Tag Archives: health insurance

In a liberal pocket, assisted living residents fear Obamacare’s death

From an upscale assisted living center in Seattle, 87-year-old Brendan Wall has some advice for members of Congress eager to repeal the Affordable Care Act: Slow down.

“They haven’t said what they’re going to replace it with or how they’re going to replace it,” said Wall, who taught philosophy and religion for more than 30 years.

“I think it’s a major crisis, and I hope to God they take enough time to think about it and act on it so that the thing will work.”

Wall lives at Merrill Gardens, a complex near downtown Seattle where anxiety runs high over the transition to a new administration in Washington, D.C. And while the evolving drama may not affect him directly, he and other seniors here fret about the Donald Trump administration’s vow to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and what it will mean for their children and grandchildren.

Wall and five other residents responded to a Kaiser Health News request for area seniors willing to share their views about health care as Trump takes over and pressure mounts on Capitol Hill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In a news conference, Trump again called the health law “a complete and total disaster,” and said he intends to move quickly to replace it with something “far less expensive and far better,” though he offered no specifics.

The view from Merrill Gardens offers a snapshot of a larger national debate about the successes and failures of President Barack Obama’s signature legislation. Its residents live in liberal King County, where less than 22 percent of voters chose Trump. But only 125 miles away, in a rural district that voted for Trump, Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler says seniors’ anxieties over repeal of the Affordable Care Act are misplaced.

“Seniors are right to be concerned about the future of ACA, but not because of congressional Republicans’ plans,” spokeswoman Amy Pennington said in an email. “The law’s fundamental flaws, phony finances and broken promises will cause it to collapse on its own — Medicaid expansion, exchanges and all.”

At Merrill Gardens, residents are more politically engaged than in many parts of the country. They avidly follow the news through local newspapers, TV, the internet and radio.

The group that showed up for an open meeting in the complex’s private dining room ranged in age from early 70s to late-80s. They included retired education, business and health professionals. Loree Wagner, a center spokeswoman, said the organizers did not ask for political affiliation.

“I find this moment especially challenging,” said Dick Kirkendall, 88, a retired University of Washington history professor who specialized in the presidency of Harry S. Truman. “I have a hard time seeing what’s ahead, a harder time than I’ve ever had. I have a harder time knowing what my president is going to do.”

Everyone in the room said they had few complaints about their existing health insurance coverage through Medicare, Medicare supplements, private pensions and Veterans Affairs programs.

But they said they fear that proposed changes — including plans to privatize Medicare and revamp Medicaid and Social Security — will mean less care for their families and the poor.

“My opinion is not to touch Medicare or Medicaid,” said Terry Doucette, 76, a former admitting department manager for a local hospital. “I mean, people are dependent upon it and there needs to be a warning time and coming together in a real thoughtful way, making everything work together, especially for the least fortunate.”

Herrera Beutler said she supports plans to protect Medicare and Social Security for seniors in the future.

In addition to Wall, Kirkendall and Doucette, the group included John Ball, 73, a former developer, Sandra Wiatr, 80, a former school nurse in the Chicago public school system and Dr. Harold Ellner, 89, a retired urologist.

Overall, they sympathized with the frustrations of those who criticized the ACA, which created online health exchanges that expanded coverage to millions, but also saw sharp rises in costs and, in some cases, limited coverage choices.

“The Obama thing had been moving out of control, particularly for middle-class people whose insurance premiums have gone up and their deductibles are unbelievable,” Wall said. “They’re out of this world. I think they had to do something.”

But they also echoed the views of a recent Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll that found that while one in five Americans support repeal alone, three-quarters either oppose repeal entirely or want to wait until details of a replacement plan are complete. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

The answer is not to scrap the plan that expanded insurance to 20 million people while offering no alternative, said Ball, who only obtained regular insurance when he qualified for Medicare eight years ago. He still lives with consequences of untreated injuries, including a broken clavicle that healed badly after a rugby injury years ago.

“I’m distressed at the proposal that we chuck out the baby with the bath water,” he said. “I’ve seen the backside of no insurance and living with something you hoped wouldn’t be considered a pre-existing condition. I have a pretty strong identification with those people who didn’t have insurance and were suddenly brought into the fold of Obamacare.”

In her work as a school nurse, Wiatr saw many students with asthma whose families couldn’t afford medication inhalers to control the potentially life-threatening disease. When she managed a family practice clinic, she saw people try to cut medical costs at the expense of health.

“There were people who didn’t do lab tests, who took only half of their medication because they couldn’t afford it,” she said. “I am very upset because I think our politicians don’t have a clue how difficult it is for people to receive medication and adequate health care.”

Ellner, the urologist, worked for a local Planned Parenthood clinic after he retired and flatly said he supports a universal, single-payer health system.

“Obamacare seems to have been a way station on the way to universal health care and now it’s not only being challenged, it’s being threatened,” he said.

The situation now calls for compromise and compassion from political leaders, said Doucette. “What I want to do is simply get the hard-headed guys from both parties to meet and really want to do this instead of wanting to win,” she said. “Now, we’ll see what Trump does. He has all these ideas and he thinks everyone else is on a lower level. I would like to see them work together.”

KHN’s coverage related to aging & improving care of older adults is supported by The John A. Hartford Foundation.  This report is made available by Kaiser Health News under a Creative Commons License.

If Republicans repeal health law, how will they pay for replacement?

Leading Republicans have vowed that even if they repeal most of the Affordable Care Act early in 2017, a replacement will not hurt those currently receiving benefits.

Republicans will seek to ensure that “no one is worse off,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in an interview with a Wisconsin newspaper earlier this month. “The purpose here is to bring relief to people who are suffering from Obamacare so that they can get something better.”

But that may be difficult for one big reason — Republicans have also pledged to repeal the taxes that Democrats used to pay for their health law. Without that funding, Republicans will have far less money to spend on whatever they opt for as a replacement.

“It will be hard to have comparable coverage if they start with less money,” Gail Wilensky, a health economist who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs under President George H.W. Bush, said in an interview.

“Repealing all the ACA’s taxes as part of repeal and delay only makes a true replacement harder,” wrote Loren Adler and Paul Ginsburg of the Brookings Institution in a white paper out this week. It “would make it much more difficult to achieve a sustainable replacement plan that provides meaningful coverage without increasing deficits.”

The health law’s subsidies to individuals buying insurance and the Medicaid expansion are funded by two big pots of money.

The first is a series of taxes, including levies on individuals with incomes greater than $200,000, health insurers, makers of medical devices, brand-name drugmakers, people who use tanning salons, and employer plans that are so generous they trigger the much-maligned “Cadillac Tax.” Some of those measures have not yet taken effect.

