Breaking Promises To Working Women & Mothers

Ivanka Trump Met With Members Of The House And Senate To Urge Them To Include A Deduction For Child Care Expenses In A Forthcoming Tax Reform Bill

February 2017: Ivanka Trump Met With Members Of The House And Senate To Urge Them To Include A Deduction For Child Care Expenses In A Forthcoming Tax Reform Bill. According to Bloomberg, “Ivanka Trump has urged lawmakers writing a tax overhaul to include a deduction for child care expenses, but with a price tag of as much as $500 billion over a decade she may have trouble finding support in Congress. Members of the House and Senate met with the president’s eldest daughter in the Roosevelt Room at the White House last week to discuss her proposed child care tax benefit, according to a person with knowledge of the meeting. President Donald Trump said earlier this month that he would soon propose a comprehensive tax overhaul, without offering any details.” [Bloomberg, 2/23/17]

• Ivanka’s Proposal Would Allow Individuals Earning Less Than $250,000 Per Year Or Couples Earning Less Than $500,000 Per Year To Deduct The Costs Of Child Care From Their Income Taxes. According to Bloomberg, “The plan Ivanka Trump is pushing is broadly similar to the outline Trump released in September, with his daughter at his side. It would allow individuals earning less than $250,000 a year, or couples earning less than $500,000, to deduct the cost of child care expenses from their income taxes. Lower-income families without tax liability would get a rebate for their expenses in the form of a larger earned income tax credit.” [Bloomberg, 2/23/17]

The Benefits Of TAx Deductions Increase With Income, And Ivanka’s Proposal CApped Income Eligibility At Nearly Nine Times The National Household Median

The Week: The Benefits Of Tax Deductions Increase With Income, And The $500,000 Cap For Couples Is “Nearly Nine Times The Median Household Income.” According to Ryan Cooper writing in The Week, “Tax deductions reduce your taxable income, so the actual benefit will depend on your tax rate (as opposed to tax credits, which reduce your taxes owed directly). Kevin Drum does a quick sketch of what that would look like with a $5,000 deduction here. Essentially, the more you make, the more you benefit, up to the income cap. But that cap is extremely high — $500,000 is nearly nine times the median household income, so the number of super-rich families who wouldn’t get at least a piece of it would be very small.” [The Week – Ryan Cooper, 2/24/17]

• For A Hypothetical Deduction Allowance Of $5,000, Couples Earning $500,000 Would Be Eligible To Save Nearly $2,000, Couples Earning $70,000 Would Save $750, And Couples Earning $25,000 Would Save $0. According to Mother Jones, “As for the regressiveness, here’s a quick stylized example for a plan that allows, say, a deduction of up to $5,000 for child care expenses: – Income of $500,000, tax bracket = 39.6 percent, total value of deduction = $1,980 – Income of $70,000, tax bracket = 15 percent, total value of deduction = $750 – Income of $25,000, tax bracket doesn’t matter because you’re not paying any income taxes, total value of deduction = $0.” [Mother Jones, 2/23/17]

The Main Beneficiaries Of The Tax Deduction Would Be Wealthy, Two-Parent Families Who Use Paid Child Care

Bloomberg: “A Deduction For Child Care Expenses Is Both Costly And Regressive Because It Would Favor Wealthier Families With Two Working Parents.” According to Bloomberg, “It’s not clear whether Ivanka Trump is finding much appetite on Capitol Hill for her proposal. A deduction for child care expenses is both costly and regressive because it would favor wealthier families with two working parents.” [Bloomberg, 2/23/17]

Alan Cole Of The Tax Foundation: “The Largest Benefits” Of Ivanka’s Proposal “Will Go To Relatively Affluent Dual-Income Families Using Paid Child Care.” According to Bloomberg, “‘The child care proposal is generous and broad; almost everyone with young children will get some benefit from it. However, the largest benefits will go to relatively affluent dual-income families using paid child care,’ said Alan Cole, an economist with the Tax Foundation.” [Bloomberg, 2/23/17]

