House Republicans Set to Promote Single Motherhood

August 3, 2015

Seems the House will vote next month on budgets for the agencies lumped together as Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. Some increases, many cuts. Two of the latter would deny low-income women safe, reliable, affordable contraception.

There’s something extremely perverse about limiting women’s opportunities to postpone childbearing until they feel ready to fulfill — alone or with a spouse or partner — the heavy-duty responsibilities of motherhood.

Especially perverse, given all the expressed concern about single mothers, their dependency on welfare, how they’re breeding criminals, etc.

Labor-HHS-Education Overview

The House bill would cut total spending for the programs it includes by $3.7 billion. On top of cuts made since 2010, they’d have $29 billion (16%) less in real dollars, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports.

Republicans claim they’ve got no choice because the Budget Control Act caps spending on domestic programs subject to annual appropriations.

They could, of course, have adjusted the cap — or done away with it altogether — by adopting a more balanced approach to deficit reduction, as the President’s proposed budget would and Senate Democrats seem ready to insist on.

Cap aside, it’s still the case that the Appropriations Committee foisted the largest dollar cut — and the second largest percent cut — on Labor-HHS-Education.

Predictable Defunding of Health Care Reform

HHS would take a $216 million hit, as compared to its current budget. By far and away the largest part reflects a near-total block on spending related to the Affordable Care Act — a significant source of expanded health insurance coverage for birth control, as well as other preventive services.

Were the budget to become law, which it won’t, HHS could no longer operate health insurance exchanges in the 34 states that haven’t created their own — or in three others that use its infrastructure.

Hard to see how this wouldn’t mean loss of the subsidies that make health insurance affordable for low and moderate-income people — or the related measures that limit out-of-pocket costs for health care.

Low-income individuals and families could also wind up without affordable health care, including no-cost family planning services, because the Republicans’ bill effectively bars HHS from covering most of the costs of newly-eligible people in states that have expanded their Medicaid programs.

Hammering another nail into the coffin, the House bill would prohibit HHS from enforcing certain consumer protections.

These are intended to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums, based on health conditions or gender. They also require most companies to cover birth control, as well as numerous other preventive services at no extra charge.

Renewed Direct Attack on Family Planning Services

The Labor-HHS-Education bill would zero out funding for Title X of the Public Health Service Act — the source of grants to nonprofits and public agencies that provide free or low-cost family planning and certain other preventive services, e.g., screenings for sexually-transmitted diseases and for cervical and breast cancer.

They can’t use the funds for abortions. But earlier zero-funding efforts leave no doubt that House Republicans intend to cripple Planned Parenthood, which, as we all know, does perform abortions, using privately-donated funds and, in some limited cases, funds it can claim from Medicaid.

Now, I’m hardly the first to observe that if you object to abortions, then you should want women to have the option of effective, affordable birth control.

For women (and men) with incomes below the poverty line, Title X-funded services, including contraception, must, in most cases, be free. Somewhat over 70% of Title X family planning clients qualified in 2013, the latest year we’ve got official figures for.

Folding in the near-poor, we see that defunding Title X would jeopardize family planning and other reproductive health services for more than 4 million people, mostly women.

Roughly 3.5 million of them either began or continued using some form of contraception as a result of their last visit to a Title X center. Some who didn’t were pregnant or wanted to be.

Anti-Anti-Poverty Choice

Brookings Institution economist Isabel Sawhill has persuasively argued that encouraging and enabling women to deliberately choose motherhood, rather than just “drifting” into it is a more realistic poverty prevention strategy than the patently unsuccessful efforts to promote marriage.

The end result would be fewer poor single mothers — thus fewer children growing up in poverty, with all the disadvantages that entails. Fewer women forced to compromise education and career goals too. Fewer at risk of depression and perhaps abuse.

Yet LARCs (long-acting, reversible contraceptives) — the surest protections against unplanned pregnancies — can reportedly cost as much as $1,000, counting only one followup visit after the initial insertion procedure.

That’s a formidable barrier for low-income women — or rather, would be without effectively enforced ACA requirements, expanded Medicaid coverage and family planning services covered by Title X.

What Next?

It’s doubtful that the final budget for the upcoming year will deny all funds to Title X. The Senate’s Labor-HHS-Education bill — still in an earlier stage than the House bill — would allocate $257.8 million to the program.

This, however, would represent a cut of roughly $27.8 million. Even level funding would almost surely mean less available for services because program costs rise, much as our own living costs do.

What next year’s budget will look like is anybody’s guess, especially because the President has said he’ll veto any spending bill that reflects the caps.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans — not quite all, however — have decided to make a cheap political gesture, before the pseudo-scandal stales, by denying federal funds of any sort to Planned Parenthood — the largest of our nonprofit family planning providers.

“[H]ard to see other clinics stepping in to fill the gap,” Vox health care blogger Sarah Kliff remarks. Indeed. We probably won’t see that sort of gap, however — at least, not right away.

But we won’t see enough funding for affordable family planning and other preventive healthcare services either.