However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in early 2016 that repealing those provisions would reduce taxes by an estimated $1 trillion over the decade from 2016-2025.

The other big pot of money that funds the benefits in the health law comes from reductions in federal spending for Medicare (and to a lesser extent, Medicaid). Those include trims in the scheduled payments to hospitals, insurance companies and other health care providers, as well as increased premiums for higher-income Medicare beneficiaries.

CBO estimated in 2015 that cancelling the cuts would boost federal spending by $879 billion from 2016 to 2025.

The GOP, in the partial repeal bill that passed in January and was vetoed by President Barack Obama, proposed to cancel the tax increases in the health law, as well as the health premium subsidies and Medicaid expansion. But it would have kept the Medicare and Medicaid payment reductions. Because the benefits that would be repealed cost more than the revenue being lost through the repeal of the taxes, the result would have been net savings to the federal government — to the tune of about $317.5 billion over 10 years, said CBO.

But those savings — even if Republicans could find a way to apply them to a new bill — would not be enough to fund the broad expansion of coverage offered under the ACA.

If Republicans follow that playbook again, their plans for replacement could be hampered because they will still lose access to tax revenues. That means they cannot fund equivalent benefits unless they find some other source of revenue.

Some analysts fear those dollars may come from still more cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

“Medicare and Medicaid face fundamental threats, perhaps the most since they were established in the 1960s,” said Edwin Park of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in a webinar last week.

Republicans in the House, however, have identified one other potential source of funding. “Our plan caps the open-ended tax break on employer-based premiums,” said their proposal, called “A Better Way.”

House Republicans say that would be preferable to the Cadillac Tax in the ACA, which is scheduled to go into effect in 2020 and taxes only the most generous plans.

But health policy analysts say ending the employer tax break could be even more controversial.

Capping the amount of health benefits that workers can accept tax-free “would reduce incentives for employers to continue to offer coverage,” said Georgetown University’s Sabrina Corlette.

James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, which represents large employers, said they would look on such a proposal as potentially more damaging to the future of employer-provided insurance than the Cadillac Tax, which his group has lobbied hard against.

“This is not a time one wants to disrupt the employer marketplace,” said Klein in an interview. “It seems perplexing to think that if the ACA is going to be repealed, either in large part or altogether, it would be succeeded by a proposal imposing a tax on people who get health coverage from their employer.”

Wilensky said that as an economist, getting rid of the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance would put her “and all the other economists in seventh heaven.” Economists have argued for years that having the tax code favor benefits over cash wages encourages overly generous insurance and overuse of health services.

But at the same time, she added, “I am painfully aware of how unpopular my most favored change would be.”

Republicans will have one other option if and when they try to replace the ACA’s benefits — not paying for them at all, thus adding to the federal deficit.

While that sounds unlikely for a party dedicated to fiscal responsibility, it wouldn’t be unprecedented. In 2003 the huge Medicare prescription drug law was passed by a Republican Congress — with no specified funding to pay for the benefits.

Republished under a creative commons license via Kaiser Health News.

Opinion: Walker has rigged health insurance system to raise rates

A much larger number of Wisconsinites than previously believed are enrolled in substandard health plans that don’t meet the standards of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, almost as many people are enrolled in substandard “lemon” health plans in Wisconsin as in individual coverage through Healthcare.gov.

The state’s inadequate health insurance situation was revealed by J.P. Wieske, the deputy insurance commissioner for Gov. Scott Walker’s administration, in testimony before the Homeland Security Committee last week.

Wieske’s admission has major implications for the availability of affordable health care in Wisconsin. It provides evidence that the Walker administration is working to sabotage the health care law.

In the hearing Wieske testified (p. 6–7) that 203,000 Wisconsinites are covered by so-called “transitional plans,” the technical term for most plans not in compliance with the ACA. These are also often referred to as “grandmothered” plans. Currently 239,034 Wisconsin health consumers are enrolled in individual coverage on Healthcare.gov. The numbers show how much larger the ACA marketplaces in Wisconsin would be if transitional plans were prohibited.

Under the ACA, states were allowed to “grandmother” plans sold during the health care law’s implementation period, even when they did not meet the standards of the new law. The consumers in transitional plans tend to be healthier, because the insurance corporations were still permitted at the time to discriminate against people with health conditions. Wisconsin exercised the option to continue these plans, while Minnesota and many other states working to improve health insurance access banned them.

Transitional plans have two highly negative consequences for health consumers.

  • Substandard “lemon” plans increase prices in the ACA marketplace by skimming healthier people. These people were able to buy insurance before discrimination against people with health conditions was banned. This deprives healthier individuals from the ACA marketplace, leaving the remaining population sicker and costlier, and raising rates.
  • Substandard “lemon” plans might be cheaper, but they become dangerous for health consumers when they face a major injury or illness. The plans often have gaps in coverage or extremely high cost sharing.

There is strong evidence that allowing the health insurance industry to continue to sell transitional plans increases prices.

  • From the Rand Corporation: “Non-ACA-compliant plans … have a far more detrimental effect on the ACA-compliant market, raising premiums by as much as 10 percent and decreasing enrollment.”
  • From the American Academy of Actuaries: “In states with the transition policy, ACA-compliant plans exhibited less favorable experience, because lower-cost individuals were more likely to retain their prior policies.”
  • From Milliman Actuaries: “Integrating these underwritten members into the ACA pool is expected to improve the health status of the market as a whole, which could lower the relative cost of coverage on average.”

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Walker Administration is deliberately trying to destabilize the Affordable Care Act by allowing insurance companies to skim healthier consumers. The impact of this policy is to rig the health care system against Wisconsin families who need access to quality affordable coverage.

The only party who benefits from the continuation of “lemon” health plans is the insurance industry, which is allowed to continue to profit by separating the healthy from people with health conditions.

— Robert Kraig and Kevin Kane, Citizen Action of Wisconisin

 

HealthCare.gov rates to rise in Wisconsin

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department says the cost of its benchmark plan on HealthCare.gov will go up less in Wisconsin than the national average.

Silver plan rates will go up 4.7 percent here, compared with 7.5 percent nationally. 

The rates came out on Oct. 26 on the website established under President Barack Obama’s health care law. Next year’s sign-up session starts Sunday, and potential enrollees are now able to browse plans and prices.

Rates in some states climbed by double digits, but others saw a decline. 

Insurers in many states had underpriced plans and are raising rates because of inflation and higher claims than expected. 

