Those who oppose the Affordable Care Act may continue to misrepresent this week’s CBO report’s findings so it is important to let people know the truth. The report is clear about individuals being freed up to leave the workforce, look for other work, or start a business while not worrying about healthcare coverage. Many of these choices may be related to qualifying for health insurance subsidies. But employers pass on the costs of doing business – e.g. payroll taxes – to employees all the time. Why should employees not make enlightened decisions? And the increased demand for labor will reduce unemployment and raise wages.

Here are the facts:

The findings in the economic report released on February 4, 2014 by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will shrink the workforce by more than 2 million full-time positions by 2021 touched off another round of political warfare over the ACA. Top Republicans pointed to the CBO analysis as further evidence the health care law was a “job killer.” As Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, Paul Ryan said, “…Obamacare is only making things worse…CBO says the law will push 2.3 million people out of the workforce and will insure far fewer people than previously expected.”

However, the CBO’s projections are much more complicated than the criticism leveled by GOP lawmakers. In addition, the report is filled with caveats that critics are quick to overlook, such as on page 118 (such remarks are widespread and on nearly every page): “CBO’s estimate of the ACA’s impact on labor markets is subject to substantial uncertainty…” The estimated reduction of workers stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor.

The report was clear that the reduction in employment would occur not because of a crippling impact on private-sector job creation. Rather, some workers may choose to work fewer hours to qualify for health insurance subsidies, but at the same time some people may choose to work more hours as a result of the ACA’s provisions. For example, in the 25 states and the District of Columbia that have chosen to expand Medicaid, people qualify for Medicaid who make up to 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL), whereas prior to 2014, the median income threshold for Medicaid eligibility was 64% of the FPL (albeit with substantial state-to-state variation). Many people may choose to increase their hours of work while remaining eligible for subsidized insurance.

Much of the media initially – and incorrectly – reported the 2.3 million figure as “job losses.” That figure would not take a toll on the unemployment rate, since those working less would generally be doing so voluntarily. Even Paul Ryan, during the February 4 hearing on the report asked CBO Director Elmendorf: “Just to understand, it is not that employers are laying people off?” Elmendorf responded: “That is right.” The key here is that people will have more choices when it comes to employment and how much they’ll work, not on businesses cutting back on jobs. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney emphasized that “individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods, like retiring on time rather than working into their elderly years or choosing to spend more time with their families.”

The report itself states that there is “no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.” This responds to one of the most common warnings from small business lobbyists concerning the ACA. Nor does the report take into account the potential impact that ACA’s slowing of health care costs will have on the economy, which some experts have estimated could add between 250,000 and 400,000 jobs to the economy by the end of the decade. Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) also noted that the CBO report projects the health care law will boost demand for goods and services over the next few years, increasing the demand for labor (or reducing unemployment, as Elmendorf verified in the February 4th House hearing on the CBO report).

The Progress Report (February 5, 2014) from the Center for American Progress gives three important reasons why the CBO report is positive news for the ACA:

• Individuals are no longer trapped in their jobs because of health coverage. They have the same options as people with higher incomes have always had.
• The unemployment rate will actually decrease. The ACA will boost overall demand for goods and services because the people who benefit from the expansion of Medicaid and from access to the exchange subsidies are predominantly in lower-income households and thus are likely to spend a considerable fraction of their additional resources on goods and services. This increase has a multiplier effect and will lead to greater employment.
• Wages will increase. If the 2.3 million person reduction in the workforce by 2021 due to people choosing either not to work or to reduce their hours becomes a reality, then wages will be raised because of an increased demand for labor.

cursus.

On Tuesday, March 4, President Obama will release his budget request for FY15. What do you need to listen and watch for on the news? Compare President Obama’s budget to a Faithful Budget.

–          Defense Spending – Secretary Hagel released the defense budget he sent to the President. It cuts overall defense spending – by cutting many of the wrong things: military healthcare premiums and military housing assistance. He increases the “Overseas Contingency Operations” fund – meant for unexpected expenses on the ground during war – which is less monitored than any other funding. A Faithful Budget would prioritize taking proper care of our men and women who have served our country, and reducing our over-sized military force. What will the President say about military spending?

–          Social Security and other mandated programs – A Faithful Budget ensures that all who age in this country can do so with dignity. If there are reductions, who will pay the price of those? How firm will the President be on not instituting the “chained-CPI” for these programs?

–          Medicare – A Faithful Budget ensures that dignified access to quality healthcare is possible for all. What will the President propose on means-testing for Medicare?

–          Refundable tax credits – A Faithful Budget includes reasonable revenue for responsible programs such as the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Will the President recommend making permanent the 5-year improvements to the CTC and EITC?

–          Tax havens – A Faithful Budget honors the principle “for those to whom much has been given, much will be required” (Luke 12:48). What will be in the budget to restrict corporations’ hiding of profits offshore to avoid payment of taxes?

–         New Spending Priorities – We have heard about $56 billion in new spending for a “Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative.” A Faithful Budget would invest in maximizing our human potential and stewarding God’s Earth. How will the President propose these new funds be used in both defense and non-defense areas?

The Senate has decided NOT to prepare a budget for FY15, as spending levels are already designated, and appropriations can go on. The House WILL do a budget – it will be a message piece – watch for it in a few weeks.

The House of Representatives is faced with a moral decision when asked to vote on alternative budget proposals as early as next week. Given that neither proposal will gain any traction in the Senate, both are messaging pieces setting the tone for mid-term elections.

The moral question for a legislator is: do I vote in favor of a budget proposal that further supports the rich and powerful – who fund election of candidates who further the narrowing of wealth and power? Or do I vote for a budget that provides millions of jobs, is responsible to repairing the crumbling infrastructure constructed by generations before us in order to leave a safe environment for next generations, and giving hardworking people living in poverty an opportunity to share in the immense wealth held in this nation?

