President Obama called for universal preschool in his State of the Union address and followed up with $75 billion in funding over the next decade to expand quality programs as well as $1.4 billion in 2014 to expand child care. Implementing such a program would not just benefit children; it would also have an important impact on working mothers.

As Sarah Jane Glynn, Jane Farrell, and Nancy Wu of the Center for American Progress highlight in a new report, today’s working parents have very limited options. They can leave the workforce to care for children themselves, which is challenging on finances and can hurt women’s long-term earnings. They can pay for child care out of pocket, which can take up more than a third of a low-income family’s budget. Or they can use federal or state-funded programs, which are very limited.

The benefits of expanding preschool, therefore, would be huge for working women, as they report:

Only 6 out of 10 kindergarten programs in America are open for full-day enrollees. Increased funding for Head Start and child care subsidies together can encourage extended hours to better accommodate parents’ work schedules.

Enabling more women to work by improving access to child care can help mitigate the gender wage gap and reduce a mother’s likelihood of going on public assistance.

Lower costs and increased access to child care can lead to a decrease in the number of women leaving employment and an increase in the rate of entering employment, enabling mothers to keep working when they want or need to do so.

Access to affordable and quality child care has been shown to have important benefits for women’s employment. When faced with high costs, mothers are more likely to leave their jobs and less likely to take new ones. Research from other countries shows that families who receive child care support are more likely to be employed and stay in their jobs longer than those who don’t get help. Single mothers benefit in particular, as they are nearly 40 percent more likely to keep their jobs over two years when they receive support.

Meanwhile, long waitlists for child care assistance can take a big toll on families. They are much more likely to lose their jobs, quit their jobs, or miss work due to child care problems. It also strains finances: a quarter of families on a child care waitlist in Minnesota had to rely on public assistance until they could get support.

The overall economic effects of expanding preschool are undeniable. Studies have found that high-quality, universal programs can have economic returns of $7 to $11 for every dollar spent due to children being more likely to go to college, less likely to become teen parents or commit violent crimes, and see increased earnings later in life.

Yet America lags behind most other developed countries when it comes to enrollment in preschool and spending on these programs. Other countries enroll nearly all of their preschool-aged children in programs, yet just half of American three-year-olds and two-thirds of its four-year-olds are enrolled. The U.S. is ranked 21st for the percent of GDP spending devoted to early education programs.

Senate Democrats passed a budget for the first time in four years earlier this year, a move that would seemingly please the Republicans who spent the last four years reminding everyone of the fact that the Senate hadn’t done so. But now, with the House and Senate sitting on differing budget proposals, Senate Republicans have blocked four efforts to form a conference committee that would be tasked with forming a compromise budget.

Here are seven times Republicans have chastised Senate Democrats for not passing a budget since September of last year (and assuredly, it’s not a comprehensive list), including two instances in which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blasted them for not moving to the type of bicameral conference committee the Republicans are now blocking:

1. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “A second term presents the opportunity to do things differently, and in the Senate that means a return to regular order. Later this week, the House plans to send the Senate a bill to address the debt limit in a timely manner. Once we get it, the Senate should quickly respond. If the Senate version is different than the one the House sends over, send it off to conference. That’s how things are supposed to work around here. We used to call it legislating.” [Senate floor, Jan. 22, 2013]

2. McConnell, again: “Why aren’t we trying to do something about reducing spending? We know we need to do it. When are we going to do it? We don’t need to use the deadlines. We could go through the regular order. Congress could pass bills. They could have conferences between the House and Senate.” [ABC, Jan. 6, 2013]

3. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): “We have not had a budget in this body for 1,240 days.” [Senate floor, Sept. 20, 2012]

4. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “1,387 days since the United States Senate has passed a budget.” [Senate floor, Feb. 14, 2013]

5. Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN): “It has been 1,372 days since the United States Senate passed a budget.” [Senate floor, Jan. 30, 2013]

6. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Let’s get back to the business of America. Let’s get a budget to the floor.” [Senate floor, Sept. 20, 2012]

7. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO): “These problems are big, but they are not necessarily that complicated. We just have to have the willpower to deal with them. This Congress has not done that. This Senate, more importantly, has not done that. The House has passed bills. The House has passed a budget.” [Senate floor, Sept. 20, 2012]

The reasons why the GOP doesn’t want to go to conference is clear: they don’t want to consider any compromise that may include new revenues (the Senate budget raised $975 billion) or that raises the debt ceiling, which will need to be upped before October at the latest. Previous deals to reduce the deficit have been comprised primarily of spending cuts, and any further deficit reduction would have to be 90 percent revenues to bring balance to the total package of reductions since President Obama took office.

As Brian Beutler explained, both new revenues and an early, clean debt limit increase are untenable to Republicans, who hold less popular political positions on both. So instead of going to the conference the GOP spent four years demanding, they’ve chosen to block it from forming.