Nationally, about 8 in 10 returning customers will be able to buy a plan for less than $100 a month, after tax credits.

House vote today on bill to change ‘full-time’ definition for health care law

The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote today (Jan. 8) on H.R. 30, a Republican bill that would change the Affordable Care Act’s definition of full-time work so that employers only have to offer health insurance to employees who regularly work 40 or more hours a week.

Without this change, employers must offer coverage to employees who regularly work 30 or more hours a week.

Progressive groups say the legislation is bad for American workers and families, and especially bad for women because:

• Millions more American workers could face a reduction in working hours if H.R. 30 passes because employers could escape the requirement to provide health insurance by cutting the hours of the 44 percent of Americans who work 40 hours a week. These workers would not only go without health insurance through their job, but they have lower earnings to take home.

• Women work in jobs that employers may target for fewer hours. More than half a million restaurant workers, over half a million health care workers and over 440,000 education workers are considered “most vulnerable to work hours reduction,” according to the National Women’s Law Center.

• A million fewer Americans will have employer-based health insurance if the bill passes.

• H.R. 30 would increase the federal deficit by $53.2 billion over 10 years.

The measure is titled the Save American Workers Act of 2015, but the legislation puts millions of American workers at risk of losing full-time work, takes away employer health insurance and raises the federal deficit, according to Dania Palanker, senior counsel with NWLC.

Gay couples find uneven access to health care coverage

Nearly every day for three months, Carl Bechdel had to make calls or send emails to try to get family insurance coverage for his husband and himself under President Barack Obama’s landmark health law.

The Harrisburg, Pa., couple had sent an insurer their application and a month’s premium in early December but heard nothing. Weeks later, they were told their application was not processed because Pennsylvania doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. So Bechdel pushed back, repeatedly explaining their predicament in phone calls and emails. Finally, they got a call and apology from the president of the insurance company last month, plus a family plan that started in March.

“It was never a matter of price. It was a matter of respect,” said Bechdel, a 60-year-old retired attorney who married Dan Miller in 2012 in Washington, D.C.

For gay couples, access to family insurance plans under the law is not guaranteed this year, and their options run the gamut, mirroring in part the patchwork of state laws governing same-sex marriage that have changed rapidly in recent years.

In Iowa, where gay marriage is legal, insurers selling plans in the marketplace created under the law offer policies to gay couples and families. But the major company in Tennessee’s marketplace does not offer coverage at all to same-sex couples. Policies vary by insurer in Florida. And in Ohio, a couple sued for access to family insurance plans.

The federal government has belatedly sought to solve the inconsistencies, telling insurers this month that if they offer spousal coverage to heterosexual couples, they must provide that benefit to legally married, same-sex couples. But that doesn’t become a requirement until next year, and doesn’t address coverage for couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships.

In the meantime, the administration has encouraged companies to comply with the new policy voluntarily. Federal regulations do not require insurers to offer any family policies. And when companies do, they have some flexibility in how they define family members.

In Aberdeen, N.C., Thomas Hafke, 30, went online in December and bought a family plan for his husband and himself from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

But the Chapel Hill-based company then canceled family coverage it sold to Hafke and about 20 other same-sex couples through the marketplace because of contract phrasing that defined “spouse” as “opposite sex.”

“It felt like legalized discrimination,” said Hafke, a server, who married 32-year-old Chad Higby in Washington, D.C., last fall.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield reversed course in January, saying it would offer the coverage to same-sex married couples and domestic partners.

“It was very important for these people to be able to purchase family coverage,” said Michelle Douglas, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield spokeswoman. “In recognition of that, the company made the decision to make that coverage available.”

Knowing that a partner can get coverage is one of the more effective messages in getting those in the LGBT community to enroll in a plan under the law, said Katie Keith, a researcher at Trimpa Group, a consulting firm that works with gay rights advocates.

“Even though it’s not a requirement for 2014, it makes it more of a possibility for people,” Keith said.

While it will be months before insurers are obligated to offer such coverage, gay rights groups have praised the administration’s move, saying it brings some clarity to the issue and will ease access for gay couples when the requirement takes effect next year.

“Many same-sex married couples and their families are hurting right now because they’ve been refused access to more affordable family health insurance plans,” Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said in a statement.

Bechdel and his husband sought coverage from one of Pennsylvania’s biggest insurers, Pittsburgh-based Highmark Inc. The insurer is now reworking its policies there and in West Virginia to let same-sex couples and domestic partners purchase family coverage, a spokesman said. In the meantime, the company has worked with about 15 couples in the two states to get them family policies.

“Originally, the products were developed following the guidelines of recognized marriage of state laws,” said Aaron Billger, a Highmark spokesman.

In Delaware, where Highmark also offers plans and same-sex marriage is legal, the insurer already provides such coverage for gay couples.

The company expects to offer family coverage in the early spring in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Other gay couples have found uneven access to family plans.

Al Cowger Jr. and Tony Wesley Jr. of suburban Cleveland sued the state of Ohio and U.S. government after hours-long phone calls and months of trying to get family coverage through the federal insurance marketplace.

The couple, who have been together for 28 years, married in 2012 in upstate New York and have a 7-year-old adopted daughter. They say that because of Ohio’s gay marriage ban, they have been denied a family plan under Obama’s law in violation of their constitutional rights.

In their lawsuit, Cowger said he talked to help-desk personnel with healthcare.gov who told him that he and Wesley had been approved for family coverage in the marketplace. But a problem surfaced when the representative tried to purchase the policy and couldn’t.

Cowger said he was then told he couldn’t get family coverage because Ohio does not recognize his marriage. But the insurance company, Medical Mutual of Ohio, says it offers family coverage to same-sex couples both on and off the exchange.

“After 28 years,” Cowger said recently, “we’re just so sick of having to jump through hoops and get around all these restrictions, all the stuff that comes with these prohibitions, to be treated like a family.”

Michigan to require extra health insurance policy for abortions

Michigan will join more conservative states in requiring residents who want health insurance coverage for abortions to buy an extra policy, after Republican legislators passed the law on Dec. 11 over the objections of Democrats who pleaded for them to take the issue to voters instead.

The citizens’ initiative approved 62-47 by the House and 27-11 in the Senate – almost entirely along party lines – will become law in March without the signature of Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, who vetoed similar legislation a year ago. The anti-abortion group Right to Life collected more than 300,000 signatures to put the legislation before lawmakers, who also had the option of letting it go to a statewide vote next November.

The law prohibits insurance companies from offering abortion coverage as part of both public and private health plans, except when a woman’s life is at risk. Employers and individuals who want abortion coverage must buy supplemental policies, known as riders.