The two budget proposals currently before members of the House present a stark contrast between these two stances. The Congressional Progressive Caucus released its BETTER OFF BUDGET a week ago and the House budget committee, under the guidance of Representative Paul Ryan released THE PATH TO PROSPERITY 2015 on April 1. What an appropriate date for such a document, as any reference to support of the common good is a joke.  These two proposals and the president’s request can be seen in a side-by-side chart at http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2014/budget-proposals-2015/

In each category, the BETTER OFF BUDGET is a match to the priorities held by NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby. NETWORK strongly supports the BETTER OFF BUDGET. It is astounding to think that the House Republican budget puts no funding into creating jobs – adding to the rolls and cost of antipoverty programs, and lowering morale among our young people.  According to “The New Battleground Poll” (Lake Research Partners), this is a major issue keeping young adults from bothering to vote as they admit to being cynical toward politics and unmoored from institutions. Jobs are key for this population to again engage with the nation. This Ryan budget targets their job potential by eliminating almost 50 job-training programs, imposing an income eligibility cap for Pell Grants, ending funding for part-time students, and capping awards at $5,730.

The Ryan budget jeopardizes the development of our children in other ways as well. Their access to nutritious food will be less as SNAP becomes a block grant with $23 billion in cuts. Cash assistance programs that allow low-income parents to work by providing child care, transportation, and other assistance will be slashed by $125 billion over the ten years. And the Community Development Block Grant will be eliminated – further reducing assistance for needs of families with children who are struggling.

Our seniors with moderate to low means will face increasing difficulties if any of Congressman Ryan’s proposals go into effect for them. Medicare will become a voucher program, with more than half the $5.1 Trillion in savings coming from healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act).

All-in-all, this budget is damaging to young people (our future), our elders (who helped us get where we are), and anyone who has been unable to become a part of the wealthiest elite in the nation.

The Inter-Religious Working Group on Domestic Human Needs feels compelled to respond to the budget released by the House Budget Committee – headed by Rep. Paul Ryan. Again, we are horrified by the damage it would do to individuals and families struggling to survive economically. These same households have borne the brunt of budget cuts, and sequestration cuts over the last several years. Most safety net programs have seen a 20% reduction in funding, while prices and need continue to escalate.

Over the next couple of weeks, pieces will be done on seven areas of discretionary funding. These are being placed on the group’s website and on the websites of several of the member organizations (see below), and they are being sent to members of Congress. It is critical that those who vote for appropriations, as well as on the overall budget, understand the impact of their decisions on the lives of real families and individuals.

We are confident that this budget will not be accepted and signed into law. However, the proposals will have influence on members of Congress as they appropriate funding, and as they propose and mark up authorizing legislation. We need to be sure that as they continue their work, they are keenly aware of decisions that inflict harm.

First Guest Blog:

By Ryan Murphy, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas

Last week, the House Budget Committee officially released its 2015 budget resolution, entitled: The Path to Prosperity. Although the document is merely symbolic due to the bipartisan budget agreement reached last month between House and Senate, it is an important indication of what could emerge from Congress in the near future. According to Congressman Paul Ryan, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee and key author of the document, “this budget is our vision for how we should fix this country’s fiscal problem.”

Tragically, from the perspective of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, this vision doesn’t address the best interests of the American people.

The proposed “path to prosperity” “seeks to equip Americans with the skills they need in a 21^st century economy;” yet it subsequently suggests slashing education programs for millions of children in low-income families. Since the impact of the Great Recession will likely continue over the next decade, it’s not logical to dismantle the ladder of opportunity for our less fortunate children.

For over 150 years, the Sisters of Mercy have provided a quality education throughout the country at our primary schools, high schools, colleges and universities. As educators, we know our country’s prosperous future demands meeting the educational needs of our next generation. The House Budget Committee’s vision would diminish funding for educational programs to an unprecedented level. The next 10 years would see a cut of $791 billion in non-defense discretionary spending, jeopardizing the limited resources for a variety of government programs, including Head Start, Early Head Start and Child Care and Development Block Grant. By 2024, non-defense discretionary spending would be capped at 1.7 percent of the GDP, roughly half of its historic level.

The future success of many children in the United State depends on the early education they receive in both Early Head Start and Head Start. These programs strengthen their verbal, social, and emotional development, giving them the foundation they will need for their academic careers. In 2012, the most recent year for which numbers are available, nearly a million children were enrolled in Head Start, while another 151,000 were enrolled in Early Head Start. Sixty percent of the families with children in either program were headed by single parents. The House Budget Committee failed to recognize the inherent value of enabling these parents to hold a job while improving the development of our next generation.

Last year due to the federal sequestration, funding for Head Start and Early Head start was reduced by five percent. The impact of this cut meant 57,000 children were denied enrolling in these programs. Furthermore, 18,000 Head Start employees were either laid off or experienced a pay decrease. If a five percent reduction in funding could do so much damage, imagine the possible implication of this proposed budget. What would that mean for the development of our next generation if up to half of Head Start’s and Early Head Start’s funding was redirected to tax breaks and military spending?

Other programs, such as the Child Care and Development Block Grant, would face a threat of complete elimination under this budget. Under this program, 1.6 million children are able to attend day care while their parents go to work. Eighty-six percent of the families served by the Child Care and Development Block Grant are low-income signal-parent’s homes. What would it mean for these families to no long have access to day care? Imagine the impact it would have on their parent’s ability to hold a job?

A child has no choice in the economic status of the family she/he is born into or the capacity for moving up the economic ladder. Moreover, children play no role in contributing to the “country’s fiscal problem.” Why then is the House Budget Committee suggesting children in low-income families make the sacrifice? The sad fact is that these children will already face a disproportionate number of challenges their peers from middle class and wealthy families will never fathom. If we truly intend “to equip Americans with the skills they need in a 21^stcentury economy and to create job,” we need to preserve and expand access to a quality education for all Americans, regardless of their families’ economic status.

