The Little Woman Speaks

It’s really tempting to say “Please Proceed” every time a Republican politician speaks “to women.”  The latest wrinkle seems to be an effort to convince women that the GOP is just All For ‘Em, except when they have normal sexual drives and want to enjoy the intimacy of marriage without the possibility of having more children than the family finances can afford.   Unfortunately, the latest Republican adventure into the distaff side comes with a side of over-baked insinuation that masculinity is defined by the number of progeny a man can create.   The days ought to be  long gone when the boys in the backroom would marvel at the virility of a man who announced he fathered ___ number of children.

We had one of those characters in the hamlet once upon a time.  His prideful pronouncements were greeted politely, but in his absence there was more conversation about how the store-owner had to extend him credit every month, his employer had to provide more advances than with any other employee, and his neighbors were often called upon to literally put clothing on his children’s backs.   If the GOP would truly like to address issues of interest to women, then they’d be better served by speaking to the issues of importance to women and not to those burdened by irrational definitions of masculinity.  For example:

Paycheck Fairness Act – Filibustered by Senate Republicans in 2010 and 2012. [Roll call 115]  The House version (H.R. 377) was introduced on January 23, 2013 and sent to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, no action has been taken on the bill since.  The Senate version (S.84) was also introduced on January 23, 2013. It was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Violence Against Women Act – Renewal died in the House in 2012, eventually renewed in 2013 in spite of 138 “no” votes by Republicans in the House of Representatives and 22 “no” votes cast by Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

Legislation to mandate pre-abortion ultrasound examinations  – (2011) legislators in 13 states have introduced 22 bills seeking to mandate that a woman obtain an ultrasound procedure before having an abortion. Bills in seven states (AL, IN, KY, MT, OH, RI and TX) are very similar to a law enacted last year in Oklahoma that requires a woman to undergo an ultrasound procedure, view the image and receive a verbal description of the fetus

Revision of sex education laws to require school districts provide abstinence-only sex education, while allowing a discussion of contraception only with prior approval from state authorities – MS

Limit abortion coverage in all private health care insurance plans – (2011) Legislators in 11 states (AL, IN, KS, MI, NE, OK, OR, SC, TX, UT and WV) have introduced 18 measures that would restrict abortion coverage under all private health insurance plans. So far this year, one measure has been adopted by a legislative chamber in South Carolina and one has been enacted in Utah.

Require state health departments to develop new and restrictive regulations of women’s clinics – UT, VA

Place gestational limits on legal abortions – NE, KS, introduced in AL, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KY, MD, MS, NJ, NM, OK, OR, SC.  The “20 week limit” was a popular idea in 35 measures patterned after the restrictive Nebraska bill.

Re-introduce child labor into the American workforce – Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said that Congressional laws banning child labor are forbidden by the US Constitution despite the fact that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 1941 (United States v. Darby Lumber). (A similar movement is underway in Missouri where State Sen. Jane Cunningham (R) has introduced a bill [S.B. 222] to minimize child labor laws) The governor of Maine has recently expressed his interest in rolling back that state’s child labor laws.

Cuts to SNAP (food stamp) benefits. Without the Recovery Act’s boost, SNAP benefits will average less than $1.40 per person per meal in 2014.

Cuts to Headstart funding – “about 57,000 children will be denied a place in Head Start and Early Head Start as fallout from sequestration. [link]

Cuts to funding for Meals on Wheels for the elderly – Federal funding for Meals on Wheels and related nutrition services accounted for 0.02% of the U.S. budget last year. This year, the programs will have to do with roughly $38.7 million less because of the so-called sequester, which requires uniform cuts across programs regardless of cost-effectiveness. (Sequester)  New estimates about the automatic budget cuts were released Monday by the federal government. The cuts have slashed over $400 million from the federal program’s $8 billion budget.” (Sequester) [CNN]

For more on  anti-woman legislation see Guttmacher.Org and Politicususa. See also, CBPP. On the Paycheck Fairness Act, see Berkeley DP, Huffington Post.

