Republican budget proposals have included deep cuts to social safety net programs, including those that are aimed at ensuring that needy children have access to nutritional food at school. Last year’s House Republican budget, for instance, would have kicked 280,000 children out of the program, and spending cuts that have been enacted have targeted it too.

Amid those efforts, though, Democratic Rep. Dina Titus (D) is pushing in the opposite direction. School lunch programs provide breakfast and lunch to children when they are in school, but they leave many children without food options on weekends and holidays during the school year. Titus wants to fix that by expanding the program through the Weekends Without Hunger Act, which she introduced last week and rolled out in her Las Vegas district Thursday.

That the Republican budget seeks to cut such programs is a statement of “how out of touch it is with our nation’s needs and priorities,” Titus told ThinkProgress in an email.

“With 50.1 million American living in food insecure households, including 16.7 million children, it is our responsibility to protect programs such as free and reduced school lunches, SNAP, and WIC that these families rely on every day just to get by,” Titus said. “The federal budget is a statement of our national priorities, and providing funding for nutritious meals to ensure that vacation from school does not mean hunger for children is one of my top priorities.”

The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Marsha Fudge (D-OH), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and Terri Sewell (D-AL) and is one of several efforts to expand child nutrition programs. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (D) has introduced a bill that would expand those programs to child care centers in an effort to get food to more low-income children.

The Great Recession drove up the number of children living in poverty, adding to the number of children who live without enough food. Nearly 15 percent — more than 17 million in total — American households were food insecure in 2011, meaning they had difficulty providing food at some point in the year. There are 20 million students who benefit from free and reduced lunches at school, and another 10.5 million who are eligible but don’t receive the benefits.

The school lunch program gets food to children during the week, but weekends and holidays create gaps that leave many hungry. “While school meals help keep children healthy and ready to learn during days that school is in session, there is currently no targeted Federal child nutrition program available to provide these children with food during the weekend or extended holidays when they do not have access to school meals,” a release from Titus’ office said when the bill was introduced. “Vacation from school should not mean hunger for children.”

Ed. note: This is the third and final post in a TP Ideas symposium on Branko Milanovic’s The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality. The first installment is here here and the second is here.

The wealthy don’t like it when we talk about it inequality. Mitt Romney famously labeled President Obama’s critique of inequality “class warfare” motivated by “envy,” and proposed instead that debate about economic inequality be confined to “quiet rooms.” It’s fair to say he’s not alone among the super-wealthy in thinking this isn’t a “proper” subject for open, political debate.

At first blush, their motivation here is straightforward: it could cost them money. But given America’s one percent already has so much, and so little redistribution is on the table, they’d have to be exceptionally greedy to have such a strong reaction to even broaching the inequality discussion. Of course that’s possible, but the history of debates around inequality as surveyed in Branko Milanovic’s wonderfully readable book suggests another explanation. The rich don’t like inequality talk because, by its very nature, it involves making moral judgments about the way the rich live their lives into a topic for public discussion.

In the book’s first essay, “Unequal People,” Milanovic runs down the earliest modern economic theories about whether inequality is good for economic growth. The difference between early theories wasn’t, as we think today, whether or not you thought inequality was something that happened as a consequence of a roaring economy: it was whether, essentially, the rich are good people or not.

On the first view, defended to varying degrees by Max Weber and John Maynard Keynes, the rich were virtuous workers, dutiful, acquisitive folk who accumulated but spent no more on indulgences than the poor. Their massive savings were invested back in the marketplace, which, as Keynes put it, “made possible those vast accumulations of fixed wealth and of capital improvements” which redounded “to the advantage of the whole community.” The virtuous rich were uninterested in selfish consumption, serving principally as what Milanovic calls “saving machines” for the broader capitalist society.

Milanovic’s second view paints a dimmer picture of virtues of the rich. It assumes that the rich are selfish, greedy parasites who hold on to massive hoards and spend on themselves without investing in much of anything socially useful. In democracies, this leads the naturally-angry rest of society to impose punitive tax rates that slow economic growth. By being selfish misers, the rich end up taking money away from everyone.

What’s interesting about both sides of this debate is that they assume a public policy problem (“what grows the economy?”) needs to be discussed in terms of the moral character of the rich. This isn’t because economists have a yen for judging people; rather, it’s that when you have the amount of accumulated capital and power that rich do, the way in which one spend one’s money ends up having an extraordinary impact on everyone else in society. Invariably, assessing the desirability of rich people’s consumption choices will take on a moral cast, as what a person chooses to spend their money on says a lot about the person. Especially when they’re rich enough to spend it on anything.
Read more

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I) has promised to veto his city council’s final version of paid sick leave legislation, and is using flawed reasoning to defend his decision to do so.

Bloomberg claims that the legislation, which would provide five days of paid leave for employees of companies bigger than 15 people, would “hurt small businesses and stifle job creation… Supporters claim it will only take effect if the economy is healthy, but there is never a good time to make New York City less competitive. The bill is short-sighted economic policy that will take our city in the wrong direction, and I will veto it.”