As The Faithful Budget 2014 makes clear, our society, and especially our youth, suffer from the prevalence of guns and violence in our nation. “As the most heavily-armed society in the world, the firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Research shows that our habits of violence are socially and financially costly compared to other nations.” (p. 43). For many years, NETWORK has supported efforts in Congress to counter gun violence along with many other groups.

Since January 2011, when 24 national faith groups announced the formation of “Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence,” NETWORK has worked with this group to confront America’s gun violence epidemic and to rally support for policies that reduce death and injury from gunfire. By 2014 the group had grown to more than 50 supporting members, including Jewish, Sikh and Muslim supporters, representing over 80 million Americans in faith communities across the nation — far, far more than NRA members.

With each passing year more gun violence is perpetrated in our communities, and the call to confront this unbridled gun violence has grown ever more urgent. In light of mass-shooting tragedies in Newton, Aurora, Tucson, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Oak Creek, Isla Vista and so many more communities, NETWORK and others who are part of “Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence” believe that we have a moral obligation to keep guns out of the hands of people who may harm themselves or others.

While we continue to pray for the families and friends of those who died as a result of gun violence and share in their grief, we must also support our prayers with action. And that action requires legislators, especially in Congress, to support gun control laws.

After the Newton, CT massacre, President Obama charged Vice President Biden (December 2012) with overseeing an administration-wide process to develop proposals for Congress to pass. Those proposals were unveiled in January 2013 when the president announced a series of executive actions he could take administratively along with several legislative proposals for Congress. Together, they involved not just access to firearms and ammunition but also school safety and mental health care. His own executive actions were relatively modest since the main problems demanded legislative changes.

However, Congress took up only one of the many proposals of Vice President Biden’s task force, the Manchin-Toomey bill, which failed to receive sufficient votes in the Senate in April 2013. The bill attempted to expand background checks at gun shows and for online sales. Unfortunately, the Senate has never revisited this issue, despite strong public support. (Ninety-two percent of Americans supported universal background checks in late 2013.) Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) initially said he would try to bring the background checks bill back for a vote by the end of 2014, but has since acknowledged that the votes are not there. Currently, background checks – aimed at preventing criminals and people with mental illness from acquiring weapons – are required only for sales handled by licensed federal gun dealers.

An attempt in early 2014 by a small number of Democrats in the House to expand background checks for all commercial gun sales and make gun trafficking and “straw purchasing” (those in the business of reselling weapons) a federal crime, ended up merely as a resolution and never made it to the floor of the House. The official position of House Republicans has been that existing gun laws are not being adequately enforced, an issue that is strongly debated by gun control advocates.

Research demonstrates that in the 16 states and the District of Columbia where background checks are required for private sales, gun trafficking is 48% lower, the rate at which women are killed with a gun by an intimate partner is 38% lower, and the gun suicide rate is 49% lower.

Four Senate Democrats are up for reelection in conservative states this November, making it less likely that Reid will force a controversial vote, according to the Huffington Post. We believe that the price of political inaction is unconscionable because innocent lives must be protected.

Only modest proposals that can garner votes on both sides of the aisle will probably be considered this year (2014) – such as one by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D- MN) that would add convicted stalkers to the list of criminals barred from acquiring guns. This type of caution has characterized Democratic bills even in years when no elections took the spotlight, but the NRA had spent millions of dollars fattening campaign chests of both parties.

Another modest bill that was introduced in the Senate by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and in the House by Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) on May 22, 2014 would give the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) $10 million a year to conduct or support research on firearms safety or gun control prevention (both the Department of Justice and the NIH also sponsor research on firearms issues and their funds have not disappeared). Prior to 1996 the CDC budget had been relatively flush with firearms research funds, but since 1996 it has been almost nonexistent thanks to opposition from Republicans. However, neither Markey nor Maloney has been able to attract any Republican support for their bills.

On May 29, the House approved a measure that would modestly increase funding for the nation’s background checks system, probably in response to the killing spree in Isla Vista, California. The amendment, which passed with a vote of 260 to 145, would provide an additional $19.5 million in funding for grants to states to improve their reporting to the national database. That database, the NICS, is designed to keep guns out of the hands of those with felony convictions and certain mental health issues. Given that the bill simply offers a modest boost to the existing program and that the NRA adopted a neutral stance toward the bill, the Senate is highly likely to pass it, too. This bill is just a minor step in the uphill battle to enact stricter gun laws and ignores the wide gaps that exist in the background checks system, but it allows Congress to refute arguments about its inaction on the issue of gun control.

As the issue of gun control has ebbed in Congress, it has accelerated in the states, where legislatures are debating hundreds of gun-related bills, some weakening and others strengthening restrictions. Let’s look at a couple of measures, the first of which could serve as a model for national reform, and the second deals with the mental health issue, a major problem in several recent massacres.

The Supreme Court ended Chicago’s 30-year ban on handguns in 2010. The mayor’s office has just proposed some reasonable measures that are designed to withstand Constitutional challenges, according to a New York Times editorial. Using zoning regulations, the city would limit gun shops to less than 1% of the city’s geographic area, would tightly audit the shops, limit sales to one handgun per customer per month and videotape the sale, and require a 72-hour waiting period to complete the purchase. Yes, people can probably easily acquire weapons in surrounding states and suburbs (which demonstrates that Congress must ensure a national response to this problem) and these measures do not address the full scope of Chicago’s gun problems, but they should stop buyers who shop in volume and funnel guns into the underworld.

The other example hails from California. In 2013, a consortium of mental health professionals urged the federal government to extend its prohibition of gun ownership not only to those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution (current law), but also to those who have been involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment, if they pose a danger to themselves or others. These specialists also proposed that people should be prevented from buying guns if they have been convicted of a violent misdemeanor, have been subject to a domestic violence restraining order, convicted of drunken driving two or more times in a span of five years, or convicted of two misdemeanors involving a controlled substance in five years. When these proposals were ignored in Washington, California passed many of them.