Amodei, Heck, and the Ryan Budget Impact on Nevada

It is all well and good to discuss federal expenditures in general terms, and there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with calling for the reduction of waste, fraud, or abuse of federal funding.  However, it’s another matter entirely when the brass tacks must be counted.   Nevada Representatives Amodei (R-NV2) and Heck (R-NV3) voted in favor of H. Con. Res. 112, on March 29, 2012 [roll call 151] and for the Ryan Budget 2.0.  There are many sharp political tacks in this budget.

Rep. Ryan’s budget would cut approximately $3.3 trillion in funding for programs for low income Americans over the next 10 years.  [NYT]  Of the total $5.3 trillion in budget cuts in non-defense spending over the next ten years, some 62% would be shaved from programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and Pell grants. [CBPP]

Specifically, under the terms of the Ryan Budget Nevada would lose $1.7 million in funding for Headstart programs in 2013, and an additional $5.9 million in 2014.   Some 812 enrollment slots would be closed to Nevada youngsters, along with approximately 300 Headstart related jobs lost. [NEA] Did Representatives Amodei and Heck mean to vote in favor of closing Headstart to 812 little citizens of Nevada?

The reductions in SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) are even more problematic.   The CBPP explains more fully:

Chairman Ryan’s budget calls for block-granting SNAP in 2016. Under a block grant structure, the program would lose its ability to respond automatically to the increased need that results from rising poverty and unemployment during economic downturns. Annual federal funding would remain fixed, regardless of whether the economy was in a recession or how severe a downturn was. As a result, the House Budget Committee staff’s estimate that the Ryan plan would cut SNAP by $133.5 billion over ten years may understate the magnitude of the cut — the cuts would be still more severe if the economy performs less well over the coming decade than CBO currently projects.

In addition, the Ryan budget would require the House Agriculture Committee to produce $33 billion in savings over the 2013-2022 period via reconciliation instructions. It is not clear whether these cuts would be in addition to the recommended $133.5 billion in SNAP cuts. The House Agriculture Committee could produce savings from any combination of mandatory programs under its jurisdiction, including farm, conservation and nutrition programs. As a result, the net impact of the Ryan budget on SNAP could be even larger than the recommended $133.5 billion in cuts.

Remember, that SNAP (aka Food Stamps) is one of those automatic stabilizer functions of the economy which kick in when the economy goes south such that the ‘sting’ of a downturn is mitigated.  Thus, what Representative Ryan is proposing, and Representatives Heck and Amodei have adopted, is that we remove one of the key stabilization features of our national economy, with the obvious result that future downturns are more severe and potentially more difficult to overcome.

So, what would this mean for Nevada?  There are 351,000 Nevadans at risk for losing SNAP benefits, with a 0.84 ($ billion) proportional distribution cut during the period 2013 to 2022.  [CBPP] Did Representatives Amodei and Heck mean to place 351,000 Nevadans at risk of hunger? Did they mean to cause a significant loss to Nevada’s share of SNAP funding from the federal government?

The average per student Pell Grant in Nevada would be cut by about $800.  CSN defines the grant program succinctly: ” For many students, Pell Grants provide a foundation of financial aid to which other aid may be added. The maximum amount a student may be eligible for in the 2012-2013 academic school year is $ 5,350, but the amount varies depending on such factors as allowable cost of attendance, full or part-time enrollment, on or off campus residence and in-state or out-of-state residence.”   In short, cutting Pell Grant funding for Nevada’s college and university students means (a) They have to find more financial aid from their families, or (b) They need to take out more student loans.  Either way, students and/or their parents would emerge from educational programs even more deeply in debt.  We’ve invested $30,094,674 in Pell Grants for Nevada students, [DoEd] so are Representatives Heck and Amodei telling Nevada families that educating their sons and daughters for 21st century jobs is “unaffordable,” and that we should place a higher priority on preserving tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires than on educating Nevada college students?