Michigan is the ninth state to restrict private plans from covering the procedure. Seven of the states – Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Oklahoma – allow patients to purchase riders, just as Michigan will. Utah doesn’t allow even supplemental coverage of elective abortions but lets general plans cover the procedure when the woman’s life in endangered, her health is severely compromised or in cases of rape, incest or fetal impairment.

Several states, including Wisconsin, have approved broad abortion limits in recent months, but Michigan is a swing state that has generally stayed away from the tougher restrictions.

Michigan’s law won approval after emotional debate on the chamber floors, which included Democratic female legislators telling personal stories in opposition to what they called “rape insurance” legislation that is among the most misogynistic they have seen.

Trying to hold back tears, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing disclosed that she was raped more than 20 years ago.

“Thank God it didn’t result in a pregnancy because I can’t imagine going through what I went through and then having to consider what to do about an unwanted pregnancy from an attacker,” she said. “If this were law then and I had become pregnant, I would not be able to have coverage because of this. How extreme, how extreme does this measure need to be?”

Opponents said 4 percent of Michigan’s population shouldn’t be able to dictate health care for women, a reference to the number of people who signed the petition to bring the issue to lawmakers. But Right to Life said abortion isn’t health care and applauded legislators for standing firm.

Republican Rep. Margaret O’Brien of Portage said in an interview after session that she rejects the “notion that women only have one way of thinking” about abortion. She noted that federal law says abortion riders sold through the new government health insurance exchange can’t cost less than $1 a month, so comprehensive abortion coverage should be available.

“I respect the seriousness of the emotions. I went through an unplanned pregnancy. I’ve counseled people who’ve been raped that has resulted in pregnancies. … But I’ve also seen women who’ve embraced those babies through rape and seen that that child shouldn’t be punished for the horrendous act that happened to them.”

Of the roughly 23,000 reported abortions in Michigan last year – the second-fewest in 30 years – health insurance covered 739, or 3.3 percent, according to state statistics.

Low-income women on Medicaid already must pay out of pocket for abortions except when their life is at risk or in cases of rape or incest. Other women may not have insurance that covers abortions or they don’t want their employer or family to find out they’re having the procedure.

A thrust behind the law is keeping taxpayer-subsidized plans on Michigan’s insurance marketplace from covering abortions, an option for states under the federal health care law. With Michigan’s move, 24 states now restrict abortion coverage in plans offered through their insurance exchanges. But the state says none of the 73 plans being offered to individuals covers what the industry calls elective abortions. Three of the 68 small employer plans do.

The initiative’s biggest practical effect will be on plans sold outside the exchange, and the governor cited concerns about government overreach and no exceptions for rape, incest or the woman’s health as reasons for his earlier veto.

All 26 Republicans and one Democrat in the Senate voted for the initiative Wednesday, with 11 Democrats opposed. In the House, all 59 Republicans, two Democrats and one independent supported it, and 47 Democrats voted against it.

President calls for higher minimum wage. Transcript

President Barack Obama, in a speech on economic mobility delivered on Dec. 4 in Washington, D.C., called for an increase in the minimum wage.

The speech came nearly a week after employees at Walmart staged national demonstrations to protest low wages and poor benefits at the world’s largest retailer and a day before workers at some fast-food restaurants across the country were expected to strike.

In the speech, the president said income inequality is the “defining challenge of our time.”

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour or about $15,000 a year. A Senate proposal backed by the president would raise the minimum wage to $10.10, but Republicans in the House oppose the bill. Meanwhile, many activists in the fair wage movement want to see minimum wages of $15 an hour.

The president said minimum wage workers “work their tails off and are still living at or barely above poverty.” In real terms, their hourly wage, he said, “is below where it was when Harry Truman was in office.”

The following is a transcript of the president’s speech, provided by the White House:

Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you, everybody.  Thank you so much.  Please, please have a seat.  Thank you so much.  Well, thank you, Neera, for the wonderful introduction and sharing a story that resonated with me.  There were a lot of parallels in my life and probably resonated with some of you. 

Over the past 10 years, the Center for American Progress has done incredible work to shape the debate over expanding opportunity for all Americans.  And I could not be more grateful to CAP not only for giving me a lot of good policy ideas, but also giving me a lot of staff.  (Laughter.)  My friend, John Podesta, ran my transition; my Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, did a stint at CAP.  So you guys are obviously doing a good job training folks.

I also want to thank all the members of Congress and my administration who are here today for the wonderful work that they do.  I want to thank Mayor Gray and everyone here at THEARC for having me.  This center, which I’ve been to quite a bit, have had a chance to see some of the great work that’s done here.  And all the nonprofits that call THEARC home offer access to everything from education, to health care, to a safe shelter from the streets, which means that you’re harnessing the power of community to expand opportunity for folks here in D.C.  And your work reflects a tradition that runs through our history — a belief that we’re greater together than we are on our own.  And that’s what I’ve come here to talk about today. 

Over the last two months, Washington has been dominated by some pretty contentious debates — I think that’s fair to say.  And between a reckless shutdown by congressional Republicans in an effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and admittedly poor execution on my administration’s part in implementing the latest stage of the new law, nobody has acquitted themselves very well these past few months.  So it’s not surprising that the American people’s frustrations with Washington are at an all-time high. 

But we know that people’s frustrations run deeper than these most recent political battles.  Their frustration is rooted in their own daily battles — to make ends meet, to pay for college, buy a home, save for retirement.  It’s rooted in the nagging sense that no matter how hard they work, the deck is stacked against them.  And it’s rooted in the fear that their kids won’t be better off than they were.  They may not follow the constant back-and-forth in Washington or all the policy details, but they experience in a very personal way the relentless, decades-long trend that I want to spend some time talking about today.  And that is a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility that has jeopardized middle-class America’s basic bargain — that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead.

I believe this is the defining challenge of our time:  Making sure our economy works for every working American.  It’s why I ran for President.  It was at the center of last year’s campaign.  It drives everything I do in this office.  And I know I’ve raised this issue before, and some will ask why I raise the issue again right now.  I do it because the outcomes of the debates we’re having right now — whether it’s health care, or the budget, or reforming our housing and financial systems — all these things will have real, practical implications for every American.  And I am convinced that the decisions we make on these issues over the next few years will determine whether or not our children will grow up in an America where opportunity is real.

Now, the premise that we’re all created equal is the opening line in the American story.  And while we don’t promise equal outcomes, we have strived to deliver equal opportunity — the idea that success doesn’t depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit.  And with every chapter we’ve added to that story, we’ve worked hard to put those words into practice.  

