In Georgia, Lawmakers Taking Pride in Policies That Hurt the Poor

May 16, 2014Andrea Flynn

This post is the final in the Roosevelt Institute's National Women's Health Week series, which will address pressing issues affecting the health and economic security of women and families in the United States. Today, a close look at the state of Georgia, where the legislature is taking active steps against the Affordable Care Act.

This post is the final in the Roosevelt Institute's National Women's Health Week series, which will address pressing issues affecting the health and economic security of women and families in the United States. Today, a close look at the state of Georgia, where the legislature is taking active steps against the Affordable Care Act.

Georgia has taken the lead in the mad dash to thwart the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and prevent poor people from accessing health care. Last week, Governor Nathan Deal signed into law two bills that ensure the state won’t be expanding Medicaid any time soon, and that make it decidedly more difficult for people to gain coverage under the ACA. These laws – a notch in the belt of conservatives preparing for the fall election – compound the social and economic injustices already experienced by many low-income Georgians.

House Bill 990 moves the authority to expand Medicaid out of the Governor’s office and over to lawmakers. In a state where conservative politics run deep, HB 990 is Governor Deal’s clever way of way of ensuring Medicaid expansion will never get passed, and abdicating all responsibility for the health and economic consequences that will surely result. The second bill, HB 943, restricts state and local agencies and their employees from advocating for Medicaid expansion, bans the creation of a state health insurance exchange, and prohibits the University of Georgia from continuing its navigator program once its original federal grant expires in August. The University’s navigators have been working throughout the state – especially in underserved rural areas – to help demystify the ACA, assist individuals in gaining coverage on the national exchange, and help those who already qualify for Medicaid to enroll.

“Someone else will now have to re-invent the wheel and figure out how to get resources to people in rural areas," said Beth Stephens of Georgia Watch, a non-partisan consumer advocacy organization.

Like many other states that refuse to participate in Medicaid expansion, Georgia isn’t faring so well by most socio-economic indicators. The poverty rate, which now hovers around 20 percent, is 50 percent higher than it was in 2000. Nearly two million Georgians do not have health coverage, ranking the state fifth nationally in numbers of uninsured. Close to half of those individuals between the ages 18 and 64 have incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty level, many of whom would be covered under Medicaid expansion. Georgia has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates (seven percent) and today the average family makes $6,000 less than it did 10 years ago, when inflation is factored in. Individuals living outside of major cities have few health care options. In recent years eight rural hospitals have closed, leaving residents with scarce health resources and hospital workers without jobs.

To make matters worse, lawmakers in Georgia have been systematically dismantling the state’s social safety net. Of the 300,000 Georgian families living below the poverty line, only 19,000 receive TANF and more than three quarters of those cases involve children only. That means that fewer than seven percent of low-income Georgians are able to get the welfare assistance they badly need. On the same day that Governor Deal signed the aforementioned bills, he also signed HB 772, requiring certain individuals to pass – and foot the bill for – a drug test before receiving welfare and food stamps. That bill is thought to be the nation’s most stringent when it comes to public assistance.

The environment is especially hostile for Georgia’s women, 21 percent of whom live in poverty (33 and 36 percent of Black and Hispanic Georgian women, respectively). More women in Georgia die of pregnancy-related causes than women in all but two other states. The U.S. maternal mortality rate (MMR) is 18.5; that is the number of women who die for every 100,000 births. Georgia’s MMR has more than doubled since 2004 and is now 35.5 (a shocking 63.8 for black women and 24.6 for white women). Expanding Medicaid would extend health coverage to more than 500,000 uninsured Georgians, 342,000 of them women. That coverage would surely save women’s lives.

Expanding Medicaid is the right thing to do, and it makes good economic sense. It would support the development of 70,343 jobs statewide in the next decade. In that time it would bring $33 billion of new federal funding into the state, generating $1.8 billion in new state revenue. Despite all this, and despite the fact that poverty is increasing, access to health care is decreasing, and more women are dying because of pregnancy than in any time in the past 20 years, conservatives in Georgia proudly reject Medicaid expansion.