While it is generally agreed that passage of the mental health measures listed above would not necessarily have deterred many of the devastating shootings that have bedeviled our nation recently, that argument should not prevent our attempts to deter gun violence. No single law will ever prevent all violence. We cannot allow the NRA to induce a feeling of hopelessness among those who seek to address gun violence. We must continue, as long as the second amendment is misinterpreted by gun advocates (see below), to press for new restrictions.

Why is gun control such a divisive issue? Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center of Justice at NYU, has made some surprising discoveries in his new book The Second Amendment: A Biography. The most significant is that the second amendment was debated the least of all the amendments that constitute our Bill of Rights. This could have been due to our founders’ deep suspicion of a standing army (which, in their minds, was synonymous with tyranny) and their assumption that all male citizens would belong to armed local militias. Being armed was considered a duty. Virtually every reference in early documents to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” concerned military defense. There is nothing about a private right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting or for any other purpose other than being part of the militia.

The second amendment did not become controversial until 1977 when the National Rifle Association (NRA) was taken over by second amendment fundamentalists who set out to change the entire meaning of the amendment and took our founders’ words out of context. From that time to the present the right to own guns has become conservative dogma. The New York Times’ review of Waldman’s book concludes that he is indeed persuasive in tying the right to bear arms with a well-regulated militia. Once militias were replaced by professional armed services, the right to keep and bear arms should have lost its significance.

As Patricia McGuire wrote in the Huffington Post after the Sandy Hook tragedy in December 2013, “Many of the same legislators who have nothing but contempt for gun control, who hide in the deep pockets of the NRA, also claim to be ardently pro-life. Opposing sensible gun control, and allowing children to die in their schools because you don’t want to offend your campaign bankrollers, is a total rejection of the moral value of life.” Unity, justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare and liberty – all part of our Declaration of Independence – are jeopardized when Congress refuses to take reasonable actions to prevent “violence that occurs repeatedly in a society awash with guns.”

We at NETWORK, together with the millions who are a part of “Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence” call on our federal elected leaders to respond to this crisis in our nation. With each day that goes by, dozens more of our children, parents, brothers and sisters are lost to the violence of guns. As Bishop Blaire, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, said in his letter to the Senate, April 8, 2013, relating to the Manchin-Toomey bill, “the expansion of background checks for all gun purchases is a positive step in the right direction.” He cited the U.S. Bishops’ 2000 pastoral statement on criminal justice, which voiced support for “measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer.”

At a July 24 event, Paul Ryan officially unveiled his own anti-poverty program, the heart of which is called an “Opportunity Grant” – part of the “Expanding Opportunity in America,” a discussion draft of the House Budget Committee, that he chairs. This is Ryan’s attempt to re-conceptualize the federal government’s role in providing a safety-net for people in poverty. This first step in a journey towards evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the social safety net leaves much to be desired, but as a discussion draft one can hope there remains room for compromise and change.

As we are all well aware from his numerous criticisms of federal anti-poverty efforts, Ryan has previously proposed massive cuts in many of these programs. The “Opportunity Grant,” however, re-structures the safety-net programs, but leaves their funding intact.

His “Opportunity Grant” proposal is a voluntary pilot program to be undertaken by select states whereby up to 11 federal anti-poverty programs would be consolidated into a single funding stream. Here are some of its main components:

• States would have the flexibility to combine such things as food stamps, housing subsidies, child care assistance and cash welfare (TANF)
• The same amount of funds would be spent as current law allows
• A state’s plan would be required to meet these conditions to achieve approval:
  1. Monies would have to be spent exclusively on people “in need”
  2. Work requirements must be incorporated and the duration of funding must be limited
  3. Multiple service providers (at least two) must be allowed to offer services
  4. An evaluation by a neutral third party would be required to track metrics
  5. Any service provider who came up short could no longer participate in the program

After assessing many pilots, “we would pool the results and go from there,” Ryan said.

He explained that families in need could choose from approved non-profits, for-profits, community groups or their state program office. In this streamlined procedure, families or individuals would deal with one person, their case manager, who would be a personal resource to assist them in their efforts to overcome poverty.

While there are many unanswered questions in the proposal (e.g. If the federal government plays a more limited, reinforcement type of role for state-organized programs, how are “people in need” defined? Would the same criteria be used by each state in that definition? How limited would the duration of funding be?), answering them could be the nature of any “pilot” effort. One is reminded that the sub-title of the proposal is “discussion draft.” Is Ryan open to push-back?

One needs to be wary for the simple reason that Ryan’s track record in the area of federal safety-net programs is less than sterling. Many think that an attempt to consolidate programs for those who are needy is merely a prelude to cutting them. An editorial in the Washington Post on July 25, called Ryan’s proposal “ambitious, thoughtful and not entirely persuasive.” Here are some areas of the “Opportunity Grant” program that I find problematic.

The “Opportunity Grant” has all the hallmarks of the 1996 “reform” of welfare, which subsequently became Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In Ryan’s words, he is proposing a “more dynamic form of aid” than the safety net programs establish, by incorporating work into the system. As indicated above, work requirements are an integral part of the proposal. Even some of the key metrics to be used by the states are similar to those used in TANF – percentage of people who find work, who get off assistance, who move above the poverty threshold, obtain their high school diploma, and grow their wages. There is ample evidence that TANF, compared with other safety-net programs, did not perform well during the Great Recession. As a matter of fact, Jared Bernstein’s July 23 blog reminds us that turning federal programs into state block grants has been a primary way to end their essential counter-cyclicality. In graph form, Bernstein shows that from 2007 through 2012 when unemployment soared, food stamps and several other federally-administered safety-net programs rose in tandem with unemployment as expected, but TANF remained essentially unchanged and did not serve its intended beneficiaries.

