MOMocrats Blog Talk Radio - 02/09/2011

MOMocrats muse on the continuing drama in Egypt, the effect of the Tea Party on the GOP, and the assault on women's health in the Federal and state legislatures. With panelists Cynematic, Jaelithe Judy and Donna Schwartz Mills. The program follows a short commercial message. Listen to internet radio with MOMocrats on Blog Talk Radio

What Republican Economic Policy Has Done

Another excellent by Ted McLaughlin at Jobsanger: This is what the Republican "trickle-down" economic policy has done to income growth in the United States. As you can see, between 1948 and 1979 the bottom 90% of the population got 67% of the growth in income while the top 10% got about 33%. That's a little unbalanced, but not outrageously so, and the result was that the economy worked for everyone -- which is what it's supposed to do.

But then Reagan was elected in 1980 and he started to institute the era of "trickle-down" economic policy -- the idea that if the rich are allowed to make enormous profits they will share that money with everyone else. It was a stupid idea, and nothing trickled down to anyone -- it just went into the bank accounts of the rich and sat there.

By the time Bush was president the full effects of the "trickle-down" economic policies were being felt. And they had a devastating effect on income growth for most Americans. During the Bush years (2000-2007) the top 10% had ALL of the growth in income (and about 3/4 of that income growth went to the top 1%), while the bottom 90% of Americans actually had their income drop.

This is the primary cause of the current serious recession being experienced by most Americans (the financial bungling on Wall Street was just the trigger -- not the cause). So what do Republicans think is the solution to this mess. Well, more of the same. They just forced a massive tax giveaway to the rich which increased the deficit by nearly 50%. Now they say the deficit must be cut, and of course, they want the burden of those cuts to be born by the bottom 90% of the population.

I can't believe anyone can think this is fair. Allowing all income growth to go to the top 10% is simply indefensible. "Trickle-down" economics must be discarded (and never tried again), and the richest 10% of Americans must be asked to shoulder their share of the burden by paying more in taxes. This must be done to fund education and job creation to help the bottom 90%.

Some will scream that this is "income redistribution". Americans have been propagandized into thinking that the redistribution of income is a bad thing (and synonymous with socialism). What they don't realize is that all economies redistribute income, including capitalist or "free enterprise" systems. The "trickle-down" economic policy of the Republicans redistributed income away from the bottom 90% of Americans, and put it all into the hands of the top 10%.

It is time to reverse this trend and institute policies that will insure a more equitable distribution of income for all Americans. Continuing current economic policy will only make the country's economy worse.

Nancy Pelosi: Women's Rights Face Greatest Threat 'In Our Lifetime'

Huffingtonpost: Women's reproductive rights are being seriously threatened by the Republican Party, according to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who said she is worried that many women are complacent about the possibility that they will lose the right to make their own reproductive choices.

"They're advancing extreme legislation," Pelosi said Thursday during a conference call with reporters. "It's dangerous to women's health, disrespects the judgment of American women -- I don't know if they even gave that a thought -- and it's the most comprehensive and radical assault on women's health in our lifetime. It's that bad."

There are three pieces of legislation that U.S. House Republicans are currently trying to advance to limit abortion access. Arguably the most high-profile of those is H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.). Current law already bars federal money from being used to directly pay for abortions, but H.R. 3 would also deny tax credits and benefits to employers who offer health insurance to their staff if that coverage includes abortion access.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced H.R. 217, which would deny federal family-planning funds under Title X to groups that offer abortion access -- a measure that would devastate groups like Planned Parenthood.

Meanwhile, a bill introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), H.R. 358, would allow hospitals to turn away women who need to terminate a pregnancy in order to save their own lives. Federal law currently requires hospitals receiving Medicaid or Medicare funding to provide emergency care to all individuals, regardless of the patient's ability to pay. If the facility can't provide the necessary care, it must transfer the patient to someone who can. Under Pitts' bill, hospitals would not have to perform abortions or even transfer the pregnant woman.

Pelosi said Pence's bill could come up for a vote in the House as early as next week. While it's likely that Republicans, who are now in the majority, will have enough support to pass the three measures, she said there might be some Tea Party-affiliated members who will realize that abortion access is different than access to family planning and contraception.

Texas: Last month Gov. Rick Perry placed on his list of emergency items for lawmakers to fast-track legislation requiring women seeking an abortion to watch a sonogram image and hear the heartbeat. Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who admits he is adamantly pro-life and would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, filed Senate Bill 16 requiring women to watch and hear the sonogram heartbeat.