The Week Headline: “Ivanka Trump Wants To Hep The Wealthy Pay Their Au Pairs” [The Week – Ryan Cooper, 2/24/17]

The Tax Policy Center found That 70 Percent Of Benefits Under Ivanka’s Plan Would Benefit Households Making $100,000 Per Year Or More

According To The Tax Policy Center, 70 Percent Of The Benefits Offered Under Ivanka Trump’s Child Care Tax Credit Plan Would Go To Households Making $100,000 Or More. According to CNBC, “Meanwhile, Ivanka Trump’s proposal has gotten pushback from several corners. Her plan would allow families to deduct child-care expenses from their taxable income. […] An analysis by the Tax Policy Center found that 70 percent of the benefits would go toward households making $100,000 or more.” [CNBC, 3/6/17]

The Tax Policy Center Found That Families Making Less Than $40,000 Per Year Would Only See A $20 Increase In After-Tax Income Under Ivanka Trump’s Child Care Tax Credit Plan. According to CNBC, “Meanwhile, Ivanka Trump’s proposal has gotten pushback from several corners. Her plan would allow families to deduct child-care expenses from their taxable income. […] The estimated after-tax income of families making less than $40,000 would increase by just $20, the report found. Households earning $100,000 to $200,000 would enjoy a $360 boost.” [CNBC, 3/6/17]

• Families Earning $100,000 And $200,000 Per Year Would See An After-Tax Income Increase Of $360 Under Ivanka Trump’s Plan. According to CNBC, “Meanwhile, Ivanka Trump’s proposal has gotten pushback from several corners. Her plan would allow families to deduct child-care expenses from their taxable income. […] The estimated after-tax income of families making less than $40,000 would increase by just $20, the report found. Households earning $100,000 to $200,000 would enjoy a $360 boost.” [CNBC, 3/6/17]

Lower-Income Families Would Receive Benefits In The Form Of A Larger Earned Income Tax Credit, But A Person Must Have A Job To Qualify For EITC

Under Ivanka’s Plan, Lower-Income Families Would Get A Rebate In The Form Of A Larger Earned Income Tax Credit. According to Time, “Lower-income families, who would see less benefit from such a tax change because they have less tax liability, would receive a rebate for their expenses—up to $1,200 a year through the earned-income tax credit, Trump’s proposal states.” [Time, 2/27/17]

To Qualify For EITC, “You Must Have Earned Income From Working For Someone Or From Running Or Owning A Business Or Farm.” According to the IRS website, “Do I Qualify for EITC? To qualify for EITC you must have earned income from working for someone or from running or owning a business or farm and meet basic rules.” [IRS.gov, accessed 2/27/17]

Lower-Income Families Spend A Higher Percentage Of Their Incomes On Child Care

Families With Children Under The Age Of 5 Spend An Average Of 11 Percent Of Their Incomes On Child Care, While Families With Incomes Below $50,000 Spend An Average Of 22 Percent. According to an opinion by New York University senior fellow Ajay Chaudry and American University assistant professor Taryn Morrissey for CNBC, “Families with children under five spend an average 11 percent of their incomes on child care, and those with incomes below $50,000 spend 22 percent.” [Ajay Chaudry and Taryn Morrissey – CNBC, 3/6/17]

The Tax Foundation, A Right-Leaning Research Group, Estimated The Deduction Would Cost The Federal Government $500 Billion Over The Next Ten Years

The Right-Leaning Tax Foundation Estimated Ivanka’s Deduction Would Cost The Federal Government $500 Billion In Revenue Over A Decade. According to Bloomberg, “The deduction would cost the federal government $500 billion in revenue over a decade, according to an estimate by the Tax Foundation, a politically conservative, nonprofit research group.” [Bloomberg, 2/23/17]

The White House Eliminated The Requirement Of Big Companies To Report Pay By Race, Gender, And Ethnicity

