In this week’s episode of Politics In Question, Julia, Lee, and James discuss the Supreme Court and democratic legitimacy in front of a live audience at The Washington Center in Washington, D.C. How does public opinion influence the Supreme Court? What role does the Court play in the federal government? Is it the ultimate arbiter of controversial policy questions? And should it be reformed? These are some of the questions Julia, Lee, and James discuss in this week’s episode.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Abortion and the economy are not separate issues
Sep 27, 2024
Bayer is a political activist and specialist in the rhetoric of social movements. She was the founding director of the Oral Communication Lab at the University of Pittsburgh.
At a recent campaign rally in Raleigh, N.C., Vice President Kamala Harris detailed her plan to strengthen the economy through policies lifting the middle class. Despite criticism from Republicans like Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) — who recently said, “The American people are smarter than Kamala Harris when it comes to the economy” — some economists and financial analysts have a very positive assessment of her proposals.
Respected Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs recently gave Harris high marks in a report compared to former President Donald Trump’s plan to increase tariffs. “We estimate that if Trump wins in a sweep or with divided government, the hit to growth from tariffs and tighter immigration policy would outweigh the positive fiscal impulse,” the bank’s economists wrote.
However, missing from these conversations is the interconnectedness between the economy and another top issue for voters: reproductive rights.
Even though intimately connected, the economy and abortion access continue to be cast as distinct issues. As an economic variable, abortion is as much a kitchen table issue as the cost of groceries or housing. Laws restricting abortion not only lead to poorer economic outcomes for women and their families, these laws undercut the overall economy by handicapping women’s presence in the workforce, a variable essential to economic growth and prosperity.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Women denied an abortion have higher levels of debt, housing and food insecurity, eviction, poor credit, and significantly higher rates of household poverty throughout their lives than women able to abort an unwanted pregnancy.
In a study conducted by the University of California San Francisco of 1,000 women — half of whom were able to obtain an abortion and half of whom were not — researchers found that being denied an abortion, rather than having one, resulted in greater harm. Women denied an abortion had significantly higher pregnancy-related medical emergencies, physical and emotional complaints, and ongoing financial hardship compared to women able to have an abortion. Most tellingly, the financial trends between these groups were similar until those women seeking an abortion were turned away.
The medical costs of prenatal care and childbirth — even for women with health insurance — is significant, averaging $4,500 on out-of-pocket expense. Women without insurance coverage often skimp or forgo essential prenatal care. These costs are amplified since childbirth invariably interrupts a woman’s paid work, resulting in lost income. With less than 10 percent of workers currently eligible for paid medical leave, lost wages compound the financial stress of an unwanted pregnancy. It’s not surprising that the rate of childhood poverty decreased following the 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion.
The financial hardship for women denied an abortion tends to be greatest during the four or five years following birth, but the struggle continues. The cost of returning to work when daycare is needed, ongoing expenses of supporting another child, and the secondary costs of emotional and medical complications for an unwanted pregnancy handicap a woman and those dependent on her. Sixty percent of women seeking abortions are already mothers who cannot support, on multiple levels, another child. Women able to obtain an abortion are largely spared from these handicaps.
Women able to abort an unwanted pregnancy achieve higher educational, employment and income levels than women denied an abortion. And while some women do report sadness or regret regarding the “situation” prompting them to choose an abortion, they do not report regretting the decision itself, a fact confirmed by 95 percent of women in the Turnaway Study who were able to obtain an abortion.
Information on the actual effects of abortion on women, their families and the larger cultural environment has grown significantly in the decades following Roe. Yet misinformation has remained essentially unchanged. Common myths such as “abortion is dangerous to a woman’s health,” “abortion casts a long, painful shadow over her emotional well-being” and “killing a fetus and is akin to murder” are still prevalent in the narrative.
These chilling claims are reminiscent of the same statements I heard from anti-abortion protesters 50 years ago as a clinic escort for Planned Parenthood, and that continue to dominate anti-abortion rhetoric. We have an opportunity now to broaden the discussion of abortion based on what we have learned from decades of research rather than legitimizing arguments against abortion that are little more than subjective religious views.
Anti-abortion politicians like Scott find it “cruel” and “callous” to talk abortion within an economic framework, as if the financial hardship women face is inconsequential. Even if correct, economic consequences are insignificant to protecting a fetus.