Ryan appears to anticipate this criticism by suggesting that possible options exist for designing a block grant that would be counter-cyclical. For example, funds could be varied based on the level of unemployment in the state, or states could be required to set aside a portion of their grant funds for future expenditures. The latter option might cause deprivation to people in the short-term if the grant is not designed carefully–even this suggestion precludes any political nastiness resulting from disagreement. But the options that he suggests are very tentative.

Strangely, with its central emphasis on work, the “Opportunity Grant” program (as well as the other three sections of his complete program) is entirely devoid of any suggestion of how additional jobs would be created.

Lacking a “job creation” component, raises immediate questions about the prospective viability of the effort. Ryan’s desire to enable people to get “out of poverty,” could be achieved through his (and his colleagues’) support of increasing the minimum wage — the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 900,000 people would move above the poverty threshold, if the minimum wage were raised incrementally to $10.10. Interestingly, many of the “Opportunity Grant” examples used in the text of Ryan’s proposal are of jobs that pay minimum wage (e.g. Andrea’s medium-term goals to be a teaching aid). People cannot live on, or care for a family on today’s minimum wage of $7.25 which, therefore, undermines his arguments.

Ryan envisions case managers helping people craft a life plan (or contract) that includes measurable benchmarks for success, a timeline for meeting these benchmarks, sanctions for breaking as well as incentives for exceeding terms of the contract and clear time limits for cash assistance. Case managers would also provide (or contract with others to provide) services that include mentoring programs and drug treatment programs, or any number of other programs. Since success is tied so closely to the effectiveness of case managers, one is entitled to ask who they would be and how they would be paid? What would happen to administrative costs if they were all paid a “living wage?” Would having sole authority for determining sanctions for breaking the terms of the contract include withholding benefits? The centrality of the role of case managers would hardly reduce the bureaucracy and complexity that Ryan decries.

Another significant question left unanswered is how these “contracts” will respond to changes in both the lives of the individuals and the economy. If a sudden shift in family situation or an unplanned illness prevents a worker from meeting their contractual obligation, how would the caseworker seek to punish this “failure” to meet a benchmark? Just as important given the last decades turbulent economy and job market, how will the contract’s stipulations on work—particularly attaining the individual’s ideal occupation, and not just a job to pay the bills, within a certain period of time—respond to shortcomings in the job market that occur through no fault of the individual? These are questions left unanswered in the document, potentially left at the discretion of the caseworker or the individual state, but that make a significant difference in the flexibility of the program.

It is answers to questions like the foregoing that will clarify the real intent behind the “Opportunity Grant” program. It is clear that some of Ryan’s long-held beliefs on work and the consequences of long-term government assistance are apparent in this proposal. Getting people to simply “move off welfare” and “out of poverty” by “accepting responsibility” for their choices and “holding them accountable” for their actions have become not only his personal mantra but are that of the party to which he belongs. Despite his praise for Catholic Charities’ programs and his recent experience in visiting other low-income aid programs as well as with people in poverty, Ryan still seems to have little understanding of the fact that many of the elements of his proposal are middle to upper-class concepts accepted globally by those classes, and that all Americans have not had the advantage of that type of upbringing or living with these values. One would hope that Ryan would challenge the current ideology of his own party as forcefully as he is doing in this proposal to merge safety-net programs that some advocates have spent their lives to garner in legislation.

To many safety-net program advocates, Ryan’s grant proposal is merely a cynical re-branding effort in an election year. Others are skeptical of Ryan because of his track record. One Center of American Progress (CAP) article by Melissa Boteach finds it nearly impossible to impute a radical change in Paul Ryan’s belief system after four years of radical budget cuts on the very programs he would now re-structure. Instead, she admonishes him to support policies like that for a national paid leave for families program, high-quality child care and an early education program as well as an increase in the minimum wage, all of which could cut poverty and increase economic mobility more than any attempt to change safety-net programs.

Robert Greenstein, Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), cautioned Ryan “to play it straight on poverty programs” and not mischaracterize or distort key poverty data, as he has done in the past. Greenstein, who is intimately familiar with research on the effects of all safety-net programs, is eager for Ryan to know that a recent academic assessment of the research on poverty, finds that safety-net programs have very little effect on the amount that people work.

While there are many facets of the Ryan proposal of which we should be wary, there are also many aspects of the OG that bear further discussion, and for that we should be grateful. Eschewing politics in this year of mid-term elections, let’s consider some straightforward possibilities in addition to support for job creation and the questions raised above. All of the suggestions should be tested from the perspective of the people in poverty who use the various safety-net programs. Here are just a few that should be questioned and would probably benefit from pilot testing based on clear metrics:

• The haphazard and sometimes confusing way in which many federal safety-net programs are currently administered
• The need for simplification and innovation in these programs (could be based on some “best practices” used in many states)
• Collaboration among state program agencies, non-profits and community programs who are all trying to serve people who need assistance

These are a few suggestions that could form the basis of a dialogue with Paul Ryan and his colleagues responsible for the “Opportunity Grant” section of “Expanding Opportunity in America.”

On July 24, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chair of the House Budget Committee, released a discussion draft entitled “Expanding Opportunity in America.” In it, he opened up some exciting opportunities for discussion and working together to improve the situation for our most vulnerable. In his comments, he said “I want to start a conversation. I want to talk about how we can repair the safety net and help families get ahead.”

We at NETWORK look forward to this conversation – and hope the Congressman is sincere that this is adiscussion draft. And since conversations need to be two-way, here are some first thoughts that I hope Congressman Ryan will listen to.

In talking about the EITC, he has included a Democratic idea of including younger and childless workers. This would be helpful for those who are able to find work. As he was speaking, I kept asking myself, “what jobs?” He talked about how critical it is for people to be working, but seems to miss that there are not enough jobs for the number of people who are searching, and those underemployed. A scan of today’s Washington Post showed fewer than 20 positions that would not demand specialized skills or licensure. Clearly, Congressman Ryan’s emphasis on job training is right on track.

