Developing a Feminist Federal Budget

[from Spring 1996 Feminist Majority Report]

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.