Great books can lead to great movements. Michael Harrington’s book “The Other America: Poverty in the United States” moved a generation to support LBJ’s Great Society legislation; Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique” helped to propel the burgeoning feminist movement; and some even credit Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” with starting the Civil War.
Now, a recently published book may spawn a new movement. “Nickel and Dimed” by Barbara Ehrenreich, a New York Times best-selling author and advocate for the working class, may help spark a new nationwide awareness of economic rights.
Speaking to the advocacy groups Utah Children and Utah Issues at a breakfast Wednesday morning, national activist champion Nancy Amedei suggested that “Perhaps we are on the cusp of an economic rights movement inside the United States” and that “This book may be the ‘Feminine Mystic’ of the economic rights movement.” Let’s hope so.
Ehrenreich’s book, which details Ehrenreich’s experiences working and living on minimum wages, and Amedei’s comments at the breakfast suggest that the growing disparities between rich and poor and how they are taxed (or not taxed) will soon strike a chord with middle-class American voters?in other words, people like you and me.
Take housing, for example. After graduation, you might begin working for a salary of $45,000 and you borrow $75,000 to purchase your first home. At that rate, the government will offset the cost of your mortgage interest payments?or a tax deduction called the Home Mortgage Interest?by 13 percent. Ehrenreich and Amedei will call this a subsidy, but whatever you choose to call it, it means $81 a month more in your pocket. In another scenario, a family making $500,000 could borrow $360,000 to build its second home. At that rate, the government will offset the cost of mortgage interest payments by 35 percent, or $1,020 a month.
It is important to keep in mind that only 27 million out of 64 million American homeowners will file for this subsidy. Another 50 million Americans rent homes, thus not even qualifying for housing subsidies. In other words, as Citizens for Tax Justice puts it, “The higher a person’s income (and tax bracket), the larger the share of mortgage interest that the government subsidizes.” Ehrenreich says that if these “upside-down” subsidies were reversed, they “would allow a truly low-income family to live in relative splendor.”
According to the State Office of Education, there are currently 9,183 students in Utah’s public education system who are living in anything but “splendor”?they are homeless. Other numbers are also frightening: 92,016 of Utah’s children are poor and 28 percent of Utah’s school children qualify for free or reduced lunch; a worker earning minimum wage must work 99 hours a week to afford a two-bedroom apartment according to the state’s Fair Market index; the same worker would need to earn $12.70 an hour to work a 40-hour week to afford the same housing.
Along with the housing disparity, working Americans’ access to health care wallows in a weary state. More than 10 million children in the United States have no health care coverage?44,000 in Utah. And even among those with health insurance, coverage of dental care, optometry and podiatry is sparse.
Efforts have been taken by Congress to give health care coverage to families whose wages are either too high to qualify for Medicaid or too low to afford private health coverage. The legislation, known as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, was introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. It provides states with significant funding and leeway to provide coverage for this typically neglected demographic. For every dollar that a state spends on the SCHIP program, it will receive $5 from the federal government, an enticing investment for any state. However, this is still not enough.
More radical legislation has been introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. His proposed MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2001 would provide health insurance for all children born after 2002 until they reach the age of 23. Though the bill quickly died, Amedei has pointed out that most progressive legislation?the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example?have taken eight to 10 years before passing both houses of Congress.
The upcoming questions over economic fairness and justice facing us as students ready to be launched into policy-making positions are many. In eight to 10 years, would you be willing to vote for MediKids? Would you be willing to give up the $81 you receive from your housing subsidy so 9,183 of Utah’s children can live in relative “splendor?” Would you be willing to give up the $2,175 tax deduction on your child to ensure the economic rights of other children in Utah? I am hoping that many Utahns are seriously thinking about it.
Amedei’s comments at the breakfast concluded with this thought: If the wealthy receive greater subsidies, the wealthier they become. And perhaps they, like the poor mother pulling out her food stamps in the line at the grocery store, should pull out luxury stamps when they purchase expensive wines. Thus, she believes, the public can see its tax dollars at work.
The wealthy can drink their wine. But as the Rolling Stones said, “Let’s drink to the hard-working people, the salt of the earth.”
Dan welcomes feedback at [email protected]. Send letters to the editor to [email protected].