Newsweek: “The White House, With The Backing Of Ivanka Trump, Will End An Obama-Era Policy That Would Have Required Business Owners To Document How Much They Pay Their Workers Alongside Their Gender, Race And Ethnicity.” According to Newsweek: “The White House, with the backing of Ivanka Trump, will end an Obama-era policy that would have required business owners to document how much they pay their workers alongside their gender, race and ethnicity.” [Newsweek, 8/30/17]

• Starting Next Year, Companies With At Least 100 Employees Would Have To Submit The Data To The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Which Would Open A Lawsuit If Discrimination Were Found. According to The Washington Post, “The Obama-era rule, which did not require congressional approval, would have given the EEOC more reach in its efforts to investigate firms with glaring pay disparities. Starting next year, companies with more than 100 employees and federal contractors with at least 50 would have had to report more detailed salary data to the EEOC on a form they already annually submit to the agency. If, for example, the numbers revealed that a business paid male sales employees far more than their female counterparts, the EEOC could choose to look into the matter and perhaps launch a discrimination lawsuit. As of today, only large federal contractors provide such data to the government. Earlier this year, the Department of Labor took the technology giant Google to court for what the government called ‘extreme’ pay disparities between men and women at the company. (The case is ongoing.)” [Washington Post, 8/30/17]

The White House Said The Requirements “Lack Practical Utility,” Plus Would Result In A Violation Of The Paperwork Reduction Act

The OMB Explained The Decision: “That Some Aspects Of The Revised Collection Of Information Lack Practical Utility, Are Unnecessarily Burdensome, And Do Not Adequately Address Privacy And Confidentiality Issues.” According to The Washington Post, “In a letter sent Tuesday to Victoria Lipnic, acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Neomi Rao, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said the Office of Management and Budget had paused the government’s pay data collection process to review it. ‘OMB is concerned that some aspects of the revised collection of information lack practical utility, are unnecessarily burdensome, and do not adequately address privacy and confidentiality issues,’ Rao wrote, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.” [Washington Post, 8/30/17]

The White House Said The Rule Would Not Comply With The Paperwork Reduction Act. According to The Wall Street Journal, “The White House says that the new data sought under the rule is too voluminous to comply with the federal Paperwork Reduction Act. But White House officials also say they doubt that meaningful findings of pay discrimination could be gleaned from the new data.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/29/17]

Ivanka Agreed With The Decision

Ivanka Agreed With The Decision: “Ultimately, While I Believe The Intention Was Good And Agree That Pay Transparency Is Important, The Proposed Policy Would Not Yield The Intended Results.” According to The Washington Post, “Ivanka Trump released a statement hours later. ‘Ultimately, while I believe the intention was good and agree that pay transparency is important, the proposed policy would not yield the intended results,’ the president’s daughter said. ‘We look forward to continuing to work with EEOC, OMB, Congress and all relevant stakeholders on robust policies aimed at eliminating the gender wage gap.’” [Washington Post, 8/30/17]

Former EEOC Chairwoman: Companies Get Away With Pay Discrimination Due to A Lack Of Data On Pay Collected

Former EEOC Chairwoman Jenny Yang: “Pay Discrimination Goes Undetected Because Of A Lack Of Accurate Information About What People Are Paid. […] Collecting This Pay Data Would Help Fill A Critical Void We Need To Ensure American Workers Receive Fair Pay For Their Work.” According to The Washington Post, “When President Barack Obama’s rule was proposed in January of last year, Jenny Yang, former EEOC chairwoman, said officials would not have shared how much money individual employees make or how much firms pay, but they would have released an annual report showing how much workers in different kinds of jobs earn by race and gender. The updated form would have grouped workers in ten categories, from service employees to managers to executives. It would have also lumped them into 12 annual wage bands, from about $19,000 to $208,000 and higher. ‘Pay discrimination goes undetected because of a lack of accurate information about what people are paid,’ Yang said at a White House news conference last year. ‘Collecting this pay data would help fill a critical void we need to ensure American workers receive fair pay for their work.’” [Washington Post, 8/30/17]