A new AFL-CIO analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 4,693 workers were killed on the job in 2011, an average of 13 workers every day. That’s more than the number of pedestrians struck and killed by cars every year and more than the lives lost during the entire Iraq War. This is the third year that the fatality rate for workers has been unchanged after years of decline.

Another estimated 50,000 died from diseases contracted on the job. Overall, workers reported 6.8 million job-related injuries and illnesses.

The report also notes that the cost of injuries and illnesses that occur on the job is huge. One study put the figure at $250 billion annually due to medical costs and the loss in productivity, more than the cost of cancer.

These numbers come after a fertilizer plant in West, Texas exploded, killing 15 and injuring hundreds. The plant hadn’t been inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the agency tasked with ensuring workplace safety, since 1985. In fact, the Government Accountability Office recently found that the average workplace only gets a visit from OSHA inspectors every 99 years.

That number may get even worse, as OSHA can expect a big cut from sequestration. It will have to slash its budget by 8.2 percent, which could mean 1,200 fewer workplace inspections. Meanwhile, Republican budgets have sought to reduce its budget by $99 million and cut other workplace protection agencies.

Last month, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a package of stringent abortion restrictions into law, including a “personhood” clause that defines life as beginning at fertilization that puts abortion rights into jeopardy and could also endanger access to in vitro fertilization and some forms of contraception. Given that these new laws may skirt the legal precedent that a woman has a right to access an abortion, the state will have to spend money defending them from lawsuits. That sum could come to well over $1 million, as Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has requested $500,000 more to fund the legal battle on top of the $800,000 it spent last year.

But Kansas has been dealing with budget cuts, particularly in Brownback’s most recent budget that reduced overall state spending by $465 million while also cutting income taxes. Taxpayer money that is being spent on defending these legally questionable laws could be going to many other important programs:

1. Restoring sequestration cuts: Sequestration is going to impact every state with its across-the-board cuts, taking a bite out of programs that have already dealt with decreased funding in recent years. With just over $1 million, Kansas could restore all funding to a variety of vital programs: law enforcement and public safety, job search assistance, vaccines for children, domestic violence services, nutrition assistance for seniors, and upgrades to public health threat response.

2. Tobacco prevention: Kansas ranks 39th in the U.S. for spending on tobacco prevention programs, as it spends under $1 million, just .62 percent of the $161 million it pulls in from tobacco-generated revenue. Yet prevention programs have been found to be highly effective at lowering tobacco use as well as cost effective: One study estimated that returns could be as much as $50 saved for every $1 spent thanks to avoiding tobacco-related health problems. The state could double its already low efforts with the money spent defending its new anti-abortion laws.

3. Arts funding: In 2011, Kansas became the first state without an arts agency when Brownback vetoed funding for the Kansas Arts Commission. The Kansas legislature had recommended appropriating just $689,000 to fund the agency, which would have allowed the state to continue receiving $1.2 million in federal and regional arts funding. The state funding could more than be restored, bringing arts grant dollars back to the state and reinvigorating an arts and nonprofit sector that generates $153.5 million a year in economic activity.

4. Drinking water protection: As part of the spending cuts in Brownback’s most recent budget, he used his line-item veto on some programs, including $800,000 for LEPP, the Local Environmental Protection Program. That program provided grants to local health departments to monitor wastewater and water systems and enforce regulations in order to protect drinking water. State officials have warned that without the program, the state will see increased health problems, lawsuits, and local fees for installing septic tanks and other systems, as well as non-compliance with federal environmental laws.

5. Higher education: College and university budgets have been struggling with decreased state funding, and Kansas is no exception. One community college, Kansas City Kansas Community College, stands to lose about $430,000 from its budget if a 2-4 percent cut to higher education funding goes through. The cut has been proposed as one way to reduce spending in the wake of Brownback’s income tax cuts. If the funding is cut, the college may have to increase tuition on top of the $6 per credit hour increase this past semester. Yet many of the students are young and some are unemployed, making it difficult for them to shoulder more costs, a school official said.

6. Public education: Education spending is predicted to drop $216 per student after the tax cuts Brownback signed into law on top of a $745 decline between 2008 and 2013. Yet a state court ruled that the state is short changing students and must restore $440 million in education spending. While $1 million is just a drop in that bucket, it could go toward ensuring that Kansas’s children get the well-funded education that they deserve.

Kansas is spending a large amount of money defending its anti-abortion laws, but it’s far from the only state doing so. North Dakota has signed the most stringent abortion restrictions in the nation into law, leading the attorney general to request a budget increase of $400,000 to defend them from lawsuits. Arkansas is also gearing up to spend state money defending its new ban on abortions after 12 weeks. At a time when many states have been grappling with tight budgets, the sums of money spent on defending against lawsuits could be used elsewhere.