He talked about “repairing” the safety net – which truly needs repair. His plan would meld 11 human needs programs into an “Opportunity Grant” program – to be administered by each state. Coordination across programs of the best benefit to a particular family or individual is an excellent goal, so long as sufficient resources are available. One question about the melding of programs is how this compares with the “One-Stop Shops” that assisted people to become enrolled in any mix of programs from which they would benefit.

An additional question comes to mind. Case workers are overburdened now. Will there be funding to greatly expand the number and preparation of these workers? Is there an expectation that charities and philanthropic offerings will cover this? A young homeless woman in D.C. has waited over six weeks to see her case manager in order to see a doctor about recurrent bronchial pneumonia. She has been to the ER each time it becomes life-threatening. She is unable to get placed with a physician for ongoing and preventive care, because her case manager can’t fit her in.

The “Opportunity Grant” program would be modeled on the welfare reform of 1996, that Paul Ryan terms “a remarkable success.” NETWORK has done research on the TANF program in 2000, 2005 and 2010. The results do not acclaim the program a success as with each study more gaps appeared. As funding became tighter, changes were made to further limit the program.

[An example: I was in teacher education from 1978 through 2003. In the nineties, I regularly monitored a few students in each class for attendance, study and preparation time and quality of work. I was required to sign off on each student, each week, verifying that they were in compliance with the work requirements of TANF. In 2001, students began to drop out of teacher education, as they could no longer use homework and preparation time as a part of their work-related hours. The subsidy to assist with school costs was also eliminated. They had to get additional jobs. With responsibilities of home, children and now another job, many could not remain in school. Their desire for a job that could truly raise them out of poverty was dashed.]

I laud Congressman Ryan on his attention to changes in the criminal justice system. He proposes giving judges greater flexibility in sentencing of nonviolent drug offenders. He also proposes federal prisons expand enrollment in rehabilitative programming to reduce recidivism. Those leaving prison could be helped to move out of poverty, as skills may not have eroded and they might find work more easily.

Congressman Ryan addresses the increasing numbers of jobs for which states require occupational certification, often with local requirements that are more than necessary for the skills. State-based requirements are often not reciprocal. These can be significant in preventing people from moving out of poverty, a particular disadvantage to persons returning after incarceration. For example, a number of prisons teach cosmetology or barbering, however in most states a felony conviction prohibits a person from receiving a license. But, its impact also affects those who move to another state.

[Example: My dental hygienist’ husband was transferred to Florida. Since the licensure is not reciprocal, she will be unable to work for the 4-5 years they will be there.]

I am most anxious to work with Congressman Ryan and his staff to help this program have a tryout in pilot states, where we would be able to assess the greatest strengths, and modify the elements that will need revision. The start of this conversation is important, and I look forward to engaging in it.

In his Expanding Opportunity in America, Congressman Paul Ryan spends a lot of time talking about education policy: actually almost as much as he talks about his “opportunity grant.” Sadly, though, it hasn’t received the headlines of his safety net suggestions. This “getting buried” is more than just a disservice: it’s a potential danger to Americans, as Ryan’s proposed policy changes in education, if enacted, would fundamentally alter the lives of generations of Americans.

Americans must accept the fact that our education system is falling short of the exceptionalism we so often boast about, as we are now ranked 36th in the world in regards to our overall education. As the global economy demands more skilled labor, reforming our education system is the first step in returning us to primacy in both intellectually and economically, something Ryan wants included in his political legacy.

To this end Ryan, has opened up his work for criticism, asking everyone from lobbyists on K Street to tourists on Main Street to weigh in on his anti-poverty ideas. In the spirit of the educational system he seeks to reform, the draft Mr. Ryan produces elicits the following grade: “Despite demonstrating new knowledge about education and poverty, there is room for improvement. See me after class.”

Even before carefully considering his solutions, reader’s first reaction to the chapter will undoubtedly be about its rhetoric. Ryan is already more famous for his skillful (and sometimes not-so-skillful) language than his successful political actions, and his anti-poverty education plan finds its greatest strengths in its verbiage. On every page there are nuggets of progressive language promising low-income communities more authority in the face of a financial system working against them. First, Ryan commendably, although belatedly, acknowledges that poverty and education are inextricably linked, something refreshing as too many politicians seek to tackle the social ills separately. More importantly, Ryan recognizes that there truly are two separate education systems in America, one for the poor and another for the wealthy. Citing statistics pointing to the large gap in graduation rates based on financial background, Ryan sees that students from low-income backgrounds are fundamentally disadvantaged in the classroom. He also rightly understands that mending the gap between these two educational experiences is the duty of the federal government.

However, it is critical not to confuse sentiment with sensible solutions. While Ryan presented the document to the press by flaunting his newfound understanding of poverty he gained through a nationwide tour over the last year, readers should not forget that he is the same man who has authored so many other documents on poverty that would have merited him “Needs Improvement” marks on his report card. It is when readers get to the heart of Ryan’s idea that the plan he promotes epitomizes that the true meaning of draft—a work that needs improvement.

As is to be expected from anything with the words Ryan and funding in it, alterations to Head Start is at the heart of his early childhood education plan. His plan converts the funding for Head Start—in his opinion a failed program—and other sources of funding for early childhood education into a block grant, which he argues will provide states and educators more flexibility for programming endeavors. The Congressman also states that by transforming early childhood education’s funding from small grants with a variety of limiting provisions (as it currently stands) to one large block grant, it can embrace the experimental nature of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program, which mandates a certain percentage of the grant be devoted to finding innovative new sources of assistance for low-income people. Ryan believes that only a block grant given to states with stipulations like that of MIECHV can provide legislators and educators with the flexibility and funding they need to instill life-long social and academic skills in their students.

