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.