It was Abraham Lincoln, a self-described “poor man’s son,” who started a system of land grant colleges all over this country so that any poor man’s son could go learn something new. 

When farms gave way to factories, a rich man’s son named Teddy Roosevelt fought for an eight-hour workday, protections for workers, and busted monopolies that kept prices high and wages low. 

When millions lived in poverty, FDR fought for Social Security, and insurance for the unemployed, and a minimum wage. 

When millions died without health insurance, LBJ fought for Medicare and Medicaid. 

Together, we forged a New Deal, declared a War on Poverty in a great society.  We built a ladder of opportunity to climb, and stretched out a safety net beneath so that if we fell, it wouldn’t be too far, and we could bounce back.  And as a result, America built the largest middle class the world has ever known.  And for the three decades after World War II, it was the engine of our prosperity. 

Now, we can’t look at the past through rose-colored glasses.  The economy didn’t always work for everyone.  Racial discrimination locked millions out of poverty — or out of opportunity.  Women were too often confined to a handful of often poorly paid professions.  And it was only through painstaking struggle that more women, and minorities, and Americans with disabilities began to win the right to more fairly and fully participate in the economy. 

Nevertheless, during the post-World War II years, the economic ground felt stable and secure for most Americans, and the future looked brighter than the past.  And for some, that meant following in your old man’s footsteps at the local plant, and you knew that a blue-collar job would let you buy a home, and a car, maybe a vacation once in a while, health care, a reliable pension.  For others, it meant going to college — in some cases, maybe the first in your family to go to college.  And it meant graduating without taking on loads of debt, and being able to count on advancement through a vibrant job market. 

Now, it’s true that those at the top, even in those years, claimed a much larger share of income than the rest:  The top 10 percent consistently took home about one-third of our national income.  But that kind of inequality took place in a dynamic market economy where everyone’s wages and incomes were growing.  And because of upward mobility, the guy on the factory floor could picture his kid running the company some day.

But starting in the late ‘70s, this social compact began to unravel.  Technology made it easier for companies to do more with less, eliminating certain job occupations.  A more competitive world lets companies ship jobs anywhere.  And as good manufacturing jobs automated or headed offshore, workers lost their leverage, jobs paid less and offered fewer benefits. 

As values of community broke down, and competitive pressure increased, businesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage.  As a trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest, while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither.  And for a certain period of time, we could ignore this weakening economic foundation, in part because more families were relying on two earners as women entered the workforce.  We took on more debt financed by a juiced-up housing market.  But when the music stopped, and the crisis hit, millions of families were stripped of whatever cushion they had left.

And the result is an economy that’s become profoundly unequal, and families that are more insecure.  I’ll just give you a few statistics.  Since 1979, when I graduated from high school, our productivity is up by more than 90 percent, but the income of the typical family has increased by less than eight percent.  Since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few. 

The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income — it now takes half.  Whereas in the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today’s CEO now makes 273 times more.  And meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family, which is a record for this country.

So the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed.  In fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to America’s market economy.  Across the developed world, inequality has increased.  Some of you may have seen just last week, the Pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length.  “How can it be,” he wrote, “that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people.  Understand we’ve never begrudged success in America.  We aspire to it.  We admire folks who start new businesses, create jobs, and invent the products that enrich our lives.  And we expect them to be rewarded handsomely for it.  In fact, we’ve often accepted more income inequality than many other nations for one big reason — because we were convinced that America is a place where even if you’re born with nothing, with a little hard work you can improve your own situation over time and build something better to leave your kids.  As Lincoln once said, “While we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”

The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years.  A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top.  A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top.  He’s 10 times likelier to stay where he is.  In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies — countries like Canada or Germany or France.  They have greater mobility than we do, not less. 

The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough.  But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action.  We are a better country than this. 

So let me repeat:  The combined trends of increased inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the American Dream, our way of life, and what we stand for around the globe.  And it is not simply a moral claim that I’m making here.  There are practical consequences to rising inequality and reduced mobility. 

For one thing, these trends are bad for our economy.  One study finds that growth is more fragile and recessions are more frequent in countries with greater inequality.  And that makes sense.  When families have less to spend, that means businesses have fewer customers, and households rack up greater mortgage and credit card debt; meanwhile, concentrated wealth at the top is less likely to result in the kind of broadly based consumer spending that drives our economy, and together with lax regulation, may contribute to risky speculative bubbles.

And rising inequality and declining mobility are also bad for our families and social cohesion — not just because we tend to trust our institutions less, but studies show we actually tend to trust each other less when there’s greater inequality.  And greater inequality is associated with less mobility between generations.  That means it’s not just temporary; the effects last.  It creates a vicious cycle.  For example, by the time she turns three years old, a child born into a low-income home hears 30 million fewer words than a child from a well-off family, which means by the time she starts school she’s already behind, and that deficit can compound itself over time.

And finally, rising inequality and declining mobility are bad for our democracy.  Ordinary folks can’t write massive campaign checks or hire high-priced lobbyists and lawyers to secure policies that tilt the playing field in their favor at everyone else’s expense.  And so people get the bad taste that the system is rigged, and that increases cynicism and polarization, and it decreases the political participation that is a requisite part of our system of self-government.

So this is an issue that we have to tackle head on.  And if, in fact, the majority of Americans agree that our number-one priority is to restore opportunity and broad-based growth for all Americans, the question is why has Washington consistently failed to act?  And I think a big reason is the myths that have developed around the issue of inequality.

First, there is the myth that this is a problem restricted to a small share of predominantly minority poor — that this isn’t a broad-based problem, this is a black problem or a Hispanic problem or a Native American problem.  Now, it’s true that the painful legacy of discrimination means that African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans are far more likely to suffer from a lack of opportunity — higher unemployment, higher poverty rates.  It’s also true that women still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men.  So we’re going to need strong application of antidiscrimination laws.  We’re going to need immigration reform that grows the economy and takes people out of the shadows.  We’re going to need targeted initiatives to close those gaps.  (Applause.) 

But here’s an important point.  The decades-long shifts in the economy have hurt all groups:  poor and middle class; inner city and rural folks; men and women; and Americans of all races.  And as a consequence, some of the social patterns that contribute to declining mobility that were once attributed to the urban poor — that’s a particular problem for the inner city: single-parent households or drug abuse — it turns out now we’re seeing that pop up everywhere. 

