The Right Priorities For Our Working Families
Posted March 29th, 2011 by Senator Kirsten GillibrandThe 2010 election was a mandate for one thing: creating jobs and strengthening our economy for the long term. I heard that message loud and clear from New York families in every corner of our state, and I am working with my colleagues in Congress on solutions that will help create good-paying jobs and get the economy moving again for everyone.
But, instead of focusing on rebuilding the economy, House Republicans have unleashed an extreme ideological attack on America’s women and working families with HR 1, the first bill they introduced this Congress.
The House-passed bill slashed critical funding for parental care, including $750 million from nutrition programs for pregnant women and infant children.
It denies more than 5 million American women access to breast and cervical cancer screenings that could potentially save their lives.
Their budget cuts affect early childhood education deeply—cutting over $1 billion from Head Start, and nearly $40 million from child care, depriving nearly 370,000 children from the early learning needed to put them on a path to a bright future.
And despite the overwhelming demand from the American people for Democrats and Republicans to work together to invest in job creation policies, House Republicans slashed nearly $1.5 billion from the job training programs we need to prepare America’s workforce for the jobs of today and the high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
But, more than these dollar figures and the irresponsible budgeting and priorities from Republicans, this debate is about the working families who rely on these resources to make ends meet each day. From the single mother who will no longer be able to provide nutritious meals for her young children to the young woman who will no longer have access to the early cancer screenings that could save her life to our children who will never walk through the doors of a university years from now because the doors to early education are being closed to them today. We cannot slash and burn our way to a healthy society and a thriving economy.
These are the wrong priorities for New York and the wrong policies for America.
Instead of marginalizing women, Congress must get to work on policies that can foster job creation and fuel economic growth. I have a range of proposals that can help get us there.
I have authored legislation that empowers more women and minority-owned businesses with the resources to help guide these budding entrepreneurs to be leaders of our economy, opening up access to the credit they desperately need to get their businesses off the ground.
I have also authored legislation to support the increase of young girls and minorities in the fields of math and science to generate the leaders we need in emerging high-tech industries that will be the future of our economy.
I’m fighting to make child care more affordable for working parents so they can continue working and advancing their careers, closing wage gaps that for too long have held women back from the fair economic opportunities they need.
And, as our troops return home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and our women veterans become one of the fastest growing segments of the homeless veteran population, I’m partnering with businesses and working to provide them with tax credits in exchange for hiring recent veterans so our heroes have better access to good-paying jobs after serving our country.
These are the priorities that I am urging my Republican colleagues to join me on. And we can all do our part—because this debate isn’t just happening in the halls of Congress. It’s happening in each and every one of our communities, at kitchen tables and living rooms, in our schools and in our churches. It’s up to all of us to get off the sidelines and join the effort to protect our families and the resources that keep our communities safe, healthy and thriving.
We will not stand for this attack on America’s women and working families.
It’s time to focus on real solutions that will create jobs and build our economy for real strength and stability—not just for the fortunate few but for every American.
6 Comments
March 30, 2011 at 11:01 am by ChrisSenator Gillibrand, I fail to see how any of the cuts that you mentioned above by the Republicans are preventing the creation of jobs. And the only proposal that you listed above that actually has a chance of creating a job, is the tax breaks for businesses that hire veterans. Almost everything in your message emphasizes the need to spend more money; money that our country does not have. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent, and all you can come up with is more spending? The massive debt has to be paid back somehow, and businesses and taxpayers know that some day in the near future, we will be asked to pay this alll back in tax increases. Knowing this, is it any wonder why businesses are not hiring, or can’t afford to hire, knowing that the impending tax increases will increase the price of every product they purchase and sell. And yet, you inherently know this to be true by offering tax breaks for businesses to hire veterans. If we can lower business taxes, then jobs will come. Fortunately, the governor of New York knows this and is doing the very thing that Republicans want to do in Congress, cut spending.
[Reply]
Jan Reply:
March 30th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
@Chris, I’m curious, if it is true that they will not hire people unless the taxes are low, why then are we not in a massive hiring spree right now? Less than 33% of all corporations pay any tax at all (http://www.alternet.org/economy/150387/2_3rds_of_us_corporations_pay_zero_federal_taxes%3A_us_uncut_movement_builds_to_make_them_pay_up/), and these corporations have been sitting on nearly 2 trillion in reserve capital for nearly 2 years now (http://economy.nationaljournal.com/2010/09/how-to-put-businesses-cash-res.php). The tax rates are at their lowest rates ever, but we cannot get below 9% unemployment?