Abortion rights have been protected in every state voting on the question thus far, demonstrating that women aren’t willing to sacrifice their autonomy and material well-being to protect the religious beliefs and sensibilities of anti-abortion politicians. Rather than talking about the need to lift the middle class and restore full abortion rights as mutually exclusive policies, we must talk about lifting the middle class by restoring abortion rights.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
In swing states, D's and R's favor federal action to help families
Sep 24, 2024
As many costs for families, especially those with children, continue to rise faster than wages, a new public consultation survey by the Program for Public Consultation finds bipartisan majorities of Americans in the six swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as well as nationally, support federal government action.
The study found Republicans and Democrats are in favor of:
- Reinstating the higher pandemic-era child tax credit.
- Providing funding for free universal preschool.
- Subsidizing child care for low- and middle-income families.
- Creating a national 12-week paid family and medical leave program for all workers.
“There is strong bipartisan support for the Federal government taking a more active role in strengthening the support system for families, especially those with children,” said PPC Director Steven Kull.
This survey is the seventh entry in the Swing Six Issue Surveys being conducted in the run-up to the November election. It covers major policy issues across six swing states. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance. All Americans are invited to go through the same policymaking simulation as the survey sample.
Reinstating higher child tax credit
The annual tax credit provided to parents with children under the age of 18 was temporarily increased by Congress during the Covid pandemic, from a maximum credit of $2,000 per child to a maximum of $3,600 per child. The higher tax credit was also made fully refundable, so parents who did not pay income taxes still got the full benefit. Those changes expired in 2022.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Bipartisan majorities in every swing state support reinstating this pandemic-era credit (69 percent to 77 percent), including majorities of Republicans (60 percent to 71 percent) and Democrats (80 percent to 85 percent). Nationally, 74 percent are in favor, including 64 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats.
Respondents were informed in advance that the pandemic-era tax credit both reduced child poverty by about a third and significantly reduced federal revenues, and would likely have the same effects if reinstated.
In addition, majorities in every swing state (57 percent to 71 percent) support providing a $6,000 tax credit per child to parents of children under age 1, including majorities of Democrats (65 percent to 79 percent). However, views are more mixed among Republicans. Majorities of Republicans are in support in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan (60 percent to 66 percent), and they are statistically divided in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (47 percent to 53 percent). Nationally, 65 percent are in favor, including a modest majority of Republicans (55 percent) and a large majority of Democrats (75 percent).
Federal funding to support free universal preschool
A proposal for the federal government to provide $25 billion to help states or local governments that want to set up or expand free preschool programs, available to all children ages 3 and 4, is favored by 76 percent to 83 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (63 percent to 78 percent) and Democrats (90 percent to 94 percent). Nationally, a bipartisan majority of 82 percent is in favor (Republicans 74 percent, Democrats 92 percent).
Subsidizing child care for low and middle-income families
Bipartisan majorities in every swing state (74 percent to 80 percent) support the federal government providing funds to states that want it, to subsidize child care programs for young children so they are free for low-income parents. Middle-income parents would pay no more than 7 percent of their income. That support includes majorities of Republicans (63 percent to 72 percent) and Democrats (85 percent to 93 percent). Nationally, 76 percent are in favor (Republicans 66 percent, Democrats 88 percent).
Paid family and medical leave for all workers
Majorities in every swing state (68 percent to 75 percent) favor creating a national paid family and medical leave program that would:
- Require employers to allow all workers to take up to 12 weeks of leave.
- Provide workers on leave with two-thirds of their wages (up to $4,000 a month), with funds from a new 0.2 percent payroll tax on both employees and employers.
In the swing states, this proposal is favored by majorities of Republicans in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (55 percent to 67 percent), while Republicans are statistically divided in Nevada (52 percent). The proposal is favored by a majority of Democrats in all six states (81 percent to 86 percent). Nationally, 72 percent are in favor, including majorities of Republicans (61 percent) and Democrats (85 percent).
In advance, respondents were informed that current federal law requires most employers to allow most workers to take up to 12 weeks of family or medical leave, but this law does not apply to workers who are in small companies, are new to their job or work part-time. In addition, current law does not mandate that workers receive any pay while on leave. They were informed that, while not required, some employers provide paid family and medical leave to their workers. But currently, less than half of workers have access to such paid leave.