Yang: “We’d Learn About A Pay-Discrimination Problem Because Someone Saw A Piece Of Paper Left On A Copy Machine Or Someone Was Complaining About Their Salary To Co-Workers.” According to Newsweek, “‘We’d learn about a pay-discrimination problem because someone saw a piece of paper left on a copy machine or someone was complaining about their salary to co-workers,’ Jenny Yang, chairwoman of the EEOC said when the rules were drafted. ‘Having pay data in summary form will also help us identify patterns that may warrant further investigation,’ she added at a June conference.” [Newsweek, 8/30/17]

The Reversal Comes At A time When Women Make 80 Cents For Every Dollar Earned By A Man

National Partnership For Women & Families: “Overall, Women In The United States Are Paid 80 Cents For Every Dollar Paid To Men, Amounting To An Annual Gender Wage Gap Of $10,47.” According to the National Partnership for Women & Families, “Nationally, the median annual pay for a woman who holds a full-time, year-round job is $40,742 while the median annual pay for a man who holds a full-time, year-round job is $51,212. This means that, overall, women in the United States are paid 80 cents for every dollar paid to men, amounting to an annual gender wage gap of $10,470.” [National Partnership for Women & Families, 4/2017]

Black And Hispanic Women Earn Even Less On Average

Black Women Earn An Average Of 63 Cents For Every Dollar Earned By A White Man. According to the National Partnership for Women & Families, “The wage gap can be even larger for women of color. For example, among women who hold full-time, yearround jobs in the United States, Black women are typically paid 63 cents and Latinas are paid just 54 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. 2 Asian women are paid 85 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, although some ethnic subgroups of Asian women fare much worse.” [National Partnership for Women & Families, 4/2017]

Hispanic Women Earn An Average Of 54 Cents For Every Dollar Earned By A White Man. According to the National Partnership for Women & Families, “The wage gap can be even larger for women of color. For example, among women who hold full-time, yearround jobs in the United States, Black women are typically paid 63 cents and Latinas are paid just 54 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. 2 Asian women are paid 85 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, although some ethnic subgroups of Asian women fare much worse.” [National Partnership for Women & Families, 4/2017]

Asian Women Earn An Average Of 85 Cents For Every Dollar Earned By A White Man. According to the National Partnership for Women & Families, “The wage gap can be even larger for women of color. For example, among women who hold full-time, yearround jobs in the United States, Black women are typically paid 63 cents and Latinas are paid just 54 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. 2 Asian women are paid 85 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, although some ethnic subgroups of Asian women fare much worse.” [National Partnership for Women & Families, 4/2017]

The Wage Gap Costs Women Nearly A Trillion IN Lost Pay Every Year

“On Average, Women Employed Full Time In The United States Lose A Combined Total Of More Than $840 Billion Every Year Due To The Wage Gap.” According to the National Partnership for Women & Families, “On average, women employed full time in the United States lose a combined total of more than $840 billion every year due to the wage gap.6 These lost wages mean women and their families have less money to support themselves, save and invest for the future, and spend on goods and services. Families, businesses and the economy suffer as a result.” [National Partnership for Women & Families, 4/2017]

[National Partnership for Women & Families, 4/2017]

Ivanka Claimed To Be A Supporter Of Equal Pay

Ivanka Trump Tweeted A Statement For “Equal Pay Day” Supporting Closing The Gender Pay Gap. According to the Hill, “Ivanka Trump on Tuesday showed her support for Equal Pay Day, calling for the gender pay gap to be closed. ‘#EqualPayDay is a reminder that women deserve equal pay for equal work. We must work to close the gender pay gap!’ the first daughter and special White House adviser tweeted.” [Hill, 04/04/17]