A new study shows that disparities in education, mental health, obesity, absent fathers, isolation from church, isolation from community groups — these gaps are now as much about growing up rich or poor as they are about anything else.  The gap in test scores between poor kids and wealthy kids is now nearly twice what it is between white kids and black kids.  Kids with working-class parents are 10 times likelier than kids with middle- or upper-class parents to go through a time when their parents have no income.  So the fact is this:  The opportunity gap in America is now as much about class as it is about race, and that gap is growing.

So if we’re going to take on growing inequality and try to improve upward mobility for all people, we’ve got to move beyond the false notion that this is an issue exclusively of minority concern.  And we have to reject a politics that suggests any effort to address it in a meaningful way somehow pits the interests of a deserving middle class against those of an undeserving poor in search of handouts.  (Applause.)

Second, we need to dispel the myth that the goals of growing the economy and reducing inequality are necessarily in conflict, when they should actually work in concert.  We know from our history that our economy grows best from the middle out, when growth is more widely shared.  And we know that beyond a certain level of inequality, growth actually slows altogether.

Third, we need to set aside the belief that government cannot do anything about reducing inequality.  It’s true that government cannot prevent all the downsides of the technological change and global competition that are out there right now, and some of those forces are also some of the things that are helping us grow.  And it’s also true that some programs in the past, like welfare before it was reformed, were sometimes poorly designed, created disincentives to work.

But we’ve also seen how government action time and again can make an enormous difference in increasing opportunity and bolstering ladders into the middle class.  Investments in education, laws establishing collective bargaining, and a minimum wage — these all contributed to rising standards of living for massive numbers of Americans.  (Applause.)  Likewise, when previous generations declared that every citizen of this country deserved a basic measure of security — a floor through which they could not fall — we helped millions of Americans live in dignity, and gave millions more the confidence to aspire to something better, by taking a risk on a great idea. 

Without Social Security, nearly half of seniors would be living in poverty — half.  Today, fewer than 1 in 10 do.  Before Medicare, only half of all seniors had some form of health insurance.  Today, virtually all do.  And because we’ve strengthened that safety net, and expanded pro-work and pro-family tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, a recent study found that the poverty rate has fallen by 40 percent since the 1960s.  And these endeavors didn’t just make us a better country; they reaffirmed that we are a great country. 

So we can make a difference on this.  In fact, that’s our generation’s task — to rebuild America’s economic and civic foundation to continue the expansion of opportunity for this generation and the next generation.  (Applause.)  And like Neera, I take this personally.  I’m only here because this country educated my grandfather on the GI Bill.  When my father left and my mom hit hard times trying to raise my sister and me while she was going to school, this country helped make sure we didn’t go hungry.  When Michelle, the daughter of a shift worker at a water plant and a secretary, wanted to go to college, just like me, this country helped us afford it until we could pay it back.

So what drives me as a grandson, a son, a father — as an American — is to make sure that every striving, hardworking, optimistic kid in America has the same incredible chance that this country gave me.  (Applause.)  It has been the driving force between everything we’ve done these past five years.  And over the course of the next year, and for the rest of my presidency, that’s where you should expect my administration to focus all our efforts.  (Applause.)

Now, you’ll be pleased to know this is not a State of the Union Address.  (Laughter.)  And many of the ideas that can make the biggest difference in expanding opportunity I’ve presented before.  But let me offer a few key principles, just a roadmap that I believe should guide us in both our legislative agenda and our administrative efforts.

To begin with, we have to continue to relentlessly push a growth agenda.  It may be true that in today’s economy, growth alone does not guarantee higher wages and incomes.  We’ve seen that.  But what’s also true is we can’t tackle inequality if the economic pie is shrinking or stagnant.  The fact is if you’re a progressive and you want to help the middle class and the working poor, you’ve still got to be concerned about competitiveness and productivity and business confidence that spurs private sector investment. 

And that’s why from day one we’ve worked to get the economy growing and help our businesses hire.  And thanks to their resilience and innovation, they’ve created nearly 8 million new jobs over the past 44 months.  And now we’ve got to grow the economy even faster.  And we’ve got to keep working to make America a magnet for good, middle-class jobs to replace the ones that we’ve lost in recent decades — jobs in manufacturing and energy and infrastructure and technology.

And that means simplifying our corporate tax code in a way that closes wasteful loopholes and ends incentives to ship jobs overseas.  (Applause.)  And by broadening the base, we can actually lower rates to encourage more companies to hire here and use some of the money we save to create good jobs rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our airports, and all the infrastructure our businesses need. 

It means a trade agenda that grows exports and works for the middle class.  It means streamlining regulations that are outdated or unnecessary or too costly.  And it means coming together around a responsible budget — one that grows our economy faster right now and shrinks our long-term deficits, one that unwinds the harmful sequester cuts that haven’t made a lot of sense — (applause) — and then frees up resources to invest in things like the scientific research that’s always unleashed new innovation and new industries. 

When it comes to our budget, we should not be stuck in a stale debate from two years ago or three years ago.  A relentlessly growing deficit of opportunity is a bigger threat to our future than our rapidly shrinking fiscal deficit.  (Applause.)  

So that’s step one towards restoring mobility:  making sure our economy is growing faster.  Step two is making sure we empower more Americans with the skills and education they need to compete in a highly competitive global economy. 

We know that education is the most important predictor of income today, so we launched a Race to the Top in our schools.  We’re supporting states that have raised standards for teaching and learning.  We’re pushing for redesigned high schools that graduate more kids with the technical training and apprenticeships, and in-demand, high-tech skills that can lead directly to a good job and a middle-class life.

We know it’s harder to find a job today without some higher education, so we’ve helped more students go to college with grants and loans that go farther than before.  We’ve made it more practical to repay those loans.  And today, more students are graduating from college than ever before.  We’re also pursuing an aggressive strategy to promote innovation that reins in tuition costs.  We’ve got lower costs so that young people are not burdened by enormous debt when they make the right decision to get higher education.  And next week, Michelle and I will bring together college presidents and non-profits to lead a campaign to help more low-income students attend and succeed in college.  (Applause.)

But while higher education may be the surest path to the middle class, it’s not the only one.  So we should offer our people the best technical education in the world.  That’s why we’ve worked to connect local businesses with community colleges, so that workers young and old can earn the new skills that earn them more money.

And I’ve also embraced an idea that I know all of you at the Center for American Progress have championed — and, by the way, Republican governors in a couple of states have championed — and that’s making high-quality preschool available to every child in America.  (Applause.)  We know that kids in these programs grow up likelier to get more education, earn higher wages, form more stable families of their own.  It starts a virtuous cycle, not a vicious one.  And we should invest in that.  We should give all of our children that chance.

