedicated to family planning. It was passed into law in 1970 with overwhelming bipartisan support and can in fact be credited to two Republican presidents: Richard Nixon, who signed the bill into law, and then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, who led the legislative effort. It provides critical medical care to low-income, immigrant, and young women and enables clinics to pay for and maintain facilities, train and hire staff, and purchase equipment and supplies.

Despite being perennially underfunded, the program delivers incredible health results. Last year it served 4.76 million women, preventing an estimated 996,000 unintended pregnancies, 200,000 of which were among teens. Research has shown that services provided at Title X clinics save federal and state governments more than $3 billion every year.

As millions of Americans gain health coverage for the first time thanks to the ACA, clinics funded by Title X will become an even more critical building block of our nation's health system. Even when individuals obtain coverage, many will continue to choose publicly funded clinics as their main source of care. In the four years following the implementation of Massachusetts’ health care reform, which served as the model for the ACA, publicly funded health centers experienced a 31 percent increase in patients, even though the number of uninsured visiting those facilities fell by more than 15 percent.

Even women who are already fully insured will continue to rely on Title X clinics for family planning because they can do so in complete confidence. Issues like intimate partner violence and religious beliefs of employers, family, and partners, cause many women to circumvent their insurance plans when accessing family planning services and instead rely on public providers.

The fact is, despite the GOP’s relentless strategic misinformation campaigns and the technology problems that bedeviled the rollout this month, the ACA is good for women. It mandates that insurance plans fully cover all methods of contraception, prohibits gender discrimination and denial of care based on pre-existing conditions, and enables young people to stay on their parent’s plans until they are 26. It requires plans to cover pap tests, STD screening, preconception and prenatal care visits, postpartum counseling and breastfeeding support, and one well visit a year. Make no mistake: this is groundbreaking.

Despite these historic advancements, many women will remain uninsured in the years to come. There are lots of reasons for this, not the least of which is the refusal of many states to accept federal funding for the expansion of Medicaid.  

The ACA was intended to be a path to health care for all Americans, and a major pillar of the law was the expansion of Medicaid to all individuals who fall below 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($15,415 for an individual or $26,344 for a family of three), with subsidies for individuals above that level to buy insurance in the marketplaces. But last year the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not constitutionally require states to expand Medicaid, and conservative lawmakers pounced on the opportunity to block a major component of the ACA.

Today, 22 states refuse to expand Medicaid even though the federal government will foot 100 percent of the bill for the first three years and cover at least 90 percent of the cost after that. These states are denying care to more than 3.5 million low-income women who badly need it. The New York Times reported that as a result, two-thirds of poor black and single mothers and more than half of uninsured, low-wage workers will remain without coverage.

Basically, women who fall into the coverage gap are not considered poor enough for Medicaid by their states, but because the ACA originally intended for them to be covered by the expansion, they also don't qualify for subsidies. And even if they did, the cost of subsidized insurance would likely still be prohibitive given their income level. These individuals will have no choice but to rely on the social safety net – in this case, Title X-funded clinics – for care.

The very critics who have staked their political careers on sinking the ACA and preventing scores of women from accessing family planning services – and who shut down the government in an attempt to do so – would love nothing more than to do away with Title X. They have tried unsuccessfully in recent years, and the program will certainly be in their crosshairs as they continue to chip away at the host of social programs on which low-income women rely.

The ACA, while an enormous advancement for women’s health, does not eliminate the need for the Title X program. Rather, Title X will maximize the impact and reach of the ACA and ensure quality care for those who will remain uninsured.

In the forthcoming budget battles, women’s health advocates will have to fight tooth and nail to maintain Title X’s current funding level, which has already been diminished by sequestration. The program is as critical today as it was when it was created. Today’s very different breed of GOP lawmakers could use a reminder that it was their own party four decades ago that realized investing in family planning was a critical way to improve the health of women, communities, and the entire nation. Who ever thought we’d be longing for Nixon? 