Grassroots groups in the state are working hard to counter anti-ACA sentiments. SPARK Reproductive Justice Now, an Atlanta-based non-profit that is educating and mobilizing Georgians on issues related to the ACA, released a statement in support of Medicaid expansion immediately after the Supreme Court determined states could opt-out. In addition to hosting press conferences at the capital and participating in public education events, SPARK is empowering young people to collect and tell their own stories – and those of their families – to illustrate the need for improved health access in the state and clear up confusion about how the ACA would benefit various communities. The organization is also collaborating with health navigators, particularly those working in low-income, LGBT, and black communities, to get across the message that all Georgia citizens deserve health security. “We are telling them they shouldn’t have to worry about sacrificing gas, transportation, prescriptions, etc. We are putting it back on our state and our policymakers to make it right for everyone," said Malika Redmond, SPARK’s executive director.  

The majority of Georgians want lawmakers to make it right. Polls show that 59.6 percent disagree with the state’s refusal to participate in expansion. That sentiment is shared by 64.9 percent of women and by 82.9 percent of African-Americans.

Conservative lawmakers don’t seem to care. They are busy patting each other on the back for sticking it to Obama and undermining the ACA. But the ACA isn’t going away. It’s only getting stronger. And the only people conservatives are sticking it to are the poor families in their state that are already reeling from policies that are costing them their health, their happiness, and their lives. 

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

Banner photo via Flickr.

Share This

Places for Hope in the Fight to Protect Women's Health and Rights

May 15, 2014Andrea Flynn

This post is the fourth in the Roosevelt Institute's National Women's Health Week series, which will address pressing issues affecting the health and economic security of women and families in the United States. Today's post looks at states that are taking positive, proactive steps on women's access to health care.

This post is the fourth in the Roosevelt Institute's National Women's Health Week series, which will address pressing issues affecting the health and economic security of women and families in the United States. Today's post looks at states that are taking positive, proactive steps on women's access to health care.

It’s National Women’s Health Week, but with conservative lawmakers around the country in a pissing match to see who can propose and pass more anti-women laws, it is sometimes difficult to find occasion to celebrate. However, there is reason for hope. A number of states are currently deliberating (or have passed) legislation that protects women’s access to health care, showing that states can be safe havens, not just hostile environments, for women and their families.

There has certainly been reason to despair. We are not even five months into the year and have already seen a barrage of anti women’s health legislation at the state level. 15 states have introduced abortion bans that would replace Roe v. Wade by instituting gestational bans as early as six weeks. 14 states have introduced regulations on abortion providers, similar to those that have shuttered 20 of the 44 clinics that provided abortions in Texas (in September when new restrictions are fully implemented, there will only be six left in the entire state). Seven states have proposed banning abortion coverage on insurance plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act’s health exchanges, eight have proposed banning such coverage in private health plans, and nine have proposed banning or regulating Medicaid coverage of abortion. 11 states have proposed legislation mandating abortion counseling and waiting periods, and four of those states use inaccurate information about the links between breast cancer and abortion. This compounds the crises created by the litany of anti-women’s health bills that states have passed in the last three years.

However, some states are moving in the opposite direction. California is modeling legislation that can protect women’s access to health care. Last fall, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that expands access to abortion by allowing nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants to perform abortions during the first trimester. And a few weeks ago, State Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) introduced the Contraceptive Coverage Equity Act, which reinforces the ACA’s requirement that insurance companies cover all FDA approved contraceptive methods and counseling without cost-sharing. It also mandates insurance coverage of birth control for men without cost-sharing.

A number of states (including CA) had contraceptive equity laws in place before the ACA was implemented. However, there are vague provisions in the ACA, such as allowing insurers to limit benefits through “medical management techniques,” which are sometimes being used by physicians and insurers to deny women the contraceptive method of their choice (certainly was not the intent of the ACA). Older equity laws do not necessarily protect women who fall through confusion in the law. Updates like California's are necessary to ensure continuity of care.

California is far ahead of the pack, but it’s not alone. Legislators in New York are again attempting to pass the Women’s Equality Act (WEA), an omnibus bill that aims to protect reproductive health and abortion rights by codifying Roe v. Wade at the state level. It would also prevent income, housing, pregnancy, and family status discrimination; reduce human trafficking; protect victims of domestic violence; and stop workplace sexual harassment, among other provisions. The WEA was introduced by Governor Andrew Cuomo last year but failed in the final minutes of the legislative session because of disagreements over the bill’s abortion provision. The bill moves the issue of abortion access from the margins and puts it exactly where it should be: in the context of women’s economic and social security. After failing to pass the bill last year, legislators and advocates are working to advance the agenda again this year.

