"Pro-Baby" Does Not Mean Pro-Child

Some Republicans seem to have gotten the message that their anti-abortion antics are costing their party crucial votes in key states. So, they have rebranded themselves and instead of calling themselves the party of the "pro-lifers", they will now be known as the "pro-baby" party. While that seems to be an admirable position, it is utterly laughable when one looks at the moves their party continues to make that are anything but pro-baby, and are not pro-child. These moves affect families, the workforce, and our systems of healthcare and education.

It is hard to see how one can be "pro-baby" when one party continues to chip away at the social safety nets that have been in place for years. Welfare restrictions, Medicaid limitations, aid for pregnant mothers, and supplemental food programs have all come under fire recently. Programs that expanded medications for HIV/AIDS patients are also under attack both here and in USAID to other countries under the accusation that these programs support abortion when they teach safe sex practices. The PEPFAR program has long been one of our most successful outreach programs since it was started under President Bush. The Republican Congress is signaling more oversight according to the Kaiser Foundation, so those actions are uncertain.

Many states that have enacted strict abortion bans have also not expanded Medicaid benefits; some have made these benefits more difficult to enroll in. Brookings Institute reported that six million people have already lost Medicaid coverage after the COVID dis-enrollment ban ended. A few states that require work programs for those on welfare have decreased benefits for daycare services.

The expanded Child-care credits (EITC) enacted under emergency COVID legislation decreased the child poverty levels in America to around 5%. Refusals from many in Congress (including Democratic Senator Joe Manchin) to renew this benefit caused the child poverty level in just one year (as reported by the Brookings Institute) to rebound to over 12%. The expiration of federal support for day care centers serving essential workers and others will further affect this worker group, many of whom work off hours and need specialized centers. Day care has become an ever-increasing budget item for lower-income families, but it is necessary for them to keep their jobs. The Biden administration attempted to relieve this problem by issuing an executive order in July. He issued an order for block grants that would assure that low income families would pay only a certain percentage of their income for child care. According to CNN:

Nearly 80,000 families would pay less for child care, thanks to the 7% cap, according to the administration. Also, nearly 200,000 providers would get paid earlier, and more than 100,000 providers would start getting paid based on enrollment so their payments aren't adjusted downward if children miss days.

The block grant supports 900,000 families and 1.5 million children. However, federal funding falls short of allowing every eligible family to be served.

Low-income families often spend one-third of their yearly income on child care, more than on rent or their mortgage, Vice President Kamala Harris told reporters on a press call.

"No family should have to choose between high-quality care for their child or to give up their career or put food on the table," Harris said

Average child care costs range from $10,000 to $20,000 for toddlers and up to $25,000 for infants. There are dire predictions about the loss of parental income, provider income, and the ultimate costs to the economy if they do not continue these subsidies in some form.

Early in the pandemic, over 20,000 centers closed; mothers mostly endured this happening as they left the workforce in large numbers to return home and care for their children. Now, just as they are returning to work, this reduction in care availability is looming. The day care workforce is paid low wages, often $12-$15 hourly. If this group loses their jobs, it is doubtful they will return.

According to the Century Foundation, unless Congress acts by the end of September, centers that expanded during the COVID emergency will lose federal funding and might have to close.

They state:

"Beginning September 30, 2023, states will face a steep drop-off in federal child care investment. Without Congressional action, this cliff will have dire consequences. More than three million children are projected to lose access to childcare nationwide. Seventy-thousand childcare programs are likely to close. This will have ripple effects for parents forced out of work or to cut their work hours, for businesses who will lose valuable employees or experience the impact of their employees' childcare disruptions, and state economies that will lose tax revenue and jobs in the childcare sector as a result."

So, now is the time for parents to contact their Congressional offices to encourage the continuation of these subsidies. Of course, the Republicans in the House are so tied up with investigations of Hunter Biden, an impeachment inquiry against President Biden, and fighting amongst themselves that they have failed to pass the necessary legislation to prevent a government shutdown on September 30^th, the end of the fiscal year. The Senate has already done its part, all the House has to do is agree to pass the Continuing Resolution to move funding forward. But they are mired in dysfunction and so condemn the American public to suffer from their maladies. Could the refusal to continue the daycare funds be on purpose? Look at the charts from the Century Foundation. They show which states will be most affected if there are widespread daycare shutdowns. Florida and Texas are among those with the highest impact. Just wondering.

This year has seen a record number of strikes as income inequality is evermore clear. The CEO of the United Parcel Service (UPS) is currently paid over 19 million dollars a year. In 2022, the company had revenue of over 100 billion dollars. The UPS strike, which looked at a two-tier workforce; part-timers, making up 60% of the total hires had fewer benefits and were hired at a $15.50 hourly rate. The workers threatened to strike, but they settled just before the deadline. In the final contract, the company increased hourly rates for part-timers to over $20.00, with annual raises for five years, and reduced mandatory overtime. They agreed to equip vehicles with air conditioning, a necessity in these times of excessive heat.

I have previously discussed the strikes by writers and actors, threatened by increasing uses of Artificial Intelligence in both scripts and films. Those strikes have continued for months and do not seem close to any resolution. Studios that are paying fewer residuals with reruns and streaming, and the use of manufactured street scenes, no longer need real people. Some are saying the lack of film ready for the fall viewing season might prompt a move toward settlement, but that is uncertain.

The latest strike is a different kind of strike. United Auto Workers (UAW) announced a strike against all three major auto companies: General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis. The union has 150,000 members. However, instead of shutting down each company's plants, they targeted one plant from each company. According to the New York Times:

"The union has been pushing for a 40 percent wage increase over four years, improved retiree benefits and shorter work hours as well as an end to a tiered wage system that starts new hires at much lower wages than the top U.A.W. pay of $32 an hour."

Other important issues concern the moves toward increased automation and the move toward electronic vehicles that require fewer work hours to assemble. The companies claim that paying higher wages will make them less competitive with companies such as Tesla and European car makers of electronic vehicles. But several years ago, during the economic downturn, when the government rescued the industry, unions gave up benefits to keep the companies running. They would now like those benefits, including retiree healthcare and other issues increased.

The average automaker's salary is $80,000 while the CEOs of Ford, GM, and Stellantis make over 20 million dollars each, with the GM CEO leading the pack with 29 million dollars. As for income inequality, that amounts to about 281 times more than the average worker.

President Biden has shown inflation is going down, but workers do not see it at the grocery store as product sneak creep is expanding. Those eight hot dog packages you used to see are now six, the detergent package looks about the same but contains less product, and the tissue box now has fewer tissues. Workers and retired shoppers notice such things. He brags about a record number of employed workers, but as strikes expand and daycares close, these claims may no longer be a suitable campaign tool for him. Biden has long said he sides with the union workers and his people are trying to help resolve the strikes. However, if they continue, the MAGA crowd will try to move in. The Reagan Democrats started the ball rolling for union workers and many left the Democratic fold for the MAGA message. Unions seemed to head back to the Democrats in 2020, we shall see if this was a permanent move. According to Statistica:

"According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, 57% of surveyed voters with a union member in their household reported voting for former Vice President Joe Biden. In the race to become the next President of the United States, 48% of voters without a union member in their household reported voting for incumbent President Donald Trump."

There is so much in the news this week, but that is all I have time for tonight.

‘Til next week-Peace,