UPDATE: I’ve learned that the Senate Labor-HHS-Education bill has cleared the full Appropriations Committee. So it is as far along as the House bill.

 

 


Big Myths Used To Sell Food Stamp Block Grant

May 12, 2011

I might feel better about the House Republicans’ food stamp block grant if Congressman Paul Ryan, who wrote it, were up front about the motive. Not more supportive, mind you, but less concerned — and angry.

It’s clear that the food stamp block grant, like the Medicaid block grant, aims to slash federal safety net spending. Savings on food stamp benefits, plus state administrative support would total nearly 20% over the first 10 years.

The objective here is to pare back what we’ve come to view as our government’s mission — and to offset the revenues that will be lost by the proposed tax cut extensions and expansions.

But the budget plan doesn’t justify the food stamp program that way. It relies instead of three big myths.

The first is that the safety net is likely to become — if it hasn’t already — a “comfortable hammock that lulls able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency.”

Complacency? Ryan and his colleagues obviously haven’t taken a food stamp challenge recently — or tried to support themselves and their families on an income well below the federal poverty line.

The second myth is that participation in the food stamp program is increasing at a “relentless and unsustainable” rate because states get more federal funds when they enroll people.

But, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows, the recession accounts for most of the recent uptick in food stamp spending. Costs, as a share of the nation’s economic output, will fall as the job market improves — because that’s how most of our better safety net programs work.

The third myth is that the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program has been a roaring success and thus should be the model for other safety net programs.

The “proof” cited by the budget plan, as by other proponents of this view, is that the “reforms” it initiated cut caseloads dramatically during the first five years, while poverty rates also fell.

Lots of factors account for both, including a strong economy that made it relatively easy for TANF parents to find work — though often not long-term work at living wages.

But TANF caseloads didn’t expand when the economy cooled in the early 2000s. And, as Legal Momentum reports, only 6.6% more poor adults and children were added to the rolls during the first 19 months of the Great Recession.

That’s not because TANF is so successfully lifting poor families out of poverty. It’s because states have incentives to minimize their caseloads — and the benefits they provide. One of the biggest is the declining value of the federal block grant itself.

They’d have this same incentive if they got a fixed, inadequate sum for their food stamp programs, as they would under the House budget plan.

The plan warns that “the poor and vulnerable will undoubtedly be hardest hit” if the federal government experiences a debt crisis due to runaway spending because the “only recourse will be severe, across-the-board cuts.”

Seems the House Republicans have decided to preempt these hypothetical future cuts by making severe, targeted cuts to safety net programs like food stamps now.


House Republicans Vote To End Food Stamp Program As We Know It

May 5, 2011

I remarked awhile ago that parts of the House Republican Study Committee’s global attack on “welfare” could make their way into legislation that had a better chance of passing.

And sure enough. The budget plan House Republicans have passed includes a provision that would convert SNAP (the food stamp program) into a block grant rather like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Lest one doubt the motive, the plan projects savings totaling $127 billion over the first 10 years alone. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates losses to the District of Columbia and its food stamp-dependent households at $350 million.

I’ve written elsewhere about what the block grant could mean for households that depend on food stamps to keep food on the table.

Briefly, the block grant would put an inflexible constraint on spending, while presumably increasing flexibility on issues like participation criteria and benefits.

So Congress or states, at their discretion, could — and probably would have to — change eligibility standards so that people would have to be even poorer to qualify for food stamps and/or reduce monthly benefits so that they no longer had any basis in the costs of a nutritious diet.

We can see how the spending cap/flexibility model could play out by looking at states’ TANF programs.

According to a recent Legal Momentum review, only 40% of eligible families were enrolled in TANF in 2005, as compared to 84% in the last year of its non-block grant predecessor.

Cash benefits for a TANF family of three are less than 50% of the federal poverty line in every states and less than 30% in more than half. In all but two, they’re worth less in real-dollar value than when the program was created.

The food stamp block grant proposal has other radical implications.

It would end the long-standing principle that everyone (except some immigrants) whose income falls below the cut-off can get food stamps — and for as long as their income remains that low.

As with TANF, there would be new work requirements. But unlike TANF, there’d apparently be no federal funding within the program for client assessments, job training or the supportive services some recipients would need to meet the requirements, e.g., child care subsidies.

More importantly, food stamp benefits would be time-limited, just as TANF cash benefits are. After some number of years, people would be kicked out of the program, unless states chose to cover the full costs of the benefits themselves.

Would there by any exemptions — say, for people who are too young, too old or too disabled to work? For people who are working but still can’t afford to buy enough food for themselves or their families?

The budget plan doesn’t say. Doubtful the House members who voted for it — or even the drafters — have thought through such consequential details.

All they’re concerned about is cutting federal spending, except when it comes to the more than 50% of annual appropriations that go to the military.

But, like the RSC, the budget plan styles the food stamp block grant as the next step in “the historic bipartisan welfare reform” that gave us TANF.

Here’s hoping we’ve got no bipartisan support for this one — or lock-step support from Senate Republicans either.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 207 other followers