For those who know anything about Ryan’s education platform, the focus on changing Head Start is a cause for alarm. Ryan’s federal budgets have consistently included deep cuts to the program. One of his budgets cut $1.1 billion from early childhood education; therefore the fear that placing Head Start within a block grant structure serves only as a pit-stop to Ryan’s goal of defunding the program is not unmerited. Advocates who wish to ensure the survival of the program should come to the discussion with ways to guarantee that Ryan and the House Budget Committee do not use this format as a multi-step plan to disband Head Start and devote its money to defense spending or elsewhere.

In addition to adopting the block grant model, and in spite of his distaste for Head Start, Ryan also mirrors an attitude found throughout the program’s ideology: that children’s education is not only a function of their time in the classroom but also in the home. It is in this spirit that the proposal has stated its desire to lump the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) into the “opportunity grant.”

By connecting CCDF to the “opportunity grant,” children are left vulnerable. The grant requires that penalties be doled out for adults who fail to meet contractual deadlines, so it would be possible that money typically devoted to childcare or nourishment may be cut from a family’s budget.

Ryan renews his faith in the merits of the block grant model of funding in his plan for elementary and secondary education. Funding for the now nine facets of the Title I-A program and other, smaller programs focused on secondary education would be converted into one large block grant given to states annually. Ryan uses examples of local-grown anti-drug and anti-gang programs in the states he visited as proof that many of the potential creative sources fighting on the “front lines” of poverty are too localized to warrant federal attention through the current system of multiple funding streams, and thus remain under-funded.

Despite what Ryan says the block grant model will do in regards to growing creative programming, it is vital to understand that this funding model also makes all forms of assistance for low-income students morevulnerable. When grouped together, funding becomes easier for Congress to cut; additionally, certain aspects of education currently guaranteed through the Title I-A system could be essentially eliminated without much recourse if states decide to simply devote funds to other causes. For example, currently there is one facet of Title I-A funding uniquely specified for the education of immigrant and non-English speaking communities. Given the current vitriol towards children seeking asylum, it would be possible for state legislators to choose to divert money away from this program in order to discourage immigrant communities from forming in their state.

Also noteworthy in his secondary school policy, Ryan plans to help states further foster successful teaching styles and community programs by advocating for the continuation of annual report cards to measure schools’ performances. Educators and legislators alike have rightly objected to the report card system, stating that it first asks that under-funded schools produce equal results to those by richer schools, and then justifies continuing to under-fund these needy schools when they fail to meet that standard; thus the Ryan plan would only perpetuate an already broken cycle.

In his final section on education reform, Ryan handles higher education with a unique mixture of understanding and cruelty. Recognizing the hefty fees associated with four-year institutions that do not always guarantee the skills necessary for gainful employment, Ryan’s proposal seeks to ease the financial burden on low income students by changing the accreditation process so that specific courses, not just programs, would be accredited; students who know their intended occupation could take those courses best suited for their job’s skill set, build their own major, and graduate earlier and with less debt. Such a step will help train a better prepared work force that hopefully will not be crippled with exorbitant debt.

Ryan also suggests alterations to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application will change the attitude of accessibility toward college for students from low-income families. Currently, the application is lengthy, confusing, and sometimes results are given months after students learn about their college admissions, meaning some low-income students discover they cannot afford the dream school that admitted them months before. Ryan wants to make the document more user-friendly, more aligned with college acceptance decisions, and begin teaching families about FAFSA as early as eighth grade; such steps, however seemingly small, would foster a more friendly college application process for low-income applicants.

Beyond these two major victories in changing the attitudes of students towards higher education, Ryan’s plans for college affordability and job training are grim. First, Ryan proposes capping the currently limitless government-regulated loans to students and their families; Ryan notes that this unfettered ability to borrow money has caused many to fall into extreme debt. To fight this problem, Ryan suggests capping Grad PLUS loans at $138,000 and Parent PLUS loans at $57,500.

The idea of placing limits on loans is problematic and may continue to limit low-income students’ ability to enter into top-paying fields. If they cannot receive the necessary loans to pay for graduate school, how can they manage to become lawyers or doctors? The Congressman’s concern over the harmful effect of loans on low-income families may also be classed as disingenuous given that he has voted to allow student loans to accrue interest while students are still attending college.

Ryan also proposes reorganizing and modernizing the Pell Grant and TRIO programs. First, Ryan seeks to unite many of the separate funding sources for low-income first-generation college students authorized as TRIO programs into a single block grant model. The concerns about Congress more easily cutting funding from a block grant than from multiple, smaller funding sources remains present in this funding model.

Ryan also vaguely suggests making alterations to the Pell Grant program’s funding and other requirements in order to “modernize” it. While the argument can be made that the vague language of “modernize” is because the document is still a draft, the murkiness is worrying. Much like his attacks on Head Start, Ryan has long been an advocate of limiting the Pell Grant program: as late as April of this year his budget would have cut $170 billion from the program and cut off 1 million Americans’ access to federal grants over the next 10 years.

Finally, Ryan tackles the issue of job training with an eye for consolidation. The document points to the confusing web of job training programs—47 across nine agencies to be exact—and the House Education and Workforce Committee’s findings that there are over 50 duplicative training programs as a reason to merge a variety of programs with similar goals. With fewer programs to sort through, Ryan believes students and government officials alike will find this facet of education easier to negotiate.

Although supporting easy access and understanding of job training programs is absolutely necessary, Ryan must be held to his word that when programs are consolidated, what emerges includes all previously separate funding. While stated in the speech he gave when he released his report, no language stipulates this in the document, and thus it is activists’ job to hold Ryan to his word.

Congressman Ryan’s education plan is many things: obsessed with streamlining; employment focused; more bipartisan than expected; but more than anything: it isn’t perfect. The conflict of hope and distrust, particularly about Pell Grants and Head Start, get at the heart of people’s response to this entire anti-poverty plan: has Paul Ryan actually changed? Can we trust these plans at face-value?