And as we empower our young people for future success, the third part of this middle-class economics is empowering our workers.  It’s time to ensure our collective bargaining laws function as they’re supposed to — (applause) — so unions have a level playing field to organize for a better deal for workers and better wages for the middle class.  It’s time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women will have more tools to fight pay discrimination.  (Applause.)  It’s time to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act so workers can’t be fired for who they are or who they love.  (Applause.) 

And even though we’re bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, we’re creating more good-paying jobs in education and health care and business services; we know that we’re going to have a greater and greater portion of our people in the service sector.  And we know that there are airport workers, and fast-food workers, and nurse assistants, and retail salespeople who work their tails off and are still living at or barely above poverty.  (Applause.)  And that’s why it’s well past the time to raise a minimum wage that in real terms right now is below where it was when Harry Truman was in office.  (Applause.)

This shouldn’t be an ideological question.  It was Adam Smith, the father of free-market economics, who once said, “They who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.”  And for those of you who don’t speak old-English — (laughter) — let me translate.  It means if you work hard, you should make a decent living.  (Applause.)  If you work hard, you should be able to support a family. 

Now, we all know the arguments that have been used against a higher minimum wage.  Some say it actually hurts low-wage workers — businesses will be less likely to hire them.  But there’s no solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs, and research shows it raises incomes for low-wage workers and boosts short-term economic growth.  (Applause.) 

Others argue that if we raise the minimum wage, companies will just pass those costs on to consumers.  But a growing chorus of businesses, small and large, argue differently.  And  already, there are extraordinary companies in America that provide decent wages, salaries, and benefits, and training for their workers, and deliver a great product to consumers. 

SAS in North Carolina offers childcare and sick leave.  REI, a company my Secretary of the Interior used to run, offers retirement plans and strives to cultivate a good work balance.  There are companies out there that do right by their workers.  They recognize that paying a decent wage actually helps their bottom line, reduces turnover.  It means workers have more money to spend, to save, maybe eventually start a business of their own. 

A broad majority of Americans agree we should raise the minimum wage.  That’s why, last month, voters in New Jersey decided to become the 20th state to raise theirs even higher.  That’s why, yesterday, the D.C. Council voted to do it, too.  I agree with those voters.  (Applause.)  I agree with those voters, and I’m going to keep pushing until we get a higher minimum wage for hard-working Americans across the entire country.  It will be good for our economy.  It will be good for our families.  (Applause.) 

Number four, as I alluded to earlier, we still need targeted programs for the communities and workers that have been hit hardest by economic change and the Great Recession.  These communities are no longer limited to the inner city.  They’re found in neighborhoods hammered by the housing crisis, manufacturing towns hit hard by years of plants packing up, landlocked rural areas where young folks oftentimes feel like they’ve got to leave just to find a job.  There are communities that just aren’t generating enough jobs anymore. 

So we’ve put forward new plans to help these communities and their residents, because we’ve watched cities like Pittsburgh or my hometown of Chicago revamp themselves.  And if we give more cities the tools to do it — not handouts, but a hand up — cities like Detroit can do it, too.  So in a few weeks, we’ll announce the first of these Promise Zones, urban and rural communities where we’re going to support local efforts focused on a national goal — and that is a child’s course in life should not be determined by the zip code he’s born in, but by the strength of his work ethic and the scope of his dreams.  (Applause.)

And we’re also going to have to do more for the long-term unemployed.  For people who have been out of work for more than six months, often through no fault of their own, life is a catch-22.  Companies won’t give their résumé an honest look because they’ve been laid off so long — but they’ve been laid off so long because companies won’t give their résumé an honest look.  (Laughter.)  And that’s why earlier this year, I challenged CEOs from some of America’s best companies to give these Americans a fair shot.  And next month, many of them will join us at the White House for an announcement about this.

Fifth, we’ve got to revamp retirement to protect Americans in their golden years, to make sure another housing collapse doesn’t steal the savings in their homes.  We’ve also got to strengthen our safety net for a new age, so it doesn’t just protect people who hit a run of bad luck from falling into poverty, but also propels them back out of poverty.

Today, nearly half of full-time workers and 80 percent of part-time workers don’t have a pension or retirement account at their job.  About half of all households don’t have any retirement savings.  So we’re going to have to do more to encourage private savings and shore up the promise of Social Security for future generations.  And remember, these are promises we make to one another.  We don’t do it to replace the free market, but we do it to reduce risk in our society by giving people the ability to take a chance and catch them if they fall.  One study shows that more than half of Americans will experience poverty at some point during their adult lives.  Think about that.  This is not an isolated situation.  More than half of Americans at some point in their lives will experience poverty. 

That’s why we have nutrition assistance or the program known as SNAP, because it makes a difference for a mother who’s working, but is just having a hard time putting food on the table for her kids.  That’s why we have unemployment insurance, because it makes a difference for a father who lost his job and is out there looking for a new one that he can keep a roof over his kids’ heads.  By the way, Christmastime is no time for Congress to tell more than 1 million of these Americans that they have lost their unemployment insurance, which is what will happen if Congress does not act before they leave on their holiday vacation.  (Applause.)

The point is these programs are not typically hammocks for people to just lie back and relax.  These programs are almost always temporary means for hardworking people to stay afloat while they try to find a new job or go into school to retrain themselves for the jobs that are out there, or sometimes just to cope with a bout of bad luck.  Progressives should be open to reforms that actually strengthen these programs and make them more responsive to a 21st century economy.  For example, we should be willing to look at fresh ideas to revamp unemployment and disability programs to encourage faster and higher rates of re-employment without cutting benefits.  We shouldn’t weaken fundamental protections built over generations, because given the constant churn in today’s economy and the disabilities that many of our friends and neighbors live with, they’re needed more than ever.  We should strengthen them and adapt them to new circumstances so they work even better.

But understand that these programs of social insurance benefit all of us, because we don’t know when we might have a run of bad luck.  (Applause.)  We don’t know when we might lose a job.  Of course, for decades, there was one yawning gap in the safety net that did more than anything else to expose working families to the insecurities of today’s economy — namely, our broken health care system.

That’s why we fought for the Affordable Care Act — (applause) — because 14,000 Americans lost their health insurance every single day, and even more died each year because they didn’t have health insurance at all.  We did it because millions of families who thought they had coverage were driven into bankruptcy by out-of-pocket costs that they didn’t realize would be there.  Tens of millions of our fellow citizens couldn’t get any coverage at all.  And Dr. King once said, “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” 

Well, not anymore.  (Applause.)  Because in the three years since we passed this law, the share of Americans with insurance is up, the growth of health care costs are down to their slowest rate in 50 years.  More people have insurance, and more have new benefits and protections — 100 million Americans who have gained the right for free preventive care like mammograms and contraception; the more than 7 million Americans who have saved an average of $1,200 on their prescription medicine; every American who won’t go broke when they get sick because their insurance can’t limit their care anymore.