And why then during the 90′s when the taxes were increased did we still have the largest boom in economic progress since the end of WWII?
And how did we ever hire all of the baby boomer generation during the 50′s 60′s 70′s when the tax rates were near their highest points in history?
The problem with this logic is that it forgetting that we are a consumeristic and individualistic society. We will consume as much as we are allowed. If the tax rate were 10%, then the individuals at the top would accumulate to themselves the most they possibly could under that circumstance and behave in a way that promoted their bottom line, not the community nor the worker. If you tax them at 50% they will do the same. The tax rate is irrelevant. All of modern history has shown that business people will make money no matter what you give them (within reason – i.e you cannot tax them at 100%). We have booms and busts under both high and low tax regimes.
So, the end result should be that we tax as needed for the services that are required by the population. Businesses will always find a way to make money. It’s what America is best at.
This tax system has only benefited the very richest of America. Real wage growth for all but the top 5% of income earners has been all but stagnant. But the wealthy are making a greater percentage of the wealth now than at any other time in the history of America. American productivity is at the highest it has ever been, and yet only the already wealth are benefiting from this system.
[Reply]
Anonymous Reply:
March 31st, 2011 at 4:24 pm
@Jan, Great points, Jan. I personally feel that today’s economy is unlike any others in the previous decades. Sure there were periods were unemployment rose above 7 percent in the 1940′s, 50′s, 60′s and 70′s. But, with the exception of Japan in the 70′s, I don’t recall such a global competitive market as it exists today in business. The earlier decades, the US was the major producer and manufacturer. Now several nations have industrial capabilities that are stronger than ours, with lower costs. US industry is at a disadvantage in selling to US consumers because the cost of their products include not only the cost to manufacture, but the cost to cover labor expenses and corporate taxes. Foreign products have lower labor costs and pay lower corporate taxes in their home countries, making them attractive to US consumers who want a “good deal”. As a result, US companies and US jobs tend to go overseas to where they can take advantage of the lower overhead.
Now there are advantages to producing products in the US (stable govt, access to technology, ease in distribution to US markets, etc), but if the cost of their overhead is at risk of rising, then why risk investing in our markets when it could put them further behind the global competition? This is where I am concerned that the debt and uncertain costs related to healthcare reform is having it’s toll in the job market. Until business has some certainty that it can predict it’s costs, it will not risk investing capital in the US market.
Can it be fixed? Sure, but that will involve hard choices regarding deficit spending and passing legislatively mandated costs along to employers. In a global economy, US consumers no longer need to buy American Made products. Another thing that I think might equalize the tax burden of US made products is to change our tax system to a national sales tax, instead of corporate or income taxes. This is not to be confused with a VAT. I have heard the a national sales tax would amount to about 22 percent of the sales cost of everything purchased in the US, domestic or foreign. As since US companies would not pay corporate or income taxes anymore, the cost of their products would go down in the US and abroad, making their products priced competitively. Foreign imported goods would then also be taxed 22 percent, increasing their cost as well. And no income tax means that everyone would get 100 percent of their paychecks (minus benefits and state/local income taxes). We would have more spendable cash that could be invested
[Reply]
Someone should fight for struggling parents who pay tuition for private schools and/or catholic high schools. There is no tax break for us. We pay a tremendous amount of money for our children to get a better education and can’t even claim some of it on taxes only college. not fair
[Reply]
Anonymous Reply:
March 30th, 2011 at 10:50 am
@Denise Timmons, Hi Denise and thanks for your comment. You do have choices, however. And if you don’t feel it is fair to not get a tax break for paying for a private school for your child, you could opt pulling your kid out of the private school and place them into one of the failing, tax-payer supported, public school options in your community.
[Reply]
Jan Reply:
March 30th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
@Denise Timmons, Homeschoolers don’t get tax breaks either. At least you have a choice to send your child to a private school. I don’t mind some tax breaks for parents who pay for private school tuition, but not if it comes at the expense of families who have no choice but to attend public schools, particularly inner city, and money is being diverted from those public schools. I personally like how many European countries do it – tax money is allocated per child and the money follows the child. But there must always be an amount set aside to support quality education for children and families with limited mobility options for education.
[Reply]
Leave a Comment