Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 4, 2017)
anuary 4, 2017 Page 7 J Opinion articles do not necessarily represent the views of the Portland Observer. We welcome reader essays, photos and story ideas. Submit to news@portlandobserver.com. O PINION What Trumponomics Means for Women Republican policies that don’t work M artha b urk On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised again and again to “fix the economy.” And now that he’s won, he’s busy pad- ding his cabinet with Wall Street rogues and off-the-chart conserva- tives from the fringes. If you read their resumes, it’s not hard to figure out they’re plan- ning an umpteenth refrain of well worn Republican policies that don’t work: cutting taxes across the board, especially for corpora- tions and the wealthy; privatizing health care, education, Medicare, and Social Security; and getting rid of any government regulations that survive the onslaught. It’s trickle down economics re- dux. The working-class populism of the campaign is long gone. by Trump’s so called fixes will hurt the nation’s majority — women — the most. While scores of men have fallen off the mid- dle-class ladder since 1980, many more women never made it past the lowest rung in the first place. Adult women remain the majority of minimum wage workers. And single moms struggle the most, trying to make ends meet while balancing the need to work with child care costs (which can run up to 37 percent of a sin- gle parent’s income). Our incoming leader is smugly proud of his child care plan, which you might think benefits women if you aren’t listening too closely. He proposes to “allow parents to fully deduct the average cost of child care” from income taxes. But changing child care to a deductible instead of a credit, as it is now, hits middle income work- ers hardest. The present Child and Dependent Care Credit comes off your tax bill whether you itemize or not. Changing it to a deduction means if you don’t itemize, you don’t get the deduction. And besides, what does the “average cost of child care” actu- ally mean? Child care costs vary considerably from state to state, arrangement to arrangement, and income to income. So presumably a mother such as Ivanka Trump — her father says she’ll be put in charge of it’s maternity leave only — there’s no benefit for new dads, and noth- ing for taking care of sick family members — it’s sexist on its face. But the deeper problem is how employers will view female work- ers if they’re of child bearing age and there’s no comparable benefit for men: Better not promote her, some may think, since she might get pregnant. For that matter, bet- But what of their lower paid sisters? No meat on that bone. These women already make so little they qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit — and of- ten have to rely on Medicaid and Food Stamps to get by. So they don’t pay income tax, making the cuts meaningless. Trump’s plan ignores this inconvenient truth for women, who are still getting 78 Trump’s newly minted maternity leave plan also has a hidden economic barb for women. Since it’s maternity leave only — there’s no benefit for new dads, and nothing for taking care of sick family members — it’s sexist on its face. child care reform — could deduct the cost of a high priced live in nanny. But those with a child in family day care, or one cared for by grandparents, could deduct a comparative pittance — or noth- ing at all. Trump’s newly minted mater- nity leave plan also has a hidden economic barb for women. Since ter hire the guy in the first place. Trump does have one propos- al that’ll help a tiny slice of the female population. His plan to slash the top income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent would definitely benefit the fraction of a percent of upper income fe- male workers who earn more than $413,350 per year. cents on the dollar for full time work when compared to men. No doubt about it — Trump’s economic “fixes” will put women in a fix for sure. Martha Burk is the director of the Corporate Accountability Project for the National Council of Women’s Organizations. Dis- tributed by OtherWords.org. The Threat to Liberty and Justice for All Stage set for rollback on civil rights “This committee has a duty to our citizens to carefully exam- ine the qualifications of nominees for the Federal bench and to give our approval only to those who have demonstrated a personal commitment to the principle of equality for all Americans and a sensitivity to the long history of inequality which we are still struggling to overcome…Mr. Ses- sions is a throwback to a shame- ful era which I know both black and white Americans thought was in our past. It is inconceivable to me that a person of this attitude is qualified to be a U.S. attorney, let alone a U.S. Federal judge. He is, I believe, a disgrace to the Justice Department and