Bangladesh’s $20 billion garment industry makes it the world’s second-largest apparel exporter, and the United States is its second-largest buyer after Europe. With the factory collapse death toll now over 800, American consumers may be looking to buy clothes that weren’t made in such working conditions. It is likely much better for the Bangladeshi economy and its garment workers for companies to invest in upgrades rather than flee the country, and those investments could cost consumers a mere 10 cents per garment. But in the meantime, there are some places for American shoppers to turn.

Finding these retailers can be difficult, given how much American companies rely on Bangladeshi manufacturers, but some have either taken steps to ensure better working conditions or simply manufacture their clothing elsewhere. Below are some of those retailers, although the list is far from comprehensive. Help ThinkProgress build this list: Where do you buy clothing that is sourced from humane working conditions? Leave your suggestions in the comments and we will update the post.

Levi Strauss & Co.
Sells: Full range of men’s and women’s apparel
Levi Strauss & Co. claims to be the first multinational apparel company to establish a code of conduct for its suppliers in 1991. Its Terms of Engagement outlines rules for child and forced labor, working hours and wages, freedom of association, and detailed safety requirements. While it still sources from factories in Bangladesh, it doesn’t use multistory facilities that have factories with different owners, and in the past it has taken action to police the standards in its facilities. When it found that two factories in Bangladesh employed child workers, it decided to keep paying the workers while they attended school and offer them full-time jobs once they were of legal working age rather than fire them.

Patagonia
Sells: Outdoor apparel and gear
While it has factories in Bangladesh, it has eight in the U.S. and a Code of Conduct for its suppliers that expressly prohibits unsafe working conditions, child labor, and excessive hours and encourages higher wages and unionization.

Land’s End
Sells: Jeans, shirts, and sweatpants as well as home and pet items
Land’s End launched a “Made in the U.S.A.” collection in 2012 with its Durable Goods line. The line offers clothing, home, pet, and specialty items.

Brooks Brothers
Sells: Men’s dress clothes
Brooks Brothers has a clothing line of men’s dress shirts, suits, ties, and dress shoes that are made in the United States. The company also has a commitment to philanthropic spending and partners with non-profit organizations related to health issues, education, and the arts.

New Balance
Sells: Sneakers and sportswear
New Balance has a line of sneakers either made in the U.S. or assembled here.

American Giant
Sells: Men’s sweatshirts, T-shirts, and sweatpants
Seeking to address the fact that “most clothes we love…are made in countries that are so far away, the only American job it created was a store clerk,” the company sources its materials and manufacturing in the U.S.

Alta Gracia
Sells: College apparel
Alta Gracia’s products are made in the Dominican Republic, where it says it pays a living wage, sometimes “more than three times the minimum wage,” respects the right to form a union, and ensures a safe workplace. The Worker Rights Consortium ensures that the company is compliant with these standards through on-the-ground monitoring.

Flint and Tinder
Sells: Men’s underwear and accessories
The company manufactures all of its products in the U.S. in its own facilities, which started with a single factory and has expanded to a larger group. It says that for every 1,000 pair of underwear it sells in a month, it adds at least one job in its supply chain.

The United States is again approaching its debt limit, though an improving economy and new revenues have pushed the deadline for when it will need to be raised as far back as October. And yet again, Republicans are pushing legislation that amounts to nothing more than a phony fix to the issue, a bill known as the Full Faith and Credit Act that will prioritize debt payments in a way that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says “makes it clear to our bondholders that we’re going to meet our obligations.”

But such a plan makes it clear that the U.S. will meet only some of its obligations, leaving many Americans, including troops, veterans, and the elderly, out in the cold. Boehner doesn’t see that as a problem, he told Bloomberg TV last night:

COOK (Host): Doesn’t it mean as Democrats have suggested you’re basically choosing to pay China before U.S. troops?

BOEHNER: Listen. Those who have loaned us money, like in any other proceeding, if you will — court proceeding — the boldholders usually get paid first. Same thing here.

Worse yet, the Republican plan doesn’t allow the nation to avoid default. If the U.S. services its debt payments but still misses others, it is still defaulting on payments it is required to make. Since the bill only allows Treasury to make payments as it receives revenues, and the bulk of its payments are made at the beginning of the month even though revenues don’t come in until later, it would almost certainly be unable to meet at least some of its obligations.

When the GOP has considered similar plans before, Treasury officials have called it “unworkable.” Bipartisan analysts said it was “essentially impossible.” Failing to fulfill spending obligations would be “the first step to becoming a banana republic,” a Bush-era Treasury official said. Instead of inspiring confidence among investors, bondholders, and the American people, the legislation would zap it.

Far from preventing default, the Full Faith and Credit Act would essentially ensure it. That wouldn’t just put paying China ahead of senior citizens and members of the military — it would also hammer economic growth both in the United States and across the world. (HT Huffington Post)