There’s a lot of talk lately about the working class. In an
ordinary year, I’d be ecstatic because this is something I care about. But this isn’t an ordinary year.
Lately, the term is often racialized, which is never a good sign.
The Electoral College victory of the president elect is attributed to the white
working class. While there are lots of ways of parsing the results, let’s
assume that’s true and consider how working people are likely to fare now.
I guess we could start by saying that white working class
people probably won’t have their names added to a registry, face mass
deportations, or have travel restricted for reasons other than lack of money. There’s
that anyway, although I kind of doubt this would have happened in any case.
But a number of policies now on the agenda could be harmful
to working people.
Let’s start with the Affordable Care Act. Around 30 million Americans could lose
coverage if it is fully repealed without being replaced. Of these, over half
are white, most of whom work for a living.
In WV, Medicaid
expansion alone covers nearly 180,000 people, about one out of ten. That doesn’t
include people with disabilities or the tiny TANF or welfare population. Around 37,000 working West Virginians got
covered through the exchange. Around
18,000 young people up to age 26 are now covered on their parent’s insurance. These
people are overwhelmingly in working families. White ones too.
Losing expansion funding would be a devastating blow to
hospitals and health care providers here and would result in job losses in one
of the few growing industries.
The new administration could breathe new life into House
Speaker Paul Ryan’s plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program. Medicare is a
health care program for people age 65 and older who have worked and paid into
the system. It provides coverage to over 55 million Americans and around
400,000 here, over 1/5 of the population. We’re tied with Maine in having the
highest percentage of beneficiaries.
Ryan has also proposed block granting—and effectively
cutting--programs such as SNAP and traditional Medicaid, both of which benefit
working families. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says the data
shows that “The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so.”
SNAP benefits go straight to local businesses and help support thousands of retail
and agriculture jobs.
Traditional Medicaid covers 70 million, including long term
care for the elderly and people with disabilities. Many seniors who worked all
their lives run out of savings when they need long term care. Medicaid picks up
the slack. With block granting, some would have to quit jobs to care for
elderly family members, even though they may be unequipped to do this. More
seniors who worked all their lives will be in danger of abuse or neglect.
This would also mean losing federal matching funds, again
with job impact. More than 10 years ago the WV Bureau of Business and Economic
Research found that Medicaid spending supported economic activity that generated
nearly 33,000 jobs. That number has only gone up since.
Medicaid and CHIP provide health care to children in many working
families earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level—and most
workers want their kids to live and be healthy. The programs also bring
millions of dollars to local communities and sustain jobs.
The latest round of proposed tax cuts—a remedy that has yet
to produce impressive results--would likely benefit the very wealthy, increase
inequality, and reduce the ability of the federal government to respond to the
needs of working families—for example by making vocational and post-secondary
education more affordable.
From the earliest days of the republic, working people
fought for a free public education for their children, which is likely to be
undermined by a secretary of education committed to undermining it with a
system of vouchers and privatization schemes. Speaking of labor history,
another key demand of the past was the abolition of child labor, which has been
praised by a group the newly appointed education chief has supported.
Then there’s trade, a major issue for working people. I’m
not mourning the death of the Trans Pacific Partnership and I support
revisiting trade deals to ensure workers’ rights and save American jobs. But a
heavy handed approach could set off a trade war which the conservative Peterson
Institute described as “horribly destructive.” Peterson estimated that this
could cost between 1.3 and 4 million jobs. Progressive groups that ordinarily
oppose Peterson on trade issues, such as the Economic Policy Institute, share
similar concerns.
If the US ignores the dangers of climate change, working
people will be hit the hardest by extreme weather events, like those that hit
much of the state this summer. Scientific models project more droughts, floods,
food shortages, wildfires, disease epidemics, etc. While we’re at it, if the US
goes to war with the known universe over perceived slights on Twitter, it’s a
pretty safe bet that working people would pay the highest price.
Then there’s the pick for secretary of labor, a fast food
baron who opposes the minimum wage and talks about replacing workers with
robots, saying that the latter are ““always polite, they always upsell, they
never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall,
or an age, sex or race discrimination case”
Sorry, but If this is a case of sticking it to the man, I’d
have to ask, which man would that be? From where I’m sitting, it seems to be
the one who is living paycheck to paycheck.
I think a real pro-working class program would be based on
solidarity, not scapegoating. It would include such things as full employment
and trade policies to strengthen the middle class; patching the holes in our
pension and health care system, ensuring paid sick days and family leave;
making debt-free post high-school job training and education a reality;
strengthening K-12 public education; investing in things like early childhood
programs and infrastructure; and guaranteeing the right of workers to organize.
And, since widespread poverty exerts a downward pressure on everyone’s wages,
it would support an increase in the minimum wage indexed to inflation.
It would recognize that an injury to one is the concern of all,
just as the labor movement of the 1800s came to recognize that free labor could
never prosper while slavery persisted. And it would promote international
policies that would guarantee fair trade, a sustainable future, and what
Lincoln called “a just and lasting peace among ourselves and
with all nations.”
I haven’t heard a lot of that.
News Feed (RSS & Atom)