Keep ReadingShow less
In swing states, both parties agree on ideas to save Social Security
Sep 13, 2024
A new public consultation survey finds significant bipartisan support for major Social Security proposals — including ideas to increase revenue and cut benefits — that would reduce the program’s long-term shortfall by 78 percent and extend the program’s longevity for decades.
Without any reforms to revenues or benefits, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2033, and benefits will be cut for all retirees.
This survey, run by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation, is the sixth in the Swing Six Issue Surveys series being conducted in the run-up to the November election in six swing states and nationally. Unlike standard polling, respondents went through an interactive online “policymaking simulation” in which they learned about and then evaluated pro and con arguments for proposed reforms. The survey content was reviewed by experts on different sides of the debate.
(All Americans are invited to go through the same policymaking simulation as the survey sample.)
Revenue increases
Overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans support two proposals to increase revenues that would cover three-quarters of the Social Security shortfall.
- Subjecting wages over $400,000 to the payroll tax: Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $169,000. A proposal to make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax, which would eliminate 60 percent of the shortfall, is supported by an overwhelming 86 percent to 89 percent in the swing states. This includes large majorities of Republicans (83 percent to 89 percent) and Democrats (83 percent to 92 percent). Nationally, 87 percent are in support.
- Increasing the payroll tax: Respondents were given the option of gradually increasing the payroll tax over several years, from 6.2 percent to 6.5 percent by 2030, 6.9 percent by 2038 or 7.2 percent by 2044, or not raise it. Increasing the payroll tax to at least 6.5 percent, which would eliminate 15 percent of the shortfall, is supported by 83 percent to 88 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (83 percent to 88 percent) and Democrats (85 percent to 88 percent). Nationally, 86 percent are in support.
Benefit reductions
Two benefit reductions, which would cover a quarter of the Social Security shortfall, also have robust bipartisan support.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
- Reducing benefits for high-income earners: Respondents were given the options of reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of earners, the top 40 percent or the top 50 percent, or they could not choose any of those options. Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of income earners, which would eliminate 11 percent of the shortfall, is supported by an overwhelming 91 percent to 94 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (88 percent to 93 percent) and Democrats (91 percent to 94 percent). Nationally, 92 percent are in support.
- Raising the retirement age: Respondents were given options to gradually raise the full retirement age, which is currently set at 67 years old: to 68 by 2033, to 69 by 2041 or to 70 by 2064, or they could not choose any of those options. Raising the retirement age to at least 68, which would eliminate 15 percent of the shortfall, is supported by an overwhelming 88 percent to 91 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (88 percent to 94 percent) and Democrats (87 percent to 92 percent). Nationally, 89 percent are in support
“While some of these proposals — such as raising the retirement age or raising payroll taxes — are not popular in themselves, when Americans consider the full picture, large bipartisan majorities support taking tough steps to secure the Social Security program,” said Steven Kull, director of PPC. “We were struck by how similar the Republican and Democrats are on all these questions.”
Raising benefits
The four reforms endorsed by majorities would eliminate 101 percent of the shortfall. However, majorities also favor benefit increases that grow the shortfall by 23 percent. Combined, all of these proposals would reduce the shortfall by 78 percent.
- Raising the minimum benefit: Increasing the minimum monthly benefit for someone who worked 30 years from $1,066 to $1,570, which would increase the shortfall by 7 percent, is supported by 70 percent to 73 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (65 percent to 72 percent) and Democrats (68 percent to 78 percent). Nationally, 71 percent are in support. The minimum benefit would rise with inflation, and always be set at 125 percent of the federal poverty line.
- Increasing benefits for those 85 and older: Raising benefits for those 85 and over by about $100 a month, which would increase the shortfall by 4 percent, is supported by 64 percent to 67 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (58 percent to 67 percent) and Democrats (61 percent to70 percent). Nationally, 68 percent are in support.
- Increasing cost of living adjustments: Changing the way COLAs are calculated by focusing on the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would increase the shortfall by 12 percent, is supported by 65 percent to 68 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (62 percent to 68 percent) and Democrats (62 percent to 70 percent). Nationally, 68 percent are in support.
Keep ReadingShow less
Are housing costs driving inflation in 2024?
Sep 13, 2024
This fact brief was originally published by EconoFact. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.
Are housing costs driving inflation in 2024?
Yes.
The rise in housing costs has been a major source of overall inflation, which was 2.9% in the 12 months ending in July 2024.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' shelter index, which includes housing costs for renters and homeowners, rose 5.1% in the 12 months ending in July 2024.
