The Stealth Attack on Women in Trump's Budget Bill
The most obvious aspect of President Donald Trump’s big tax cut and spending package is that it engineers a massive transfer of wealth and resources from the working class to the wealthy, along the way guaranteeing that the country will become both a less safe and less economically secure place to live. Among the underdiscussed components of the recently enacted bill, however, is what it means for women—particularly women with young kids. For women at a vulnerable time in their careers, Trumpism offers new pressures and problems, as conservatives push a radical and retrograde notion of family life onto them, all while removing the resources those families depend on to stay afloat in an increasingly unequal economy.
Trump’s megabill hits women at a time when culture-warring conservatives are more openly pushing to force more women to stay at home with their kids—and arguing that if they’re going to go to school at all, they should do it for their MRS degree. The bill is the latest win for Republicans who are trying to peel away women’s agency at every level by making it harder for women to have economic stability and reproductive freedom. It contains hits to reproductive care funding (though a judge has temporarily blocked this part of the law from going into effect) deep cuts to SNAP benefits and Medicaid that will affect caretakers of all ages, and measures that make it harder for kids to get free school meals.
On top of that, the immigration crackdown funded by the bill is damaging for many immigrant women and their kids. It also poses long-term economic risks to the financial security of women in general. The removal of immigrants will hurt the job market and make the economy worse, economic experts say. If the Trump administration were to actually meet its goal of deporting 4 million immigrants over four years, it would eliminate half a million childcare jobs.
Joyce Jacobsen, professor of economics at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, said she thinks immigration policy will have an adverse effect on the labor market.
More
https://newrepublic.com/article/197653/trump-trad-wife-agenda-women
***** We need more women in elected office too. Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton would have been such good fighters against women’s inequality. I wonder if I will see a woman president in my lifetime…..
= new reply since forum marked as read