Lawmakers in Washington state are deliberating a measure that would require all health plans (including those in the state's exchange) that provide coverage for maternity care to also include coverage for abortion services. At a time when states are aggressively working to restrict insurance coverage of abortion, the Washington bill (which does include religious exemptions), stands out as a model of pro-choice legislation.

If passed, these bills would be great news for women in those respective states. Unfortunately, women who live outside these states won’t be so lucky, particularly those living in states that refuse to participate in Medicaid expansion. It’s hard to believe that in 2014 we need to resort to one-off pieces of legislation that protect only some women’s access to basic health care. But such are the times. The ACA was meant to be a path to health insurance for most Americans, and for many it has drastically improved access to quality, affordable healthcare. But challenges and changes to the law have left some of those in greatest need without coverage.

Conservatives have been so successful at passing anti-women’s health legislation because they have scores of ready-made bills at their fingertips when they come into office. Progressives need those same resources to protect the rights of women and families. The bills in California, New York, and Washington are important models for advocates and lawmakers in other states and municipalities who are working to counter the tide of anti-women’s health legislation that is sweeping the nation. Perhaps they will spark a quiet groundswell of pro-woman and pro-family laws. Now that would be something to celebrate. 

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

 

Share This

For U.S. Mothers, Conservative Policies Can Be Deadly

May 12, 2014Andrea Flynn

This post is the first in the Roosevelt Institute's National Women's Health Week series, which will address pressing issues affecting the health and economic security of women and families in the United States. Today, a look at why conservative policies at the state level are leading to increased maternal mortality rates.

This post is the first in the Roosevelt Institute's National Women's Health Week series, which will address pressing issues affecting the health and economic security of women and families in the United States. Today, a look at why conservative policies at the state level are leading to increased maternal mortality rates.

For much of the last decade, maternal mortality rates (MMRs) have declined globally. But in the United States, they have consistently increased and are now at one of the highest points in the last 25 years. If conservatives have their way with social and economic policy, it’s unlikely the U.S. will make significant strides to improve the health of mothers in the near future.

According to a report released last week in the The Lancet, the U.S. now ranks 60th out of 180 countries for maternal deaths. China is number 57. Only seven other countries experienced an increase in MMR over the past 10 years. They include Greece, Afghanistan, and South Sudan. The report estimates that for every 100,000 births, 18.5 mothers die in the U.S. By comparison, 13.5 women die in Iran, 6.1 in the United Kingdom, and only 2.4 in Iceland.

It is no coincidence that the U.S. MMR has increased as poverty rates have steadily climbed. In 2010, Amnesty International released a report that showed women living in the lowest-income areas were twice as likely to suffer a maternal death. States with high rates of poverty were found to have MMRs 77 percent higher than states with fewer residents living below the federal poverty level. Women of color have poverty rates more than double those of white women, and black women are 3-4 times as likely to die from pregnancy-related causes.

The numerous factors that contribute to the high U.S. MMR are complex, as are the solutions required to effectively address the problem. However, one solution is already in place and is working. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will significantly improve maternal health by mandating coverage of pre-natal, maternity, and post-partum care in all insurance plans. But some of the women in greatest need will remain uninsured and at increased risk because of the refusal of 21 states to expand Medicaid. Many of those states have among the nation’s highest rates of poverty and maternal mortality.

Expanding Medicaid would save women’s lives. A 2010 study conducted in New York City showed that the MMR for women with no insurance was approximately four times higher than for insured women, and that the rate for women insured by Medicaid was comparable to that of women with private insurance.

Many states have higher Medicaid eligibility limits that enable pregnant women with incomes above the standard Medicaid threshold to receive coverage. However, that coverage does not begin until women are already pregnant, and it is often terminated soon after their babies are born. This short coverage period leaves women uninsured for much of their lives and places them at higher risk for health problems that can lead to complications during and after pregnancy. Following implementation of the ACA, some states reduced eligibility limits for pregnant women, and loopholes in other states will leave many women without coverage during this critical time. Expanding Medicaid would provide continuous coverage for women whose incomes exclude them from the program and who do not qualify for subsidized insurance through the exchanges.