Ivanka Trump Posted An Instagram Statement For “Equal Pay Day” Supporting Closing The Gender Pay Gap. On Equal Pay Day earlier this year, Ivanka Trump posted those statistics on social media. ‘Today, on #EqualPayDay, we are reminded that women deserve equal pay for equal work. Closing the gender pay gap is critical to the economic empowerment of American women, and it is the responsibility of all Americans to come together in pursuit of equal pay. I am proud to work towards this goal alongside my father and in support of the administration’s commitment to women and families,’ she captioned an Instagram post. [CNN, 08/31/17]

Trump Promised Six Weeks Of Paid Family Leave For New Mothers During His Campaign

September 2016: Trump Guaranteed Six Weeks Of Paid Maternity Leave, Pushed For By Ivanka Turmp. According to the Washington Post, “Donald Trump, in softer tones than he normally uses, on Tuesday unveiled several policy proposals for lowering child-care costs that were crafted in part by his eldest daughter, Ivanka, including a plan to guarantee six weeks of paid maternity leave that marks a striking departure from GOP orthodoxy. Conservative Republicans, in particular, have long seen a mandated expansion of the social safety net as anathema to their attempts to shrink government spending and give companies more control over their leave policies.” [Washington Post, 9/13/16]

Trump: “We Need Working Mothers To Be Fairly Compensated For Their Work, And To Have Access To Affordable, Quality Child Care For Their Kids.” According to the Washington Post, “In a speech here, the Republican presidential nominee proposed ensuring six weeks of paid maternity leave to mothers who do not already receive leave from their employer. ‘We need working mothers to be fairly compensated for their work, and to have access to affordable, quality child care for their kids,’ said Trump, who appeared determined to show off a more sensitive side than most are accustomed to seeing from him. He used a subdued delivery that contrasted with his tendency at larger rallies to raise his voice. After his speech, he held up a baby in the crowd.” [Washington Post, 9/13/16]

President Trump’s Budget Proposal Called For Six Weeks Of Paid Family Leave

President Trump’s Budget Proposal Included A Push For Six Weeks Of Paid Family Leave. According to CNN, “President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget will push for the creation of a federal paid family leave program that will provide families after the birth or adoption of a child with six weeks of paid leave, a Trump administration official tells CNN. Ivanka Trump, the President’s daughter and top aide, was the force behind the new proposal, the official said. The Trump administration, with Trump overseas for his first foreign trip as president, will officially roll out their 2018 budget on Tuesday. The paid family leave program will likely face stiff opposition on Capitol Hill, where Republicans have vociferously opposed any such program.” [CNN, 5/22/17]

Doctors Say 6 Weeks Is The Bare Minimum Amount Of Time Women Need After Giving Birth – Without Complications

Six Weeks Is The Absolute Minimum Recovery Time Doctors Recommend For Women Who Have Given Birth Vaginally. According to Slate, “But six weeks is the absolute minimum recovery time doctors recommend for women who’ve given birth vaginally without any complications. Mothers who deliver via Caesarean section or who experience difficulties will need more time to physically recuperate. Forcing mothers who are struggling to make ends meet to return to work just six weeks after delivery is a poor way to encourage mothers to breastfeed, as public health officials want to do. And it’s bad policy in terms of infant health and survival, which are bolstered when parents can give individual care to their young babies at home. Day cares are not well-suited for six-week-old babies, and many child care centers won’t even accept infants that young.” [Slate, 5/23/17]

Under Trump’s Proposal, Leave Would Be Paid Through State Unemployment Insurance Programs, Making It Unclear How Much Families Would Actually Receive

Under Trump’s Proposal States Would Be Required To Provide Six Weeks Of Parental Leave And Gave States Broad Latitude To Design And Finance The Programs. According to NPR, “Parental leave would be mandatory, but not uniform: ‘States would be required to provide six weeks of parental leave and the proposal gives states broad latitude to design and finance the program,’ the administration wrote in its budget.” [NPR, 5/23/17]