Read Andrea's paper, "The Title X Factor: Why the Health of America's Women Depends on More Funding for Family Planning," here.

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.


Woman with pregnancy test banner image via

Share This

Daily Digest - October 25: Imagining A Tech-Friendly Government

Oct 25, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The U.S. Needs a Tech-Smart Government (Bloomberg View)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The U.S. Needs a Tech-Smart Government (Bloomberg View)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford argues that the embarrassing rollout of is proof that it's time for government to take a new approach to technology. The trouble is that tech innovation and government function in such disparate ways.

Addicted to the Apocalypse (NYT)

Paul Krugman suggests that the people who are constantly crying that the deficit will ruin our economy need to take a second look. After years of fear mongering, there's been no debt-apocalypse, and he doesn't think it's coming.

The Cost of the Financial Crisis Hits Americans Harder Than Banks (The Guardian)

Heidi Moore argues that even though the dollar costs of the mortgage crisis are greater for the banks than the average homeowner, the settlements are almost meaningless. JP Morgan Chase seems unapologetic, while people lost their homes to foreclosure.

The Goldilocks Curse: How America's Job Creation Story Got So Boring (The Atlantic)

Derek Thompson says that because job growth has been basically flat for two years, the news story is no longer interesting. He also wonders if things would have been so stagnant if the U.S. wasn't always shifting from one fiscal crisis to the next.

CHARTS: The Hidden Benefits of Food Stamps (MoJo)

Christopher D. Cook looks at some of the benefits of food stamps, like generating farm jobs and economic activity, and reducing children's risk of obesity and diabetes. That's all beyond fulfilling the basic purpose of feeding people who are hungry.

Detroit Pensioners Await Bankruptcy Ruling (MSNBC)

Ned Resnikoff reports on pensioner reactions to the beginning of the federal trial to determine whether or not Detroit can file for bankruptcy. The people he spoke to say that the "haircut" being suggested for the pensions would chop off a lot more then that.

How Congress is Aiming to Defang Patent Trolls (Quartz)

Tim Fernholz looks at new legislation introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) that would protect businesses from patent trolls, who buy up patents in order to make money off infringement suits and licensing fees.


Share This

Larry Klein's Lesson for the Single-Minded Economists Who Rejected Keynes

Oct 23, 2013Jeff Madrick

The late Nobel laureate knew that fiscal and monetary policy worked best together, and that low inflation alone would not sustain a strong economy.

The late Nobel laureate knew that fiscal and monetary policy worked best together, and that low inflation alone would not sustain a strong economy.

Larry Klein, a 1980 Nobel Prize winner in economics, died on Sunday. I interviewed him often when I was an economics reporter, and one of his most vehement beliefs had long stuck in my mind. He was an early Keynesian and built models to simulate the economy that could have predictive power. Because, like Keynes, he believed in the power of aggregate demand to drive the economy, he forecast that there would be no post-World War II Depression because of pent-up demand and the buying power of returning soldiers.

What stuck in my mind was Klein’s anger about evolving government policy. Even Keynesian economists had come to believe that monetary policy was more effective than Keynes’s fiscal policies. Klein argued to me that these stimulus policies only worked well in tandem. You need both monetary loosening, meaning mostly lower interest rates, and fiscal stimulus, meaning government spending or tax cuts, to restore strong economic growth.

The economic consensus did not take this lesson seriously. Most economists were pretty certain across much of the political spectrum that they had already learned how to manage the economy, and it wasn’t Klein’s way. Both Robert Lucas, the rational expectationist, and Olivier Blanchard, who leaned a bit towards Keynes, said with no small trace of hubris that macroeconomists had pretty much solved the big problem. Ben Bernanke also expressed confidence that the profession had at last learned the job.

There were some disagreements between the Lucas school of thought and economists like Blanchard. What they agreed on was that fiscal policies a la Keynes were not needed. Consumers and business would expect a rise in taxes if the federal government ran deficits, and so would save rather than spend, countering any stimulus. This phenomenon is known as Ricardian equivalence. At best, fiscal policy was politically clumsy, requiring Congressional approval for spending and all that.