Patrick isn’t hiding his hope that if the bill passes, it will prompt some women to change their minds, “My belief is that some women, when they see that sonogram and see that baby and hear that heartbeat, if they choose to do so, may change their minds and say ‘You know what? That’s my baby.’”

Opponents of Patrick's bill, including several doctors, said this morning that the bill is an overreach that would erode the relationship between a patient and a doctor. They said it's a potential waste of resources if the patient has already had a sonogram performed by her primary care physician. The ACLU of Texas in a statement said: “If ever there was an example of government overreach, here it is. If this bill becomes law, government will essentially be in the doctor's office with the women of this state.”

While Republican lawmakers seek to force women to have unwanted children, they turn their backs on those children once they are born. As Republican lawmakers cut $31 billion from the state budget this session they are giving little thought to children in need.

Foster children in Texas could have trouble finding placement in foster care because of budget cuts proposed by Texas lawmakers, the commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, told Senators Tuesday.

The Senate's current draft budget does not provide funding for caseload growth and would force investigative caseworkers to take on 15 percent more cases, Commissioner Anne Heiligenstein, said. The proposed budget also would cut funding to the Relative and Other Designated Caregiver program and reduce CPS units by 66, which means the department may not be able to offer financial assistance to families adopting children under the proposed Senate bill. Heiligenstein said these subsidies have historically been a good tool for encouraging families to adopt.

Texas State Republican lawmakers also plan to cut education by 10 percent and health and human services by 7.7 percent. Lawmakers will also cut 13 percent from spending on higher education and cut funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program and food stamps.

"We have to make this issue too hot to handle," said Pelosi, adding, "I would like to make the fight in the House and see where some of these Republicans are -- maybe we could win it on Title X. I can't believe that everybody who is anti a woman's right to choose is anti-birth control and contraception and family planning. But we don't know that, and we don't have any idea -- or I don't, anyway -- where the Tea Party people come down in all of this."

The minority leader said educating the public about the proposed legislation is important, "because win or lose in a given day, they'll be back, because this is their cash political cow for certain aspects of their constituency. So I think what we have to assume is they'll pass whatever they want in the House. We have to make it easier for the Senate to reject all of this because we know how masterful Republicans are at misrepresenting."

Both Pelosi and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, stressed that they believe H.R. 3 amounted to a tax increase on women and small businesses, given that a large majority of employer-based plans currently offer some coverage for abortions.

"We've been hearing from many businesses who say, we are struggling right now to provide insurance policies for our employees," DeGette said. "The last thing we need is to have our tax benefits taken away because it's a tax increase and it's going to cost us more."

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) rejected that argument in an interview with The Huffington Post at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday. King said that businesses should just offer health care without abortion, and cost increases won't be an issue.

"They save premiums, and they can deduct them," he said. "So I would say no, that's a specious argument from my view. Maybe they [Democrats] have got some more detailed way to make that argument. Here's something I have discovered around this town: Human beings have an infinite capacity to self-rationalize. That's what the Democrats are doing. If that's the best argument that they have, the next thing they'll do is just start calling names."

King argued that the Pence bill wasn't a distraction from the GOP focus on spending and the economy. "It is an economic and a moral issue, so anytime you can kill two birds with one stone, we ought to do that," he said. "And if we can kill the whole flock with one rock, we ought to do that."

New U.S. Claims For Unemployment Benefits Dropped To 2-1/2 Year Low

Reuters:

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits dropped to a 2-1/2 year low last week, offering assurance that the labor market was strengthening despite January's poor jobs numbers.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits fell 36,000 to a seasonally adjusted 383,000, the lowest since early July 2008, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims slipping to 410,000. The prior week's figure was revised up to 419,000, from the previously reported 415,000.

According to Reuters, the rolling four-week average is now at 415,500, a drop of 16,000. Overall, 9.4 million Americans are receiving assistance from unemployment programs.

All told, the economy added roughly 1.3 million private-sector jobs in 2010. For comparison purposes, note that the economy lost nearly 4.7 million private-sector jobs in 2009, and lost 3.8 million in 2008.

With that in mind, here is a chart, showing monthly job losses/gains in the private sector since the start of Bush's Great Recession through January 2011. The image makes a distinction -- red columns point to monthly job totals under the Bush administration, while blue columns point to job totals under the Obama administration. (Chart from Washington Monthly)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rachel Maddow: The Bikini Graph on Job Gains April 2010