Unemployment Insurance Payouts Vary By State

Trump’s Family Leave Plan Was Based On The Unemployment Insurance System, Which Varied From State To State, Making It Unclear How Much Money Families Would Receive. According to NPR, “Unemployment insurance isn’t nearly a full replacement for a worker’s wages — that’s simply how it’s designed. Because this plan is based off of the unemployment insurance system, the question is how much this plan would pay out, and whether that would be enough to cushion new parents who take time off from work. In 2016, unemployment insurance replaced about 46 percent of worker pay on average, according to the Labor Department. Given that level, as well as the differences in unemployment insurance by state — the maximum weekly payout is $235 in Mississippi, compared to well over $700 in Massachusetts — and given that ‘broad latitude’ we mentioned, it’s not clear how much families would receive. ‘I would like a little more uniformity in terms of eligibility rules — in terms of knowing how much they would get if they have to take that leave,’ said Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. ‘It’s a bit puzzling doing it through unemployment insurance, not having a clear stream of what that means for funding, what that means for how the states are actually going to implement it.’” [NPR, 5/23/17]

NPR: “Given The ‘Broad Latitude’ Here, There’s No Way Of Knowing Right Now Exactly What This Program Would Look Like And Who Would Get Which Benefits (And How Much).” According to NPR, “Unemployment insurance is funded by both state and federal payroll taxes and administered by the states. And while paid parental leave will be a federal mandate, the Trump budget says states will have ‘broad latitude’ to determine what their programs look like. Unemployment insurance itself varies by state, in terms of who is eligible for benefits and how big those benefits are. So given the ‘broad latitude’ here, there’s no way of knowing right now exactly what this program would look like and who would get which benefits (and how much).” [NPR, 5/23/17]

The Plan Carried The Risk Of States Ignoring The Mandate

Trump’s Plan Would Require Every State To Set Up Its Own Paid Leave Program And States Could Just Choose To Ignore The Federal Mandate. According to Slate, “That’s not even the weakest part of Trump’s proposal, though. The plan would require every state to set up its own paid leave program if it doesn’t already have one. (Only California, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. do.) At ThinkProgress, Bryce Covert points out that states may simply choose to ignore the federal mandate. In the shadow of the Supreme Court’s ruling that individual states have the right to decide whether or not to join the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, right-wing governors and state legislatures that oppose universal paid parental leave might take their legal chances and refuse to establish a program. Trump’s plan also relies on existing state-run unemployment insurance infrastructure, which is already straining under the weight of post-recession demands.” [Slate, 5/23/17]

Unemployment Insurance Benefits Replace Only About Half Of A Worker’s Income On Average – And Less Than 1/3 In 22 States

Unemployment Insurance Benefits Replace Only About Half Of A Worker’s Income On Average. According to NPR, “Unemployment insurance isn’t nearly a full replacement for a worker’s wages — that’s simply how it’s designed. Because this plan is based off of the unemployment insurance system, the question is how much this plan would pay out, and whether that would be enough to cushion new parents who take time off from work. In 2016, unemployment insurance replaced about 46 percent of worker pay on average, according to the Labor Department.’” [NPR, 5/23/17]

UI Benefits Make Up Less Than 1/3 Of The Average Wage In 22 States. According to the Center for American Progress, “The average UI benefit is less than one-third of the average wage in 22 states.32This is far too little to provide economic security, especially for workers facing the financial strain of caregiving.” [Center for American Progress, 6/8/17]

CAP: Trump’s Proposal Is Projected To Provide A Weekly Benefit Of Just $240, Less Than Minimum Wage

CAP: Trump’s Proposal Is Projected To Provide A Weekly Benefit Of $240, Less Than Minimum Wage And About 28% Of The Medium Weekly Earnings. According to the Center for American Progress, “Trump’s budget does not disclose what wage replacement rates workers should expect under his proposal, but the cost estimate—$18.5 billion over 10 years—may give some indication of the average weekly benefit. Even if six weeks of leave were taken for only 1.3 million of the 4 million births in the United States each year—as the campaign initially predicted33—the average weekly benefit would be less than $240. This is less than a minimum-wage salary, and just 28 percent of the median usual weekly earnings.” [Center for American Progress, 6/8/17]