Despite the maternal health crisis unfolding in many states, conservative state lawmakers stand firm in their refusal to expand Medicaid, even though the federal government will cover 100 percent of the cost for the first three years and a minimum of 90 percent thereafter. Some states, like Georgia, are so intent on undermining the ACA that they have passed laws to prevent state employees from advocating for expansion and have made it more difficult for people who already qualify for Medicaid to enroll.

Conservatives do not have plans to solve this crisis. In fact, their plans will only make it worse. Family planning cuts and abortion restrictions in places like Texas have shuttered women’s health clinics and obliterated the health infrastructure on which poor women relied for their basic needs. And while many women and their families are still reeling from the recession, cuts to safety net programs like food stamps have led to greater insecurity in health, income, and food than ever before.

Last week’s Lancet report is a stark reminder that women suffer heavy casualties in the partisan battles raging in states across the country. But what we are witnessing today is more than a nasty game of politics: it is a violation of women’s human rights. We should be ashamed and outraged.

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

Image via Thinkstock

Share This

Cliven Bundy's Window into the War on the Poor

May 2, 2014Andrea Flynn

Republicans were quick to distance themselves from the Nevada rancher after his remarks about slavery, but he points to a deeper issue with conservative policy.

It’s tempting dismiss Cliven Bundy – the Nevada rancher who last week suggested that blacks were better off under slavery – as a fringe conservative unworthy of any more airtime. But his remarks provide a window into the underbelly of today’s conservative movement and are worth a closer look.

Republicans were quick to distance themselves from the Nevada rancher after his remarks about slavery, but he points to a deeper issue with conservative policy.

It’s tempting dismiss Cliven Bundy – the Nevada rancher who last week suggested that blacks were better off under slavery – as a fringe conservative unworthy of any more airtime. But his remarks provide a window into the underbelly of today’s conservative movement and are worth a closer look.

Bundy was a little known entity until earlier this month when his two-decade long refusal to pay cattle grazing fees escalated into a face off between his own armed militia and agents from the Bureau of Land Management. The episode launched him into the national spotlight and endeared him to conservatives like Senators Rand Paul and Dean Heller, and Texas Governor Rick Perry, among others.  

Bundy capitalized on his moment in the spotlight to expound on the grazing rights of his cattle, abortion, and slavery.  He suggested that government subsidies have caused “negroes” to abort their “young children” and “put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton.” He went on: “And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."

Conservatives scrambled to distance themselves from Bundy by denouncing his comments as offensive and racist. But they were rather quiet on Bundy’s characterization of the safety net as a modern form of slavery. Their silence reflects a common ideology uniting conservative politicians to the likes of Bundy, one that lays the blame for poverty squarely on the shoulders of poor people – particularly poor people of color – and the government programs meant to support them.

And it’s hard to argue that the GOP’s recent social policy proposals aren’t fueled by the same fire that propelled Bundy’s diatribe. Rand Paul has equated universal health care and government programs such as food stamps to slavery. Congressional candidates from North Carolina to Arizona have argued that entitlement programs are simply a way for government to assert power over the people. Paul Ryan, whose latest budget slashes spending for Medicaid and food stamps, has warned that the safety net is on the brink of becoming “a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.” Mike Huckabee suggested that by supporting mandated contraceptive coverage, Democrats were suggesting women needed “Uncle Sugar” to control their “libidos or reproductive system.”

These notions have motivated conservatives' strategic dismantling of the social safety net. Cuts to food stamps, with more to come should Paul Ryan have his way. Refusal to participate in Medicaid expansion, leaving more than 3 million low-income people uninsured. Rejection of the minimum wage increase. Opposition to extending federal unemployment benefits. Repudiation of equal pay measures. The imposition of funding cuts and regulations that have shuttered women’s health clinics across the country. And a government shutdown spurred by opposition to the ACA, specifically the law’s contraceptive mandate.

Who bears the greatest burden of these actions? Poor women, particularly women of color, who have long been blamed for perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Bundy and conservative politicians alike rely on historic notions of poor women being lulled to complacency by government subsidies. Those notions – in addition to being racist and classist – are simply incorrect. The majority of subsidy recipients work, but don’t make enough to support themselves or their families. As of 2011, 70 percent of low-income families and half of all poor families were working, but research suggests that nearly one-third of all working families do not make enough money to meet basic needs.