It’s a good thing that the council has enough votes to override Bloomberg’s veto, because his reason for opposing the law doesn’t add up. Several studies have demonstrated that paid sick leave has no effect on job creation. In fact, a survey by Public Citizen found that when San Francisco enacted paid sick day legislation (a bill that required far more businesses to comply), it saw a jump in business expansion and employment growth (PDF):

But after implementation of the paid sick-leave law, San Francisco experienced an increase in employment. A study by the Drum Major Institute found that employment in San Francisco increased 3.5 percent between the start of 2006 and the start of 2010. In San Francisco’s five closest neighboring counties, employment fell 3.4 percent during the same period. The same study found that despite predictions to the contrary, the number businesses in San Francisco grew by 1.64 percent between 2006 and 2008 while falling by 0.61 percent in neighboring counties. San Francisco also experienced growth within both large and small businesses, and within the retail and food service industry during this period. (These industries expected to be affected most by the ordinance.)

The impact on businesses themselves was minor. A majority reported that understanding and implementing the ordinance was either “not difficult” or “not too difficult.” Additionally, while only 14 percent of businesses reported a negative impact on profits, more than 70 percent reported that the law had either no impact or a positive impact on their profitability. Productivity, and thus profitability, suffers when workers are forced to come to work when they are sick. One study on the impact of illness on productivity estimates that businesses lose twice as much money to workers who show up at work while sick than when workers stay home due to an illness.

Another study of Connecticut, done by the Center for American Progress, found much the same thing, noting that “full use of this leave would cost an employer only 0.4 percent of their sales revenue on average. Without paid sick days, employees come to work unhealthy, costing employers $160 billion per year due to lower productivity levels.”

There are myriad benefits to paid sick leave outside of workforce productivity; it helps families, is good for morale, and helps people recover from illness. Business efficiency can’t be the only end goal. But if Bloomberg is inspired by business interests alone, then he should still feel compelled to support the law. Three million Americans workers missed a day at their job because of illness in the month of February alone. It’s likely many did so without pay; 40 percent of private sector workers and 80 percent of low-income workers have no paid sick leave, and are likely to pick coming to work sick over missing a day of wages. That means they’re spreading illness to customers, getting more people sick, and being less efficient overall.

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) is the latest Republican governor pushing for cuts to the state income tax, and like the plans from other states, Fallin’s would give most of its benefits to the state’s wealthiest residents. The proposal is gaining steam in the state legislature, where it has passed the House and is awaiting consideration in the Senate.

Fallin’s plan reduces the top income tax rate from 5.25 percent to 5 percent, and while it is modest compared to tax cuts other Republican states are pursuing, it would still cost the state roughly $100 million a year. And according to the Oklahoma Policy Institute, more than 40 percent of its tax cuts would go to the state’s richest 5 percent of residents while the bottom 60 percent would see just 9 percent of the benefits. The poorest fifth of Oklahoma residents would see no tax cut at all:

Oklahoma’s tax code is already skewed toward the wealthy: the poorest Oklahomans pay an average of 10.3 percent of their income in taxes, while the wealthiest 1 percent pay just 4.6 percent of theirs, according to the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. And while Fallin is cutting taxes and reducing state revenues, Oklahoma will spend less this fiscal year on education than it did last year and is still spending 10.7 percent less on higher education than it did before the recession.

Republican governors across the country are pitching tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, and like Fallin, they sell them as a way to boost their economies. A recent report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, however, found that after a similar round of tax cuts in the 1990s, states that cut taxes saw slower economic and job growth than states that did not. (HT Citizens for Tax Justice)

After years of debate, the New York City Council has finally come to an agreement on paid sick leave legislation. It is now poised to pass a bill that would require any company with more than 15 employees to provide five days of paid leave annually, and any company with fewer employees to give 5 days of unpaid leave.

On Thursday, Speaker Christine Quinn (D), considered a favorite for the New York City mayoral race, signaled that she would be willing to work on a compromise. Quinn had previously refused to bring the bill up for a vote, expressing unfounded concerns that paid sick leave would be bad for business and lead to job loss.

Just hours after Quinn said she would participate, the deal was reached:

“Throughout these negotiations I have always said that I was willing to listen and engage all sides,” said Quinn in a statement. “Because of deliberate, thoughtful, and at times hard-nosed negotiations, we now have a piece of legislation that balances the interests of workers, small business owners, and local mom and pop proprietors across this City.”

The legislation is not as strong as paid sick leave laws in Seattle, San Francisco, Washington DC, and Portland, Oregon, which all require companies with more than five employees to offer paid sick days. The New York City proposal also will be implemented slowly: it wouldn’t take effect until 2014 and would only apply to companies with more than 20 employees for the first year and a half. Some low-wage workers, like the many restaurant workers in establishments with fewer than 15 people, will still be forced to choose between losing wages or coming into work sick. Quinn’s colleague and mayoral opponent Public Advocate Bill DeBlasio tweeted that he will keep pushing to make the law more inclusive:

The final #paidsickdays bill excludes over 300,000 NYers & took far too long. I intend to keep fighting for these New Yorkers left behind.

— Bill de Blasio (@deBlasioNYC) March 28, 2013

Companies with more than 20 employees would have until April 1, 2014 to comply with the law; companies with between 15 and 20 employees will have until October 1, 2015. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is expected to veto the proposal if it is passed, but the Council likely has enough votes to override his rejection.