States May Have To Raise Taxes In Order To Meet The New Obligations

Many States’ UI Programs Are Already Underfunded. According to the Center for American Progress, “Trump’s proposal pushes the bulk of the cost for the parental leave benefit onto states, largely leaving states to identify funding sources on their own. To make matters worse, Trump seeks to implement his program through the UI system but does not address the significant challenges that system currently faces. These include the fact that many states’ programs are already deeply underfunded and unprepared to fulfill a primary goal of UI—helping stabilize the economy in the event of a recession.20 Indeed, only 20 states and the District of Columbia are equipped to provide unemployment protections during even a mild recession.21 Trump’s plan also does not come with any added funding for states to bolster their UI programs or make the paid parental leave proposal sustainable or feasible. And it provides no funds to update critical technological infrastructure or expand staff to administer the new benefit.” [Center for American Progress, 6/8/17]

• The Federal Government Would Set Minimum Levels For States To Maintain In Their Unemployment Trust Funds. According to NPR, “The program would cost about $18.5 billion over 10 years, and according to the budget would be entirely paid for — but that could require some states to raise taxes. Under the plan, the government would set minimum levels for states to maintain in their unemployment trust funds. And if they don’t hit that? ‘States that are currently below this minimum standard are expected to increase their State UI taxes to build up their trust fund balances,’ the budget says. Applying these minimum levels to trust funds would pay for $12.9 billion of the plan, according to the administration.” [NPR, 5/23/17]

CAP: States Would Have To Raise Taxes Or Cut Programs In Order To Meet The New Requirements. According to the Center for American Progress, “Trump’s proposal would offset more than two-thirds of its cost by saddling states with a new requirement to maintain a minimum level of reserves in their trust funds—demanding that states hike taxes or slash programs for working families.22 This puts additional strain on cash-strapped states. An additional funding mechanism Trump puts forward—reducing fraud in the UI system—runs afoul of reality. In his original campaign plan, Trump suggested that all of the plan’s cost could be offset by reducing fraud—a claim that the administration has now evidently walked back.23 In general, workers are more likely to be underpaid benefits that they are owed than to be overpaid due to fraud.24 Even so, two-thirds of overpayments occur because of errors made by employers or UI-administering agencies. This means that reducing overpayments would require investing more resources in overworked, underfunded agencies.” [Center for American Progress, 6/8/17]

State Unemployment Insurance PRograms Are Notoriously Exclusionary, Escpecially When It comes To Women Workers

States Have Tightened UI Eligibility In Recent Years, Resulting In Just 1 In 4 Unemployed Workers Receiving Benefits Nationwide. According to the Center for American Progress, “According to Trump’s budget, his proposal apparently would rely on states to establish eligibility standards to determine who could access the proposed new parental leave benefit through their existing UI programs. But states’ UI programs fail to cover a huge swath of today’s workers, in large part because many states tightened eligibility criteria and restricted access in response to the financial challenges of the Great Recession. As a result, in recent years, a historically low one in four unemployed workers received UI benefits nationwide—and in 13 states, this number was less than one in five.5 Therefore, if Trump’s plan requires workers to qualify for UI, many of the workers and families who need paid leave the most may not be eligible for it. This includes women, who are already disproportionately excluded from UI protections because of how much they work and how much they earn.” [Center for American Progress, 6/8/17]

CAP: “In March 2017, Unemployed Workers Were Only Slightly More Likely To Be Men Than Women Nationwide, Yet UI Recipients Were About 1.7 Times More Likely To Be Men Than Women.” According to the Center for American Progress, “In March 2017, unemployed workers were only slightly more likely to be men than women nationwide, yet UI recipients were about 1.7 times more likely to be men than women.” [Center for American Progress, 6/8/17]