Republican cuts to government subsidies will only further erode the economic security of American families. Instead of laying blame – indeed, punishment – on poor women, we should bolster the foundation on which they stand. The Roosevelt Institute recently released a report that made the case for economic policies that would support working families: raising the minimum wage; expanding the earned income tax credit; instituting paid sick and family leave; and strengthening the right to organize; among others.

As my colleague Ellen Chesler and I recently argued, all of these recommendations are necessary but will be meaningless if women are not able to make free and fully informed decisions about their reproductive health, including planning the timing and size of their families. As such we must expand the nation’s family planning program, push for all states to expand Medicaid, and tear down the other policy barriers that prevent low-income women from accessing care.

Conservative leaders are desperate to convince the poor that social safety net programs are the chains binding them to poverty, thereby legitimizing the destruction of the very system built to lift up America’s poor families. Perhaps we should thank Bundy for using such ugly terms to shed light on the conservative substitute for the war on poverty: a war against the poor.

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

Image via Thinkstock

Share This

Daily Digest - April 29: Paul Ryan's Anti-Poverty Theater

Apr 29, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The New Paul Ryan Is All About Heart (NY Mag)

Though Paul Ryan tries to portray himself as the Republican who cares about the poor, his policies cut funding from anti-poverty programs, writes Jonathan Chait.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The New Paul Ryan Is All About Heart (NY Mag)

Though Paul Ryan tries to portray himself as the Republican who cares about the poor, his policies cut funding from anti-poverty programs, writes Jonathan Chait.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal points out that Ryan doesn't just cut funding from the poor; he buys into the fantasy that charity alone could solve poverty.

Trucking Used to Be a Ticket to the Middle Class. Now It’s Just Another Low-Wage Job. (WaPo)

Lydia DePillis explains how the (potentially illegal) reclassification of truck drivers as independent contractors has changed the industry. With all the costs shifting onto the drivers, earnings have dropped.

Hawaii Set to Become Third State to Hike Minimum Wage to $10.10 (MSNBC)

Hawaii will follow in the footsteps of Connecticut and Maryland, reports Ned Resnikoff. The state is also giving a big boost to its tipped workers, whose wages will be calculated by far more favorable rules.

The Adjunct Revolt: How Poor Professors Are Fighting Back (The Atlantic)

Elizabeth Segran looks at adjunct professor organizing, which has grown tremendously. It's not just about money; adjuncts complain that it is impossible for them to properly teach under this system.

The Real Reason Conservatives Oppose Renewing Unemployment Insurance (TNR)

Conservatives are asking for overwhelming proof that the long-term unemployed suffer without extended unemployment insurance, says Danny Vinik, because they just don't want to spend the money.

Get Rid of Job Killing Tax Extenders; Pay For the Rest (Working Economics)

Thomas L. Hungerford points out House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp's hypocrisy: he requires budget offsets for unemployment insurance, but not for more expensive tax breaks.

What Problem Is Privatizing Fannie and Freddie Meant to Solve? (HuffPo)

Dean Baker sees no reason to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac right now, since they are performing well. But if we must, government should get out of mortgage-backed securities entirely.

Share This

Paul Ryan and the Voluntarism Fantasy

Apr 28, 2014Mike Konczal

When I wrote a long piece about the Voluntarism Fantasy at Democracy Journal, several people accused me of attacking a strawman. My argument was that there's an influential, yet never clearly articulated, position on the conservative right that we jettison much of the federal government's role in providing for economic security. In response, private charities, churches and "civil society" will rush in and do a better job. Who, complained conservatives, actually argues this?

Well, here's McKay Coppins with a quite flattering 7,000 word piece on how Paul Ryan has a "newfound passion for the poor." What is the animating core and idea of his new passion?

Ryan’s broad vision for curing American poverty is one that conservatives have been championing for the last half-century, more or less. He imagines a diverse network of local churches, charities, and service organizations doing much of the work the federal government took on in the 20th century. Rather than supplying jobless Americans with a never-ending stream of unemployment checks, for example, Ryan thinks the federal government should funnell resources toward community-based work programs like Pastor Webster’s.

