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.

What will the presidental candidates do for mothers?

You aren’t hearing much this campaign season about issues particularly facing women and parents, and you sure aren’t hearing the candidates offering practical solutions to the stresses facing working mothers. So I trundled my (virtual) self off to the candidates’ web sites to see if I could dig up the candidates’ positions on these issues.

First, the Democrats, at least the leading three candidates. Bottom line first, and then the details: Edwards is the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who demonstrates that he has thought about the practical and economic difficulties specifically faced by women. The man gets it. Read this list of his proposals addressed to women and weep, as I about did, since it’s a longshot this man will be president:

Require businesses to offer paid sick days. Expand the child care tax credit and move toward universal preschool. Expand home health care and offer respite care for those caring for elders. Compensate women who pay less into Social Security, and therefore under current provision receive less benefits, because they are caring for children or other family members instead of working for pay. End poverty (disproportionately faced by mothers and children) and raise the minimum wage (two-thirds of minimum wage earners are women). Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which seeks to end wage discrimination against those who work in female-dominated or minority-dominated jobs by establishing equal pay for equivalent work. Remove some of the tax penalties exacted on low-income, two-earner married couples by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit.

And that’s just the stuff on his page on women. The proposals on his “working families” page are great for mothers too. The only major thing I see missing is paid family leave.

Obama’s offerings are nearly as good, the differences between him and Edwards on this score being largely a matter of presentation. Where Edwards speaks specifically to and about the difficulties facing women, Obama mentions only families and fathers. But, alone among the candidates, Obama mentions paid family leave (his plan is to encourage states to offer it). He, like Edwards, supports requiring employers to offer paid sick leave.

He would not only expand the child care tax credit, but make it refundable, so that low-income families could benefit from it. Obama, too, has a plan to move toward universal preschool and expanded child care funding. He would quadruple Early Head Start and increase Head Start funding. He would also expand funding for after-school programs (which always sounded frivolous to me, until I became a parent and began to wonder what you do with your kid between the end of the school day and the end of the work day).

About his plan to “promote responsible fatherhood,” I’m not too sure. (It sounds awfully like the Moynihan report, and is this where we want policy attention focused? How about rewarding responsible motherhood, or at least removing the penalties on mothers, which in the end amount to penalties on responsible fathers, too?) Elsewhere, he mentions that he would provide a special supplement to the Earned Income Tax Credit to workers who “are responsibly supporting their children on child support,” i.e. fathers. As best I can tell, his “Making Work Pay” tax credit would do little to erase the penalties on two-earner families.

Clinton’s families planks sound nice, in a vague sort of way. “Attracting and supporting more outstanding teachers and principals, and paying them like the professionals they are” is good, but precisely how? Reforming No Child Left Behind, also good, but how? “Giving new parents support and training to promote healthy development for their children” sounds all right, but not like bread and butter to me. Increasing access to early childhood education is great, but she gives no promise to move to universal preschool. She does mention expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child care tax credit, without offering details. She mentions family leave, but says nothing about paid leave. And she, like Edwards, supports legislation to provide those taking care of elders with respite care.

There you have it, folks. Next, on to the Republicans.

Kudos to Chris Dodd

Here’s a reason to be sorry Chris Dodd has bowed out of the presidential race: Dodd is the original author of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which for the first time in U.S. history required employers to grant family leave. Okay, so it’s a minimal little law—the leave is unpaid, only large employers are covered, and you have to have worked in the job at least a year. But still. It was a good start.

Dodd also has sponsored a bill that would finally require employers to give paid family leave, His Family Leave Insurance Act would provide eight weeks of paid leave. The bill has gone nowhere. But let’s give the man credit for working on it.

Still, not too much credit. As a savvy politico friend of mine noted, unlike John Edwards, who has used his candidacy to bring issues of inequality into the national conversation, Dodd didn’t use his candidacy to draw attention to the issues of family leave and work–family life balance. I’m still waiting for a candidate to do that. I’ll keep you posted on the proposals of other Democratic candidates on these issues.

Meanwhile, as Joanne Bamberger has noted at the Huffington Post, the Republican candidates to a man are silent on the practical difficulties mothers (and fathers) face and how to solve them.