More people without insurance have gained insurance — more than 3 million young Americans who have been able to stay on their parents’ plan, the more than half a million Americans and counting who are poised to get covered starting on January 1st, some for the very first time.

And it is these numbers — not the ones in any poll — that will ultimately determine the fate of this law.  (Applause.)  It’s the measurable outcomes in reduced bankruptcies and reduced hours that have been lost because somebody couldn’t make it to work, and healthier kids with better performance in schools, and young entrepreneurs who have the freedom to go out there and try a new idea — those are the things that will ultimately reduce a major source of inequality and help ensure more Americans get the start that they need to succeed in the future.

     I have acknowledged more than once that we didn’t roll out parts of this law as well as we should have.  But the law is already working in major ways that benefit millions of Americans right now, even as we’ve begun to slow the rise in health care costs, which is good for family budgets, good for federal and state budgets, and good for the budgets of businesses small and large.  So this law is going to work.  And for the sake of our economic security, it needs to work.  (Applause.) 

And as people in states as different as California and Kentucky sign up every single day for health insurance, signing up in droves, they’re proving they want that economic security.  If the Senate Republican leader still thinks he is going to be able to repeal this someday, he might want to check with the more than 60,000 people in his home state who are already set to finally have coverage that frees them from the fear of financial ruin, and lets them afford to take their kids to see a doctor.  (Applause.) 

So let me end by addressing the elephant in the room here, which is the seeming inability to get anything done in Washington these days.  I realize we are not going to resolve all of our political debates over the best ways to reduce inequality and increase upward mobility this year, or next year, or in the next five years.  But it is important that we have a serious debate about these issues.  For the longer that current trends are allowed to continue, the more it will feed the cynicism and fear that many Americans are feeling right now — that they’ll never be able to repay the debt they took on to go to college, they’ll never be able to save enough to retire, they’ll never see their own children land a good job that supports a family.

And that’s why, even as I will keep on offering my own ideas for expanding opportunity, I’ll also keep challenging and welcoming those who oppose my ideas to offer their own.  If Republicans have concrete plans that will actually reduce inequality, build the middle class, provide more ladders of opportunity to the poor, let’s hear them.  I want to know what they are.  If you don’t think we should raise the minimum wage, let’s hear your idea to increase people’s earnings.  If you don’t think every child should have access to preschool, tell us what you’d do differently to give them a better shot. 

If you still don’t like Obamacare — and I know you don’t — (laughter) — even though it’s built on market-based ideas of choice and competition in the private sector, then you should explain how, exactly, you’d cut costs, and cover more people, and make insurance more secure.  You owe it to the American people to tell us what you are for, not just what you’re against.  (Applause.)  That way we can have a vigorous and meaningful debate.  That’s what the American people deserve.  That’s what the times demand.  It’s not enough anymore to just say we should just get our government out of the way and let the unfettered market take care of it — for our experience tells us that’s just not true.  (Applause.)

Look, I’ve never believed that government can solve every problem or should — and neither do you.  We know that ultimately our strength is grounded in our people — individuals out there, striving, working, making things happen.  It depends on community, a rich and generous sense of community — that’s at the core of what happens at THEARC here every day.  You understand that turning back rising inequality and expanding opportunity requires parents taking responsibility for their kids, kids taking responsibility to work hard.  It requires religious leaders who mobilize their congregations to rebuild neighborhoods block by block, requires civic organizations that can help train the unemployed, link them with businesses for the jobs of the future.  It requires companies and CEOs to set an example by providing decent wages, and salaries, and benefits for their workers, and a shot for somebody who is down on his or her luck.  We know that’s our strength — our people, our communities, our businesses.

But government can’t stand on the sidelines in our efforts.  Because government is us.  It can and should reflect our deepest values and commitments.  And if we refocus our energies on building an economy that grows for everybody, and gives every child in this country a fair chance at success, then I remain confident that the future still looks brighter than the past, and that the best days for this country we love are still ahead.  (Applause.)

Study details super-sized costs of fast food’s super low wages

The fast-food industry costs American taxpayers nearly $7 billion a year because its jobs pay so little that 52 percent of fast-food workers are forced to enroll their families in public assistance programs, according to a report released this week by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley.

Ken Jacobs, chair of the university’s Center for Labor Research and Education, said in a news release, “The taxpayer costs we discovered were staggering. People who work in fast-food jobs are paid so little that having to rely on public assistance is the rule, rather than the exception, even for those working 40 hours or more a week.”

Fast food is a $200 billion-year industry but nationally the median wage for front-line workers at the restaurants is $8.69 an hour and just 13 percent of the jobs offer health benefits.

The research found that fast food jobs also usually offer part-time hours.

The situation – low wages, few hours and poor benefits – leaves many workers in need of some help. The researchers said families of front-line fast-food workers are enrolled in public programs at more than twice the rate of the overall workforce.

The government assistance adds up to:

• Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, $3.9 billion per year.

• Earned Income Tax Credit payments, $1.95 billion per year.

• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, $1.04 billion per year.

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, $82 million per year.

According to the UC paper, the states where the fast-food industry’s low wages cost U.S. taxpayers the most are California at $717 million, New York at $708 million, Texas at $556 million, Illinois at $368 million and Florida at $348 million.

“This is the public cost of low-wage jobs in America,” said Berkeley economist Sylvia Allegretto, co-chair of the Center for Wage and Employment Dynamics. “The cost is public because taxpayers bear it. Yet it remains hidden in national policy debates about poverty, employment and public spending.”

Fast Food Forward provided the funding to conduct the research. The coalition consists of labor, religious and community groups campaigning for higher wages and fair employment at fast food restaurants.

The report’s release follows months of direct action demonstrations by fast-food workers in 60 cities, including Milwaukee, for better wages and benefits. In Wisconsin, researchers said there are an estimated 28,000 fast-food workers.

Marc Doussard, one of the report’s co-authors and an assistant professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, said the report helps dispel the myth of fast-food workers as largely untrained teenagers.

“More than two-thirds of core frontline fast-food workers across the country are over the age of 20, and 68 percent are the main wage earners in their families,” Doussard said. “And more than a quarter of Americans working in fast-food restaurants are parents, raising at least one child.”