Peaceful Revolution: McCain a Clear and Present Danger to Families

Many voters and pundits see John McCain as a maverick, someone willing to cross party lines on important issues. Maybe that is so in some ways, but his record on family issues is consistent. He opposes what American families need (see Take Care Net Summary).

Last year McCain voted against a $35 billion expansion of a health insurance program for poor children (SCHIPS). How can anyone oppose health insurance for poor children? Are we supposed to blame children because they cannot afford coverage? And now, as a "benefit" for the declining group of employees provided with health insurance through their employers, he wants to tax those expenditures (albeit with a subsidy to insurance companies when families purchase private health insurance on their own). That will make health insurance even less affordable than at present and means, oops, even more children will be without health insurance in the future if McCain wins the presidency. Oh yes, and making those payments taxable is part of McCain's ostensible "solution" for the many Americans who have no health insurance today.

Plenty of low-income working families need a higher minimum wage. Indeed, by last year when a small federal increase finally passed after 10 years of nothing, a majority of employees already had a higher minimum wage provided by states fed up with inaction on Capitol Hill. It was the first time in the 70-year history of the federal minimum that it had dropped so low as to be irrelevant for most workers. And where was McCain? He voted against raising the federal minimum eight times in the last four years, and even voted to abolish it in 2007.

McCain also voted repeatedly against the right of millions of workers to overtime pay. This is a critical issue for all of the working families who depend on overtime pay just to pay the rent and feed their kids. But McCain supported an amendment that would have disqualified as many as 10 million working women and men (those unlucky enough to work at firms with less than $1 million in annual revenue) from overtime pay protection. And when the Bush administration came out with rules that threatened the overtime rights of 6 million workers, he voted against a measure to protect overtime pay from the Bush rules.

One of the most reliable paths for working families to the middle class and economic security is union membership. Union members' wages are 30% higher than wages for non-union members. What's more, union workers are far more likely to have adequate health insurance and pensions. So it makes sense that a pro-family candidate would support the Employee Free Choice Act to restore workers' fundamental freedom to organize into unions. However, John McCain "strongly opposes" it, and he voted for a national right-to-work-for-less law that would try to eliminate unions totally.

Okay, on one of the centerpieces of federal legislation to help working families succeed, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, McCain did eventually vote in favor. However, that was after voting for an amendment forcing the eventual suspension of the Act unless the government either certified that compliance would not increase business expenses or provided financial assistance to businesses to cover any related costs. What an odd notion. Employees are only supposed to get sick or welcome a new child into the world so long as it is costless for their employer?

And maybe worst of the batch, McCain supported the 2005 bankruptcy legislation. This worsened a situation in which almost half of all personal bankruptcies are due to a family member becoming ill. Over three-quarters of those folks had health insurance when health problems arose. Further, there was an amendment guaranteeing that workers, many of whom had given decades to their employers, would receive back pay for vacation and severance before creditors got bailed out. McCain voted against the amendment.

Of course, McCain might flip-flop and follow the Republican Party's new American Families Agenda. That document promises to provide a family-friendly work week, take care of our parents and grandparents, assure health care for all, make pensions portable, and provide health care for our neediest children. If so, that is one flip-flop we would welcome. Nonetheless, McCain's record speaks clearly and in a single voice: he does not value family in any meaningful sense of the word. Senator McCain's presidential candidacy represents a clear and present danger to American families.

A Peaceful Revolution is a weekly blog about work/life satisfaction done in collaboration with MomsRising.org. Read a post by leading thinkers every week.

Comments

[RepublicanBrain]

This is hardly a clear and present danger to American families. What did he do wrong, refusing to expand SCHIP? Not increasing the minimum wage? You're not considering what those proposals do when they are enacted. Such price hikes are passed down to the families you claim to support. A store that must increase it expenditures must increase it's profit, and they will do so by increasing prices, and that goes to the people who use them.

If you want to save families, do not create leeches utterly dependent on government subsidy. Instead, make the families better. Knowledge is the key. I have health insurance that costs $60 a month, and a minimum wage worker gets that in two days. I get it because I'm healthy. I don't smoke, drink, do any illicit drugs, or anything stupid. It wasn't that difficult. And I'm covered. I don't waste my money purchasing everything I see. That is true family safety: making smart decisions.

[kathy001]

Gosh, it must be wonderful being you.

[RepublicanBrain]

I'm blessed, I truly am, but this isn't about me. It's about families, and doing what's good for them.

[CintiBlue]

Sorry you couldn't include a picture so we could all see perfection.

[RepublicanBrain]

Can we get back to discussing families. I cited that example solely because it is the one to follow, not to gain praise or ridicule.

[TheBlackCat]

If these things cripple families, how do you explain the fact that living standards are MUCH higher and poverty rates MUCH lower in Western Europe and Canada for working class families which enjoy benefits such as a fair minimum wage and garunteed health insurance?

"Many Americans - self-confident and rightfully proud of their nation's economic accomplishments - don't believe that other rich nations beat out the US in a number of areas. But statistics say that's the case.

In terms of the percent of its population living at or below the poverty line, for instance, the US ranks worst among 16 wealthy countries, according to the Luxembourg Income Study. That study found that 17 percent of Americans are poor. As for child poverty, the US also sits on the bottom, with 21.9 percent.

Finland has the lowest overall poverty rate, with 5.4 percent.

On Tuesday, the US Census Bureau is scheduled to release data indicating whether poverty last year increased for the fifth year in a row. The official US poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7 percent - that's 37 million Americans.

"Many would argue that it isn't how well off the affluent are in a society that matters most of all," the EPI study says, "but how the most vulnerable fare...." "

-The Christian Science Monitor

As one who lives in Europe AND America, I think most Americans (who have not traveled abroad) would be floored at how much better the living conditions are in Western Europe.