What will the Republicans do for (to) us?

As promised, here’s what the top three Republican candidates have to say about the practical problems facing mothers. Bottom line: Not much. All told, what they prescribe is even more application of YOYO—You’re On Your Own—the nasty regime families are presently struggling under.

None of them mentions the word “mothers,” or even the word “woman” except in the context of protecting traditional marriage “between one man and one woman” and prohibiting abortion, as if women exist only as wives and vessels. The proposals the candidates do make would in general add to the challenges facing mothers—abortions would become illegal and therefore (even more) unavailable and unsafe, the tax code would become more regressive, which would place more of the tax burden on mothers (since mother on average earn less than men and corporations, which would get tax breaks from these candidates), and, if Huckabee had his way, divorce would become difficult or impossible. None of them offers a plan to provide universal health coverage or even universal coverage of children.

For better or worse, John McCain says nothing about families or family values. He does mention the word “mother,” as in “the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby.” That sounds great. However, nowhere do I see any proposals for how to meet those needs.

He would cut the corporate tax rate and eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax Rate. I can’t see how this would help working parents, and more likely the cut in the corporate tax rate would shift the tax burden more heavily on to average working stiffs, including mothers.

Like the rest, Romney would appoint judges to overturn Roe v. Wade and define marriage as between one man and one woman. He would also enforce obscenity laws, promote software filters to block content from children, and support “school choice,” i.e. promote charter schools and private school vouchers, i.e. further undermine the public school system. He would also offer tax credits for parents who home school. This amounts to a credit for single-earner families, deepening the tax penalties on two-earner families. He would also further deregulate the health care industry and shift health coverage away from employers and on to individuals. A terrific idea, since so far the market has done a great job of providing health care, and individuals really need less security and more risk in these soft, easy times.

I got a sense of Mike Huckabee's seductive powers from his website. There are charming surprises like “Music and the arts are not extraneous, extra-curricular, or expendable - I believe they are essential. I want to provide every child these ‘Weapons of Mass Instruction.’ ” Aww, what a sweetie. Now, on to covenant marriage. Really—under Huckabee Arkansas became the third state to adopt covenant marriage, allowing couples to opt for a marriage contract from which it is hard to get out (but people aren’t stupid—hardly anybody has gone in for it). He believes “We do need to get serious about preventive health care,” but doesn’t specify what that means. “It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health care, people do”—right on. But that sentence finishes “and move from employer-based to consumer-based health care"—i.e. move health care even further into the market and shift more risk onto individuals. (See above on Romney’s similar ideas.)

Huckabee's Big Idea is a flat tax, which indeed is a revolutionary idea. It would be a steeply regressive step that would dramatically shift the tax burden away from corporations and the wealthy and onto us poor working stiffs.

There it is. Good night and good luck. We’ll need it, if one of these guys gets elected.