Housing costs account for 36.3% of the Consumer Price Index. This represents the largest share of any category.
The Consumer Price Index is an ongoing measure of price changes in a representative "basket" of consumer goods and services.
The only category in the CPI that increased at a greater rate was transportation services at 8.8%.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the rise in housing costs over this period accounted for over 70% of the total 12-month increase in the core CPI – that is, the CPI excluding food and energy prices, which rose 3.2% in this 12 month period.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index - July 2024
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index
Keep ReadingShow less
Imagining constitutions
Sep 10, 2024
Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”
This is the latest in “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”
America’s Constitution is always under the microscope, but something different is happening of late: The document’s sanctity is being questioned.
In the pages of The New York Times, Jennifer Szalai recently asked whether the Constitution is “dangerous.” Erwin Chemerinsky similarly wonders whether the Constitution is actually a threat to the United States. Ryan Doerfler and Samuel Moyn question whether the “broken” Constitution should even be reclaimed. These questions would scarcely be uttered a generation ago. Today, they’re typical.
As disturbing as alarm over America’s holy charter may be, what is exciting is the way in which critics are responding. Constitutional skeptics have begun to take matters into their own hands and have offered their own versions of a 21st century charter. Leading writers and legal scholars were recently asked to imagine the next constitutional amendment. Before that, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas gathered a bunch of academics to draft a more progressive Constitution for our times, while the National Constitution Center did the same thing with separate teams of liberals, conservatives and libertarians. Hashtags for imaginary draft constitutions are trending.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Those interesting and laudable efforts are the very definition of creativity. Fictional Framers are being asked to create new constitutions for the 21st century, ones that respond to the hyper-polarization of the moment. The drafters of these invented texts are no doubt influenced by the Trump presidency, the “woke” culture, political tribalism, the pandemic, regional distinctions, and on and on. Unsurprisingly, the progressive drafters emphasize rights, while the conservatives focus on the side of federalism and state power. The libertarians, in contrast, try to reduce government’s imprint while championing individual freedom. In the end, the dialogue is both fascinating and enlightening.
It is also distinctly American.
The United States should be proud of its tradition as a constitutional innovator. Political entrepreneurs were born alongside the new nation. John Dickinson, the primary author of the Articles of Confederation, was a dreamer. So was James Madison, and James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris, and Alexander Hamilton, and all their colleagues who huddled under a hot Philadelphia sun in 1787 to craft a fresh legal charter. Similarly, state constitutional drafters number in the thousands. State leaders have assembled more than 160 times in American history to rewrite their fundamental documents.
These individuals shared an admirable audaciousness. What they also shared was a fervent commitment to see the constitution-making project through. Each was able to translate their vision for a “more perfect union” into an actual, tangible and eventually ratified constitution. They were critics of the political order they saw outside their windows, and they did something about it.
There are similar constitutional dreamers among us today. Hundreds of them. And yet there is little appetite to take their promising ideas and turn them into a new Constitution. The question is why. I would point to at least six different reasons.
- The fear of a runaway convention: There is concern that every clause, safeguard and protection in the Constitution would be fair game for revision.
- The polarization of America: There is concern that liberals and conservatives could never agree on any reforms to the Constitution.
- The challenge of representation: How do we decide who should be at the drafting convention and who should not?
- America is not really in crisis: Constitutions are generally born out of crises (civil wars, coups, economic disasters, etc.). We are experiencing political malaise right now, but not a genuine crisis.
- The sacred Constitution: For millions of Americans, the Constitution is still sacred. Flawed? Sure. But not irredeemable.
There are more reasons, of course. But these are the main sticking points, and they appear to be intractable. Calls for a constitutional convention — a return to Philadelphia of sorts — pop up fairly often. We should welcome them. Conversation about political improvement begets further conversation. Indeed, it is a demonstration of the strength of our constitutional republic that Americans are encouraged to interrogate the nation’s first principles.
Attempts to rewrite the Constitution are inevitably speculative — hypothetical, academic, abstract — mostly because few believe we’ll soon invoke an Article V constitutional convention. That should not diminish the importance of these imaginary efforts, however, or of the more conventional creative approaches to thinking about our current political and social problems. The U.S. Constitution is the most innovative political invention in the post-Enlightenment age. The way we talk about it should be equally creative.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More