In a 2010 publication called Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy, written with colleagues for the International Monetary Fund, where he is still chief economist, Blanchard admitted economists had been wrong. It took the housing and financial crash of 2007-2008 and the Great Recession to bring some sense to the profession. Blanchard and his co-authors wrote that what economists thought they knew was wrong. Economists had believed there was a single policy objective for controlling the economy, which was stable inflation, and there was also only a single tool, the interest rate. The 2010 piece was a mea culpa.

What lulled economists into complacency was what many now call the Great Moderation, an economy that was not too hot and not too cold. The way to get to this ideal state was merely to use monetary policies to stabilize inflation, preferably at low levels. It was the justification for what came to be called inflation targeting, either the hard kind with a precise target or the soft kind that was discretionary. Economists noted that the result of these policies since the early 1980s was both less volatile inflation and less volatile output (basically, GDP).

That was it. The major assumption was that stable GDP would push the economy to its optimal rate of growth, or in Blanchard’s more technical terms, “So long as inflation was stable, the output gap was likely to be small and stable and monetary policy did its job.”

But fiscal policy was decidedly secondary. And there is no mention of maximizing employment at all in the Blanchard piece; it wasn’t a thought in a mainstream economist’s mind, apparently. It was believed that the economy operated so efficiently with low, stable inflation that unemployment would automatically settle at its lowest, non-inflationary rate. Moreover, there was no serious discussion of growth, even though economic growth in the U.S. was not especially fast in these years. Here, then, was the general equilibrium model, a central assumption in economics and policymaking, simply taken for granted as true.

One other sentence in Blanchard is worth quoting: “[W]e thought of financial regulation as mostly outside the macroeconomic policy framework.”

Speculative bubbles, these economists believed, should not be deflated by regulators. The mess could easily be cleaned up later.

Macroeconomists were wrong not only about regulations and bubbles, admit Blanchard and his colleagues, but also about placing fiscal stimulus in the back seat. 

It’s by no means clear that macroeconomists have cleaned up their act. They still think low inflation will get us to maximum employment, for example. But at least they are now entertaining more objectives than one.

Their bad theory led us to sequestration today. There is too much water under the bridge for economists who correctly recommend fiscal stimulus to easily win the day when so many argued for so long that Keynesianism did not work. This is why Larry Klein was deeply frustrated.

America’s version of austerity economics is still winning the day, despite recantations like Blanchard’s. In coming months an agreement to cut the deficit over the next 10 years will be discussed, or apparently reckless Republicans will close the government down again. Medicare and Social Security cuts will be on the table. There is absolutely no economic need for this. The deficit is under control, and so is federal debt.

But the misleading macroeconomics practiced by America’s most prestigious university professors has left a long and damaging shadow. Klein would have shed some light.

Jeff Madrick is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and Director of the Bernard L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative.

Share This

Block a Grand Bargain with Bold Progressive Solutions to Social Security and Medicare

Oct 21, 2013Richard Kirsch

Going into the post-shutdown budget discussions, progressives should take the offensive with proposals that would fix problems with Social Security and Medicare without any cuts.

Going into the post-shutdown budget discussions, progressives should take the offensive with proposals that would fix problems with Social Security and Medicare without any cuts.

Republicans may not have succeeded in defunding the nations’ newest social insurance program, ObamaCare, but they now are aiming at the foundational programs, Social Security and Medicare. And this time, they’ll have the President on their side. It would be a mistake for progressives to assume that a grand budget bargain will fall apart once again, even if that remains likely. Instead, we need to turn the debate from cutting social insurance to strengthening both the finances and benefits of both big retiree programs. The best way to do that is by championing simple, bold solutions.