Pell Grants and Headstart aren’t the only victims of the Ryan Budget axe, Title I  funding is also at risk.  Nevada stands to lose $5.9 million in funding cuts for schools which serve low income students in FY 2013, and another $20.9 million in FY 2014.  These cuts would affect approximately 38,905 youngsters in Nevada, and could potentially cost another 320 jobs in a state which is just beginning to recover from the 2008 Great Recession.  [NEA pdf] Did Representatives Amodei and Heck mean to cut funding for Nevada schools serving low income students?

Special Education is also on Ryan’s chopping block.  Nevada schools stand to lose about $4 million in FY 2013 and another $14 million in FY 2014.  These cuts would mean that the state or the individual school districts would have to assume the costs associated with educating about 2,660 young people in FY 2013 and 9,220 in FY 2014.  Approximately 220 jobs could be lost. [NEA] Did Representatives Amodei and Heck really mean to place special education services for 11,880 Nevada students in jeopardy?

Some of the deepest cuts in the Ryan Budget 2.0 are reserved for Medicaid.  The Ryan Budget would cut approximately 14 million people from Medicaid services by 2022.  Further, it slashes about a third of its funding.

“The Urban Institute estimated that Chairman Ryan’s block grant proposal of last year would lead states to drop between 14 million and 27 million people from Medicaid by 2021 (outside of the effects of repealing health reform’s Medicaid expansion) and cut reimbursements to health care providers by 31 percent.” [CBPP]

About 67,000 Nevadans who are elderly or disabled depend on Medicaid for health care services.  The program has helped 12,000 people stay in their homes for long term care rather than having to resort to more expensive residential nursing facility services.  [FamUSA] If Medicaid funds were cut by 33% to Nevada that would mean a reduction of $342,746,000, and 5,480 health care service jobs would be at risk. [FamUSA]

Did Representatives Heck and Amodei intend that the state of Nevada pick up another third of the costs for caring for the elderly poor or disabled in our state?  Did they mean to cut federal funding such that 12,000 individuals might have to be cared for in more expensive facilities?  But, wait — it could get worse, as federal funding declines, health care costs rise at least with inflation, and states get more strapped for revenue, what does happen to those 67,000 Nevadans who depend on Medicaid?  How do Representatives Heck and Amodei suggest they cover their health care expenses?

Did Representatives Heck and Amodei really intend to vote in favor of legislation which destroys Medicare as we know it?   The original reason for the Medicare program was that health insurance corporations did not see selling health insurance policies to the elderly as a profit maker, and thus the policies were expensive, restricted, and complicated.  It is all jolly to suggest raising the eligibility age to 67 and provide vouchers (coupons) to offset policy costs, but in reality all the Ryan Budget does is to toss senior citizens back into the private health care corporation policy hunt, and offer a colossal  federal (taxpayer) subsidy to private health care corporations.

We can know three things for which Representatives Amodei and Heck voted on March 29, 2012:

1. They voted to extend all of the expiring tax cuts, including for the very wealthiest Americans, at a cost of more than $5 trillion over 10 years.
2. They voted to cut the top personal and corporate income tax rates to 25 percent, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, exempting all corporate profits earned overseas from tax, and other tax changes at a cost of about $4.6 trillion over 10 years. The top one percent of households would receive 45 percent of the benefits of these new tax cuts; 65 percent of the benefits would go to the top five percent.  The bottom 80 percent of households would get only about 20 percent of the tax benefits.
3. And, they voted without specifying how these new tax cuts would be paid for, yet proposing to maintain the current preferential 15 percent tax rate for income from capital gains and dividends (a clear advantage for the very wealthy who receive the largest portion of investment income).   Depending on how and whether the new low tax rates for the very wealthy and corporations are paid for, they could result in a massive shift of the responsibility for paying taxes to the poor and the middle class, even deeper cuts in services for middle- and low-income people than those already in the Ryan budget, or trillions of dollars in additional debt.  [NWLC] (emphasis added)

Never have 228 Representatives, including Representatives Heck and Amodei,  so clearly demonstrated their allegiance to the top 0.5% of American income earners as in their wholehearted support of the Ryan Path To Poverty Budget.