Determined that feminists must help reshape the current budget debate,
Feminist Majority Foundation president Eleanor Smeal featured the theme
Developing a Feminist Federal Budget at Expo '96. Expo participants could attend
three "training sessions" on the federal budget, as well as a General Assembly
and symposium.
"After this weekend, more and more women will demand a gender perspective
on federal expenditure and revenue proposals," said Smeal. "When Congress
refuses to raise the minimum wage, or takes away the earned income tax credit,
women and their families suffer most. Eighty-five percent of those on Medicaid
are women and children. Women are 59% of Medicare recipients. Women are more
dependent than men on student loans. Yet we never see budget numbers divided
up by their impact on women and men. Just as we are used to seeing the "gender
gap" in voting prominently displayed in the media, we must demand that the
"gender gap" in the budget be made visible."
Feminist thinkers and economists at Expo '96 shattered myths surrounding
the federal budget. Do we need to balance the budget? For the past
several years almost every politician has railed about the need to balance
the federal budget and cut the national debt. Social programs that provide
needed funds to the poorest Americans have found themselves on the chopping
block -- Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare. Education and student loans have
been targeted for cuts, and some politicians are talking about eliminating
the Department of Education.
But do we need to balance the federal budget at all? Is our national really
out of control? "Everyone assumes the budget deficit is the biggest problem
America faces -- bigger than poverty, hunger, and ignorance," said Barbara
Ehrenreich, columnist and author. By cutting health, education and welfare
programs, "we are planning to have a health deficit, a nutrition deficit,
and an education deficit, Ehrenreich pointed out.
Economists are divided about whether our deficit is a problem. After all,
every family incurs deficits all the time to buy a house or car, or to get
an education. These are called "investments," not deficits. Politicians use
the federal budget deficit as a way to silence reformers, said Ehrenreich.
"You just shrug and say, 'No, can't afford it.'"
Economist and radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux quoted the Republicans
as saying each child born has $18,000 in federal debt. "But they never talk
about the assets each child has!" said Malveaux. "Our national parks, our
clean air and water, are assets." Other assets include financial assets, land,
mineral rights, and physical structures and equipment, But because the United
States does not use a "balance sheet" budget, these assets are not counted
against the debt. If they were, much of the debt would be offset, according
to some budget analysts.
If we do want to reduce the debt, is cutting spending the only way?
Politicians talk as though cutting the is the only way to reduce the federal
debt. What about increasing revenues?
According to Ehrenreich, "If you just restored corporate taxes to the level
they were in the 1950s, nearly 2/3 the federal debt would disappear overnight."
In 1967, corporate income tax represented 23% of federal revenues and individual
income and social security taxes represented 63%. In 1994, corporate income
taxes were only 11% of federal revenues, while individual taxes had risen
to 80%.
Marlene Kim, Professor of Economics and a Just Economics trainer,
would also increase individual taxes - but on the richest 1% of Americans.
"If taxes hadn't been cut for these people, we'd have an extra $70 billion
per year," said Kim.
Why Can't We Cut the Military Budget? If we do want to cut the budget,
the logical place to start, of course, is the military budget, which is still
being funded at cold-war levels - it accounts for 50% of the discretionary
spending of the federal budget. But why does Congress want to give the Pentagon
$7 billion more in funding than they asked for? Why is it so hard to cut this
expenditure?
One reason is military contractors. In the case of the B-2 Bomber, which
the Pentagon does not even want, the contractors who make this bomber have
ensured that some part of the B-2 Bomber is manufactured in 385 out of the
435 congressional districts, according to Susan Schaer, Executive Director
of Women's Action for New Directions. As a result, the vast majority of members
of Congress do not want to cut money that will find its way into their own
district to "create jobs."
But does military spending really create jobs? Marian Anderson, Director
of Employment Research Associates, does not think so. Her organization's analysis
found that every $1 billion of funding the Pentagon receives creates only
21,000 to 24,000 jobs. But the same amount of money put into education would
create 35,000 jobs. Gloria Steinem pointed out that diverting money to the
Pentagon does not just de-press the number of available jobs -- it is also
discriminatory to women. "De-fense jobs are mostly male jobs, and health,
education and welfare jobs are overwhelmingly female," said Steinem.
What Would a Feminist Budget Look Like? Jane Midgely of the Women's
International League for Peace and Freedom presented a Women's Budget analysis
for Expo '96. She recommends cutting the military budget in half to free up
$350 billion for other programs. She would divide this money among: education,
infrastructure, environment, housing, income support, child care, nutrition,
employment and training, special women's programs, and international relations.
Heidi Hartmann, economist and President of the Institute for Women's
Policy Research, would create several new "entitlement" programs -- pro-grams
in which every eligible person would receive money. These would in-clude long-term
health care, eliminating the "co-payment" required of Medicare recipients,
expanding Medicaid to en-sure all poor people, and universal child care. Providing
universal health care and child care would not only create more jobs, but
would also allow more women to enter the job market, thus providing more taxes
for the government.
[NOTE: For materials on developing a feminist federal budget, contact:
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, (215) 563-7110; Women's
Action for New Directions, (617) 643-6740; and the Feminist Majority Foundation,
(703) 522-2214. The federal budget training sessions at Expo '96 were conducted
by Just Economics, To contact them to lead training sessions in your area,
call (415) 824-8384. ]
© 1996, The Feminist Majority Foundation and New Media Publishing
Inc.