In his post shutdown press conference, President Obama repeated his call for changes in Social Security and Medicare. His 2014 budget included cuts to benefits for both.  That aligns him with House Speaker John Boehner, who called for savings in Social Security and Medicare during the shutdown battle. Senators from both parties have shown their willingness to support benefit cuts as part of a big budget deal.

Yes, it is likely that the next attempt to reach an overall budget deal will also collapse, as the last ones have, particularly in the beginning of an election year. The biggest barrier to a bad deal up to now has been Democratic insistence, repeated on the same day as the President’s press conference by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, that tax hikes – with revenue coming from big corporations and the wealthy –be part of the deal. But if Republicans were willing to close some corporate tax loopholes – which some of their tea party members see correctly as examples of crony capitalism – Democrats would be under tremendous pressure from the President and others in their party to go along.

Progressives must rely on more than saying “hands off Social Security and Medicare,” although that should remain central to our message. We need a strong offense, to go with that potent defense. By putting forward simple, broadly popular, progressive proposals that actually enhance benefits and add money to Social Security and Medicare, we enable Democratic allies in Congress to set the agenda and counter claims that they are not taking action to address the real solvency problems. And we also help set the agenda for the inevitable future deal to address both programs’ financing.

Here are two simple, popular, powerful proposals. On Social Security, make the richest 5% people pay into Social Security on all their earnings, just like 95% of workers now do. Use the new revenue to both boost Social Security benefits – which are too low – and extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust fund. On Medicare, slash the cost of prescription drug prices just like the Veterans Administration and all our global competitors do, saving hundreds of billions of dollars in the next decade.

The Social Security proposal has been introduced in both houses of Congress, with legislation by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa (S.567) and Rep. Linda Sanchez of California (H.R.3118), which would boost benefits in two ways: changing the way benefits are calculated (designed to particularly help low-and-moderate income seniors) and changing the inflation adjuster Social Security uses to the CPI-E, which more accurately captures what seniors pay. This is exactly the opposite of the chained CPI proposed by President Obama, which undercounts what seniors typically purchase. The legislation raises the money to pay for the benefits and extends the Trust Fund by gradually removing the cap on earnings taxed by Social Security, which is $113,700 in 2013. Doing so would extend the period during which the Trust Fund has enough money to pay all benefits from 2033 to 2049.

Progressives have long talked about Medicare using its enormous purchasing power to get the same kind of low drug prices paid by the Veterans Administration or every other country on the globe. While estimates of the savings vary, they clearly would be substantial, tens of billions each year, much more than the cuts to Medicare included in the President’s budget. There are two bills in Congress that aim to do this, one sponsored by Vermont Rep. Peter Welch and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar and the other introduced by Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Senator Dick Durbin. While neither is designed to get the maximum savings – a combination of the approaches taken in each is needed – either would work to make the point that we can strengthen Medicare by stopping the drug companies from ripping off the country.

But having legislation is really window dressing to the strategy here: offering bold, popular solutions that deal with both sides of the problems facing Social Security and Medicare: benefits that are too small for the retirement security of seniors and the shortfalls in financing of both programs. While elites want to focus on the “entitlement crisis,” the public is well aware of the financial pressures most seniors now face and the looming retirement crisis, and is adamantly opposed to cuts in both programs.

It is up to progressives, inside and outside of Congress, to seize the moment. It’s a simple message: instead of making painful cuts to Social Security and Medicare we can boost benefits for seniors and make sure that the programs are there for the long term by having millionaires pay into Social Security like everyone else and stopping drug companies from ripping off Americans. 

Driving this message will turn the grand bargain debate on its head, and will start setting the terms for progressive solutions when Congress does take action on both programs in the next few years. 

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.


Social Security cards banner image via

Share This

Daily Digest - October 16: The Debt Ceiling Fight Over Birth Control

Oct 16, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

House GOPers Pushing for Anti-Birth-Control Measure in Debt Ceiling Deal (MoJo)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

House GOPers Pushing for Anti-Birth-Control Measure in Debt Ceiling Deal (MoJo)

Tim Murphy reports that while the House proposal to end the shutdown and raise the debt ceiling already contains provisions that would never pass the Senate, that isn't enough for some Republicans. They want to see a conscience clause included in this deal.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn writes about the GOP's last attempt to push anti-birth control measures in economic policy, during the lead up to the shutdown.