Despite doubts, history, and what some pundits say, if we ask our politicians to change their ideology, the least we can do is to begin a dialogue, however weary, with them when they seem to be responding. With the word “draft” in the title, activists committed to the common good are called on to raise their hands, as well as their voices, and contribute to the conversation on education.

In recent years, legislation has too frequently forced people to stomach bad policies in order to gain necessary and life-altering improvements. Such can said about Representative Ryan’s proposals in the area of regulatory reform in Expanding Opportunity in America, a mixture of positive anti-poverty suggestions and unnecessary political tactics that have no place in proposals fighting poverty.

Half of the regulatory reform portion of focuses on the currently unjust burden placed on low-income workers seeking occupational licenses. Rep. Ryan highlights the arbitrary and burdensome nature of many licensing requirements—for example, he notes that Minnesota law requires more hours in the classroom for cosmetologists than lawyers.

Occupational certification often protects those already licensed and makes it particularly challenging for low-income workers to gain qualifications. The Institute for Justice explains that “hurdles are exceptionally burdensome for low-income workers” because the process of receiving an occupational license too often requires long hours and high cost, something most workers cannot always afford. By keeping requirements for a license high, license-holders protect their businesses from competition and indirectly continue the cycle of poverty.

Reforming occupational licensing is important. There has been a significant increase in the percentage of laborers in fields requiring state licenses: in the 1950s approximately 5% of workers were licensed; by the 1980s that number tripled to just under 18%; in 2014 roughly 33% of workers must be licensed.

Changing occupational licensing will significantly benefit people with low incomes and benefit our economy. One recent study shows that “licensing is associated with about 18 percent higher wages.” Also, more commonsense licensing requirements will provide more choices for consumers.

The other half of Ryan’s proposal is about “regressive reforms.”

Under the current regulatory system, federal agencies are granted the right to review and, at times, alter agency policies without congressional approval. It is this independence that Congressman Ryan objects to so strongly; it prompts him to argue that our model has bred “seemingly overzealous bureaucracy” that disproportionately harms low-income families.

It is important, however, to look at Ryan’s true intention.

First, whenever a federal agency intended to introduce or change a regulation, it would be required to conduct a three-part distributive analysis of the proposed change in order to assess its effects on low-income Americans. The first analysis would study which demographic bears the greatest cost because of the new regulation, with a particular focus on whether the proposed regulation would disproportionately burden people who are poor. This study would also be required to account for low-income people’s willingness to pay for the change. Second, the agency would need to analyze which group or groups benefit most from the proposed regulation. The final analysis would estimate number of jobs lost or created, both directly and indirectly, either above or below the median income because of the change.

Then, (in what I believe is a clear attempt to ensure a delay in presenting regulations for review) all findings must be translated into layman’s terms, as per the requirements of the Plain Writing Act.

Then the agency would submit their findings to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. If, upon inspection, a report is deemed “lacking,” it would be returned to the petitioning federal agency for additional information.

Then, if the proposed regulation were regressive, the agency would be required to conduct an additional assessment to see if enacting it would cause an “immediate risk to the public health or safety.”

Then, regardless of findings on the issue of health and safety, Ryan states that reforms with regressive effects must either be changed to mitigate these effects, or receive congressional approval. In addition to the large quantity of analysis already conducted, any regulation needing congressional approval objections must also include a document to Congress explaining why the relevant agency believes the regulation necessary.

It is only after all of these steps are completed that any vote on a change take can be considered. In comparison with all of the hoops necessary for the federal agency, the only requirement Ryan makes of Congress is that it considers the petition in “a timely fashion.” He offers no further explanation on how Congress should assess any of the information, or if the only reason for rejecting a regulation would need to be on its harmful impact on low-income households.

I believe that government agencies must do their utmost to ensure that the largest financial burden in any regulation reform does not fall to those living in or near poverty. However, we find this plan is about politics, not poverty.

The Ryan proposal speaks more to a desire to slow down regulations Republicans dislike than to promoting just reforms. All of the distributive analyses and extra requirements would take significant periods of time, months or years, to complete. Given that Congress would only be required to respond in the vaguely termed “timely fashion,” one must question: what does timely mean when placed next to a years-long process? A disapproving Congress could stall critical pieces of regulation until they had the votes in both houses to reject the regulation. Essentially, Representative Ryan wants to make it possible to crush regulatory reform under paperwork.

Moreover, while Rep. Ryan claims that this document is the manifestation of his nationwide tour, any politically knowledgeable person knows that this suggestion was born out of Republican politics. Citing what he considers an “overzealous bureaucracy,” Ryan drafted this plan thinking about his party’s various failed attempts to block or gut the Affordable Care Act, the recent problems with the Internal Revenue Service and the Office of Veterans Affairs, and, most significantly, the president’s use of executive orders. Some House Republicans like Ryan have concluded that the power of the legislative branch is under attack and it seems they feel that new legislation like this must be enacted to take back lost ground. But in reality this would throw our democracy out of balance.

According to our Constitution, the legislative branch has the power to write and pass laws, the executive to enforce them, and the judicial branch to determine their constitutionality. Part of the executive’s power is its role in devising means to act within the parameters of the laws; this means that they have the authority to propose changes to regulations within their agencies without express Congressional approval so long as they remain within the legal limits. Moreover, it is not Congress’s role to decide if a regulation is constitutional; that is the job of the courts. If Rep. Ryan and Congress want to ensure no regressive reforms exist, they are tasked with writing laws that make this impossible.

Representative Ryan unites the brightest and darkest elements of his plans and of himself. Coupling his truly bipartisan and progressive ideas of improving licensing with his obviously partisan attempt to make it harder to created needed regulations, Ryan shows just how conflicted he is about his growing understanding of poverty; Ryan is not yet the new anti-poverty advocate he calls himself.