he should with- draw his nomination and resign his position.” — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Senate Judi- ciary Committee Open- ing Statement, March 13, 1986 b y M arC h. M orial During a presiden- tial campaign rally in Dimondale, Mich., Re- publican nominee Donald Trump made an impassioned, six-word overture to African Americans, who had shown little enthusiasm for his campaign: “What do you have to lose?” Well, if the Presi- dent-elect’s cabinet nominations are any indication, for African Americans — and anyone con- cerned over imminent threats to justice for all Americans — the answer is simple: everything. With Trump’s nomination of Republican Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general, the stage appears set to rollback the clock on racial justice, immigra- tion policy, LGBTQ movement advances and gender equality, among other hard fought for gains in the American struggle towards equality for all its citizens. Sen. Sessions first emerged on the national stage in 1986, when President Ronald Reagan nomi- nated the then United States at- torney for the Southern District of Alabama for a federal judgeship. His bid for the lifetime appointment was prompt- ly derailed by the Repub- lican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee as a result of sworn testimony that pointed to a disturbing pattern of racist actions and comments. Among the diverse allegations brought by witnesses, Sen. Ses- sions was accused of calling an African-American prosecutor “boy” on more than one occasion. He was also accused of calling a white attorney a “disgrace to his race” for representing black cli- ents in a voting rights case. Sessions labeled the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union “un-American” and “com- munist-inspired” organizations, arguing that the groups “forced civil rights down the throats of people.” He also publicly de- scribed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as “an intrusive piece of leg- islation.” For his alarming and distressing comments, Sen. Sessions became the second man in half a centu- ry to be rejected by the Judiciary Committee. By a bipartisan vote of 10-8—with two Republicans joining the Democrats—Sen. Ses- sions’ nomination was rightfully opposed. But he wasn’t finished. Sen. Sessions went on to become the attorney general of Alabama, then he moved on to become state’s junior senator. And now, a man once reject- ed as too racist to hold a federal judgeship, and has demonstrated a career-long, deep hostility to civil rights, is now being considered to serve as the nation’s chief enforc- er of civil rights law. A man who once described the Voting Rights act as “intrusive,” he is now being considered as the nation’s top law enforcer, tasked with enforcing our nation’s voting rights laws. It seems the Trump adminis- tration is poised to set the fox to guard the henhouse. As it did three decades ago when Sen. Sessions testified be- fore it, we expect and demand that the Senate Judiciary Committee conduct a thorough and complete examination to determine if Sen. Sessions is fit to serve in this cru- cial federal justice enforcement capacity. But this examination cannot, and must not, be limited to past transgressions. Sen. Ses- sions, who has worked as a public servant for decades, has amassed a record that can speak for itself — and it speaks volumes. In 2006, Sen. Sessions support- ed a ban on same-sex marriage. In 2009, Sen. Sessions voted against a bill that would expand federal hate crime legislation, and against Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay. Sen. Ses- sions has opposed legislation that would restore the pre-clearance provision of the Voting Rights Act — supported by civil rights groups. And, during a debate on immigration reform, Sen. Sessions insulted Dominican immigrants, claiming that, “Fundamentally, almost no one coming from the Dominican Republic to the United States is coming here because they have a provable skill that would benefit us and that would indicate their likely success in our society.” As it did three decades ago, the Judiciary Committee must vigor- ously question Sen. Sessions and seriously contemplate whether his 30-year record of action and state- ments befits a candidate whose job requires enforcing the con- stitutional and civil rights of all Americans. The National Urban League, along with a broader civil rights coalition are conducting its own review of Sen. Sessions’ record. If our examination does not deter- mine that he is fit to serve as chief enforcer of civil rights laws, it will be our responsibility to oppose his nomination. We encourage all sen- ators who are champions of civil rights to refrain from committing their support to this nomination until our examination is complete. Marc H. Morial is president and chief executive officer of the National Urban League.