We're Approaching the Worst-Case Scenario for House GOP Hostage-Taking (The Atlantic Wire)

Philip Bump considers just how bad the Republicans' attempts to cast the shutdown as a kidnapping situation is getting. House Republicans are back to proposing the same ideas that were turned down before the shutdown, which even the Senate Republicans oppose.

Debt Talks in Disarray as House Balks (NYT)

Jonathan Weisman reports that House negotiations on the shutdown and debt ceiling fell apart on Tuesday night. Meanwhile, credit rating agencies are already concerned by Congress bringing the country to the brink again.

Wall Street Doubts Debt Deadline and Puts its Money on 1 November (The Guardian)

Based on Wall Street announcements on their Treasury bond holdings, Heidi Moore suggests that big business thinks the U.S. won't actually default on October 17. Whenever default day falls, it could cause huge damages to the social safety net.

Nightmare Scenario: What Happens If We Actually, Truly Default? (NY Mag)

Kevin Roose lays out an hour-by-hour schedule of how default day would work out, based on discussions with financiers and policy experts. They suggest that a debt ceiling increase would happen within the day - but the damage would last much longer.

North Carolina Suspends Welfare Program Thanks To The Shutdown (ThinkProgress)

Bryce Covert says that until today, all the states were covering federal funding for their Temporary Aid for Needy Families programs. North Carolina's announcement won't be the last if the shutdown continues, so families and children who rely on that program will be in trouble.

Fast-Food Wages Come With a $7 Billion Side of Public Assistance (Bloomberg Businessweek)

Susan Berfield looks at two studies on the amount of public assistance that fast food workers receive in order to make ends meet. McDonald's says it pays competitive wages, but more then half of fast food workers are enrolled in least one public assistance program.

New on Next New Deal

The Truth About the GOP's Phony Shutdown Offer

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Bernard L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative Jeff Madrick writes that until Republicans pull their threat of default, Democrats and the President can't take their offers seriously.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 15: Fighting Global Inequality at Home

Oct 15, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Inequality Is a Choice (NYT)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses a new divide between countries who attempt to do something about income inequality and countries that don't. If the U.S. and its peers aren't trying to make change, why should anyone else?

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Inequality Is a Choice (NYT)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses a new divide between countries who attempt to do something about income inequality and countries that don't. If the U.S. and its peers aren't trying to make change, why should anyone else?

Living on $5,000 a Year, on Purpose: Meet America's 'intentional poor' (NBC News)

Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow Nona Willis Aronowitz looks at the lives of those who choose poverty as a lifestyle. She points out that choosing poverty is different from being poor: many who choose this lifestyle have a family safety net.

Nancy Pelosi on Sister Simone (Politico)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi writes about her admiration of Sister Simone Campbell, who will be awarded the Freedom of Worship medal at Wednesday's Four Freedoms Awards. Pelosi admires how Sister Simone's faith leads her to take action on behalf of the needy.

The Default has Already Begun (Reuters)

Felix Salmon argues that because global faith in U.S. financial institutions has already been shaken, for most purposes default has already started. The effects can't be stopped at this point, even though we haven't yet breached the debt ceiling.

A Government Above the People (Al Jazeera)

Sarah Kendzior says that when Republican congressmen suggest that furloughed federal workers take out expensive short-term loans during the shutdown, it's further proof of how disconnected government is from the people who rely on the social safety net, or even just their paychecks.

In Shutdown and Debt Ceiling Showdown, GOPers Ignore Their Party's Own Advice (MoJo)

David Corn compares the Republican's internal autopsy from March to their current behavior. The report was supposed to help the GOP make changes to appeal to a broader range of voters, but the party's actions are practically the opposite of the recommendations.