Low-Wage And Part-Time Workers – Who Are Disproportionately Women – Are Likely To Be Ineligible For UI Benefits In Their States

Women Disproportionately Work In Low-Wage Jobs, Making Them Ineligible For UI Benefits In Many States. According to the Center for American Progress, “Although women make up less than half of the workforce, they are more than twice as likely as men to work for low wages, and they account for more than two-thirds of workers in low-wage jobs—defined as jobs that pay $10.50 or less per hour.6 Eligibility for UI benefits is largely based on total wages earned during the preceding four or five quarters of employment. Low wages make it hard for workers to meet some states’ stringent eligibility thresholds, especially since low-wage workers are more likely to experience unpredictable schedules and fluctuating incomes. In nearly half of states, for example, a worker who earned the minimum wage for 15 hours per week over a period of 20 weeks would not qualify for UI, even though a higher-wage worker would.” [Center for American Progress, 6/8/17]

Three-Quarters Of Low-Wage, Part-Time Workers Are Women. According to the Center for American Progress, “The challenges associated with low wages and UI eligibility are particularly acute among part-time workers.9 Overall, women work part-time at nearly double the rate of men, and make up 71 percent of prime-age workers—who are between age 25 and 54—in part-time jobs.10 Part-time workers are more likely to have jobs that pay low wages—$10.50 or less per hour—and three-quarters of workers in these part-time low-wage jobs are women.” [Center for American Progress, 6/8/17]

Black And Hispanic Women Are Particularly Unlikely To Qualify

Black And Hispanic Women Experience Unemployment At 1.5 Times The Rate Of White Women, But Are Less Likely Than White Women To Receive UI Benefits. According to the Center for American Progress, “These challenges are magnified for black women and Latinas, who face steep disparities in pay.7 Even though these women experience unemployment at more than 1.5 times the rate of white women, they are less likely than white women to receive UI when they lose a job.” [Center for American Progress, 6/8/17]

Trump’s Proposal Did Not Offer Paid Leave For Caring For Aging Family Members

Trump’s Family Leave Plan Would Not Provide Paid Leave For Caring For Aging Family Members. According to NPR, “Then again, the plan is by no means generous in the context of what many family leave proponents want; it doesn’t provide paid leave for caring for aging family members, for example, and many proponents believe leave should extend beyond six weeks. Still, the fact that paid leave is even a policy consideration is a big deal, says Vicki Shabo, vice president at the National Partnership for Women and Families — even while she maintains that there are major problems with this proposal. ‘I think it’s remarkable that it exists in the context of a Republican presidential budget,’ she said. ‘But that only gets you fairly skin deep when you think about the drastic harmful dramatic cuts and limitations in access to other vital supports.’” [NPR, 5/23/17]

Trump’s Proposal Failed To Mention Protections Against Workplace Retaliation And Discrimination

Trump’s Proposal Failed To Mention How It Would Protect Against Discrimination, Including For LGBT Families, And Against Retaliation When Workers Return To Their Jobs. According to the Center for American Progress, “In addition to falling short for families who need paid family and medical leave for reasons other than the arrival of a new child, it’s not clear how the policy will apply to blended or foster families. The proposal does not specify whether parents must be married or have full custody of their child to receive the benefit. It also makes no mention of anti-discrimination protections to ensure that all families, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) families, can access the proposed leave. Finally, Trump’s plan does not mention any protections for workers to ensure they do not face retaliation for taking leave. On top of the questions about eligibility and wage replacement rates, the lack of serious provisions to protect workers who take leave is deeply concerning. Trump’s plan could leave even eligible workers who can afford to use the benefit vulnerable to negative repercussions when they return to work. This issue is especially troubling since Trump’s paid parental leave plan comes alongside other budget proposals that would undermine the government’s ability to enforce existing protections for workers.” [Center for American Progress, 6/8/17]