Many are rightfully pointing out that this doesn't square with his budget, which plans to eliminate a lot of spending on the poor in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. But in the same way that budget shenanigans like dynamic scoring is supposed to make his numbers work, there's an invisible work of charity that will simply fill in however much that is cut from the federal budget.
 
There's a dead giveaway here. Note the "in the 20th century" rather than the normal "since the War on Poverty" as when things went wrong. Ryan doesn't think the War on Poverty is a problem, or doesn't just think that. He thinks the evolution of the state during the entire 20th century is the problem, and wants to return to the freer and better 19th century.
 
But as I emphasized in the piece, this idea is not true in history, theory or practice. The state has always played a role in providing economic security through things like poorhouses and soldier pensions well before the New Deal. When the Great Depression happened, the old system collapsed. Service organizations called on the government to take over things like old-age pensions, unemployment insurance and income support because they realized they couldn't do it themselves. Freed of the heavy lifting of these major pieces of social insurance, they could focus in a more nimble manner on individual and targeted needs.
 
And the reasons this doesn't work out are quite clear - charity is uncoordinated, very vulnerable to stress (charitable giving fell in the recession just as it was most needed), and tied to the whims and interests of the rich. And charitable organizations aren't calling for the Ryan Budget, and they don't think that they'll run better and with better resources if Ryan's cuts happen. They know firsthand they won't have the resources to balance out the gigantic increase in need that would result.
 
(Elizabeth Stoker has more on attempts to link this this fantasy up with Christianity broadly and Catholic subsidiarity specifically.)
 
Ideas have consequences. The fact that Ryan's are fundamentally flawed on so many levels will have consequences too for the poor if they come to pass.
 
Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
  

 

When I wrote a long piece about the Voluntarism Fantasy at Democracy Journal, several people accused me of attacking a strawman. My argument was that there's an influential, yet never clearly articulated, position on the conservative right that we jettison much of the federal government's role in providing for economic security. In response, private charities, churches and "civil society" will rush in and do a better job. Who, complained conservatives, actually argues this?

Well, here's McKay Coppins with a quite flattering 7,000 word piece on how Paul Ryan has a "newfound passion for the poor." What is the animating core and idea of his new passion?

Ryan’s broad vision for curing American poverty is one that conservatives have been championing for the last half-century, more or less. He imagines a diverse network of local churches, charities, and service organizations doing much of the work the federal government took on in the 20th century. Rather than supplying jobless Americans with a never-ending stream of unemployment checks, for example, Ryan thinks the federal government should funnell resources toward community-based work programs like Pastor Webster’s.

Many are rightfully pointing out that this doesn't square with his budget, which plans to eliminate a lot of spending on the poor in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. But in the same way that budget shenanigans like dynamic scoring is supposed to make his numbers work, there's an invisible work of charity that will simply fill in however much that is cut from the federal budget.
 
There's a dead giveaway here. Note the "in the 20th century" rather than the normal "since the War on Poverty" as when things went wrong. Ryan doesn't think the War on Poverty is a problem, or doesn't just think that. He thinks the evolution of the state during the entire 20th century is the problem, and wants to return to the freer and better 19th century.
 
But as I emphasized in the piece, this idea is not true in history, theory or practice. The state has always played a role in providing economic security through things like poorhouses and soldier pensions well before the New Deal. When the Great Depression happened, the old system collapsed. Service organizations called on the government to take over things like old-age pensions, unemployment insurance and income support because they realized they couldn't do it themselves. Freed of the heavy lifting of these major pieces of social insurance, they could focus in a more nimble manner on individual and targeted needs.
 
And the reasons this doesn't work out are quite clear - charity is uncoordinated, very vulnerable to stress (charitable giving fell in the recession just as it was most needed), and tied to the whims and interests of the rich. And charitable organizations aren't calling for the Ryan Budget, and they don't think that they'll run better and with better resources if Ryan's cuts happen. They know firsthand they won't have the resources to balance out the gigantic increase in need that would result.
 
(Elizabeth Stoker has more on attempts to link this this fantasy up with Christianity broadly and Catholic subsidiarity specifically.)
 
Ideas have consequences. The fact that Ryan's are fundamentally flawed on so many levels will have consequences too for the poor if they come to pass.
 
Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
  

 

Share This

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

Pages