A Win For McJobs: Seattle's Mayoral Candidates Both Support a $15 Minimum Wage (The Atlantic)

Jordan Weissmann questions whether the support for fast food protesters' wage demands is just posturing. But even if it is, for any politician to start supporting a $15 per hour minimum wage should be seen as a great success in changing the narrative.


Share This

Women Are Bearing the Brunt of Shutdown Fallout

Oct 11, 2013Andrea FlynnNataya Friedan

The "non-essential" programs that are currently unfunded due to the shutdown are in fact essential for many women and children.

The "non-essential" programs that are currently unfunded due to the shutdown are in fact essential for many women and children.

The GOP likes to say the war on women is a myth. But the government shutdown, now in its eleventh day, is just the latest evidence that it is indeed alive and well. It should be no surprise that women are among those hurt most by the closure, which, predictably, is in part a reaction to the benefits that the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature achievement, guarantees women, as we wrote last week.

From the nation’s elite institutions to the oft-neglected rural areas of this country, women and their families are caught in the middle of a political impasse that has furloughed an estimated 800,000 government workers, threatens to upend the global economy, and has left critical government programs and services scrambling to secure emergency funds in order to serve America’s most vulnerable populations.

The shutdown threatens a number of programs and funding streams, including domestic violence shelters and service centers; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); the Woman, Infants, and Children Program (WIC); School Lunch; Head Start; and Title IX investigations of sexual assault on college campuses. This will have a serious impact on the health, physical safety, food security, and economic stability of women and their families.

Physical Safety

As Bryce Covert wrote last week, funds for domestic violence programs designated under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) have been suspended since October 4. (It should be no surprise that many of the House members leading the shutdown also voted against VAWA itself earlier this year.)

Small centers without access to independent funding – those that serve women with the fewest options – will only be able to weather the storm for so long. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing economic downturn, violence against women has been on the rise, with eight out of 10 shelters reporting increases in the number of women seeking help, and 74 percent of domestic violence victims staying in unsafe situations because of economic insecurity.  Demand for these services is increasing, while funding is being cut from every source. Nearly four out of five of domestic violence service providers have reported decreases in government funding over the past five years, and since October 1, many have closed their doors completely or limited their services.

The shutdown is also affecting the safety of women on college and university campuses across the country. An increasing number of institutions are under investigation for ineffective handling of sexual assault cases adjudicated under Title IX.

And with the shutdown, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has suspended investigations into alleged violations and has halted campus visits necessary for holding institutions accountable.  

Food Security

The shutdown threatens the food assistance on which millions of America’s most vulnerable women and children rely. At this point, federal funding for TANF, WIC, and school lunches has been suspended. State and USDA reserve funds are being reallocated so that states can continue to provide these essential services, but they will only be able to function with these limited resources for a short time.

States are shouldering the burden to keep TANF running while the government is shuttered, but last week, 5,200 eligible families in Arizona did not receive their monthly check. Thus far Arizona has been the only state to deny this important benefit for families in need, but every day the program is more strained.

WIC, the federal program that most crucially provides formula and breastfeeding assistance for mothers in need, has also been left in the lurch. On Tuesday, officials announced that no additional WIC vouchers would be issued in the state of North Carolina, where approximately 264,000 women rely on the program. In Utah, the WIC program shut its doors and only reopened four days later because the USDA provided a $2.5 million emergency grant. Other centers are sure to face the same challenges so long as workers are furloughed and grants are on hold.

Economic Security

Head Start programs that provide childcare and education for 7,200 low-income children ages 0-5 did not receive grants due on October 1. Thousands of low-income women are able to go to work every day because their children participate in Head Start programs. Without them, women already struggling in low-wage jobs and lacking benefits are forced to miss work, because no one else is able to care for their children. For women, secure employment is contingent on secure childcare and education for their families. The New York Times reported that programs in six states had closed due to the shutdown and then reopened temporarily thanks to a $10 million gift from a couple in Texas. Head Start will continue as a result of this short-term rescue, but private philanthropy will not be able to do the job of the government over the long term.

In sum, what some define as non-essential government services are, in fact, essential to the economic and physical well-being of America's most vulnerable women and their families. It’s just another variation on the old adage that one man’s public interest may be another’s tyranny – in this instance, largely tyranny over women and children.

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.

Nataya Friedan is a recent graduate of Columbia University working for the Roosevelt Institute’s Women Rising program.

Share This

Daily Digest - September 30: A Bad Policy News Moment

Sep 30, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The House’s Food Stamps Cuts Aren’t Just Cruel. They’re Dumb. (WaPo)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The House’s Food Stamps Cuts Aren’t Just Cruel. They’re Dumb. (WaPo)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal explains why the GOP's plan to require states to follow a $2,000 assets test for SNAP eligibility is bad policy. Assets tests create poverty traps, forcing families to avoid saving in order to stay afloat.

Countdown to Shutdown: A Primer on Where Budget Wrangling Stands (The Atlantic)

David A. Graham writes an update on what's happened in Congress over the weekend. So far, Republicans have been unwilling to pass a clean continuing resolution in the House, and the schedule for today allows only ten hours of legislative work time.

Who Will Notice a US Government Shut Down? Public Workers, Foreign Governments and People With the Flu (Quartz)

Tim Fernholz lays out who will feel the immediate effects of a government shutdown on October 1, which looks exceedingly likely. The less obvious groups include sick people, since the CDC will stop tracking epidemics, and anyone who planned to buy a house in October.

This Week in Poverty: Five Things You Might Have Missed on 'Poverty Day' (The Nation)

Greg Kaufmann looks at five points from the U.S. Census poverty data that weren't covered by mainstream media. Most strikingly, instituting a monthly benefit for every child as is common in other developed countries could nearly eliminate child poverty in the U.S.

I Worked All Week for Free?!: The Horrifying, True Story of $0 Paychecks (Salon)

Josh Eidelson explains why a group of guest workers on H-2B visas are striking and putting pressure on Florida politicians to reform labor laws. After putting in a full week, these workers are charged rent that is greater then their earnings - and the boss is also the landlord.

Viewpoint: The Decline of Unions Is Your Problem Too (TIME)

Eric Liu explains why every American is harmed by the lowest rate of union membership in 97 years. Organized labor used to keep the economy healthier; today, the people setting the rules are only focused on shareholder profits.

New on Next New Deal

"Inequality for All" is "The Progressive Economic Narrative: The Movie"

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch reviews the new film starring Robert Reich, which articulates the narrative that progressive economists have been pushing through Reich's humor and passion, as well as profiles of families scarred by the new economy.

Share This

Daily Digest - September 23: Fishing For Solutions to Underwater Mortgages

Sep 23, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Is Richmond’s Mortgage Seizure Scheme Even Legal? (WaPo)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Is Richmond’s Mortgage Seizure Scheme Even Legal? (WaPo)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal looks at the questions raised by Richmond, CA's proposal to use eminent domain to reduce underwater mortgage debt. He argues that the plan has plenty of legal precedent, and clear benefits for the residents of Richmond.

Mike Konczal on Economic Collapse, Hugh MacMillan on Fracking Study (CounterSpin)

Mike appears on FAIR's weekly radio show to discuss what has and hasn't changed in the five years since Lehman Brothers's bankruptcy. He argues that the crisis really started in 2007, with the first wave of foreclosures on subprime mortgages.

This Week in Poverty: New Data, Same Story (and Same Dangerous House Republicans) (The Nation)

Greg Kaufmann sees the latest Census data on poverty as proof that even though the needed steps in the fight against poverty are known, they aren't being implemented. Unfortunately, all the policies he wants to see are anathema to the GOP.

Jackie Speier Protests Food Stamp Cuts With Steak, Vodka, Caviar (HuffPo)

Robin Wilkey reports on Rep. Speier's speech calling out her peers who favor cutting SNAP for their excessive travel bills paid by the government. But caviar and filet must come before necessities for the poor, since the $40 billion in cuts passed.

American Bile (NYT)

Robert Reich argues that Americans are divided over many issues, but their anger comes from stagnant economic growth and widening inequality. The people who see the economy as rigged against them, whether by government or business, are the angriest.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline and Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network will join Reich for a conference call on his new film "Inequality for All" on Wednesday.

It's the Austerity, Stupid: How We Were Sold an Economy-Killing Lie (MoJo)

Kevin Drum explains how the now-infamous Reinhart and Rogoff paper on debt as a killer of economic growth kicked off the austerity regime that has reduced U.S. economic growth by as much as two percent. It's been disproved, but we're still on the austerity train.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal was one of the first to look at the UMass paper that disproved the Reinhart-Rogoff paper.

The Shutdown Showdown: What Happens Now? (MSNBC)

Kasie Hunt looks at the likely timeline for the continuing resolution now moving into the Senate, which contains language defunding the Affordable Care Act. It's expected that Harry Reid will strip out that language before the Senate passes the bill.

The Most Important Lesson the Fed Taught the World This Week (The Atlantic)

Zachary Karabell argues that the Fed's announcement of no taper for now is a reminder that there is no certainty in markets. There's no excuse for businesses using "uncertainty" as a reason to not hire, especially when they then blame government dysfunction.

Share This

Daily Digest - September 20: The Last Five Years of Financial Crisis

Sep 20, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

What We Get Wrong When We Talk About ‘The Financial Crisis’ (Majority Report)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

What We Get Wrong When We Talk About ‘The Financial Crisis’ (Majority Report)

Sam Seder speaks with Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal about his most recent piece at the Washington Post's Wonkblog, where he argued that Lehman shouldn't be the center of the financial crisis narrative.

Finally, JPMorgan Admits The Bank Broke The Law (HuffPo)

Mark Gongloff reports on JPMorgan's admission that they broke securities laws in the "London Whale" debacle. The fine is an inconsequential amount for the firm, as it often is in these cases, but it's unusual for banks and bankers to actually admit to their wrongdoing.

The Fed Has Investors Overjoyed, And It's For All the Wrong Reasons (The Atlantic)

Mohamed El-Erian sees this week's surprise announcement of no taper from the Fed as symptomatic of their failure to plan long-term strategy. That's a big problem, since the Fed's uncertainty leads to market instability.

The Fed Stays the Course (TAP)

Robert Kuttner is glad that the Fed will maintain bond buying programs for now, but it's a decision that primarily benefits Wall Street. Hopefully, a Yellen-chaired Fed would reconsider a plan to purchase bonds that put money in the Main Street economy.

Job And Business Growth Strong Under Seattle’s Paid Sick Days Law (ThinkProgress)

Bryce Covert looks at an analysis of the impact of a new paid sick leave law on the Seattle economy. Seattle continues its economic growth, just as has been the case in every other municipality that has enacted paid sick leave legislation.

Rousing Workers to Seek Higher Wages (LA Times)

Alana Semuels speaks with Naquasia LeGrand, a KFC employee who has been heavily involved in Fast Food Forward in NYC. Naquasia was anti-union at first, but after learning more about the movement, she's become a strong supporter and recruiter.

Women Waiting Tables Provide Most of Female Gains in U.S. (Bloomberg)

Ian Katz and Alex Tanzi report on a study by the National Women's Law Center that looks at women's employment gains. Most of the increases in employment for women since 2009 are in the service industry, with 60 percent of new jobs paying less than $10.10 an hour.

Red State Pain (NYT)

Timothy Egan considers the GOP's continued inability to empathize with poor constituents as the House passes a bill that will kick 3.8 million people off SNAP. The underlying assumption is that the poor, even children, have done something to deserve going hungry.

Share This