By

Bryce Covert /

The Nation/ July 30, 2012, 4:23 PM

Will women get pushed off the fiscal cliff?

Bojana Coklyat is seen in art class at the Concordia Learning Center at St. Joseph's School for the Blind in Jersey City, N.J., April 23, 2012.

Bojana Coklyat is seen in art class at the Concordia Learning Center at St. Joseph's School for the Blind in Jersey City, N.J., April 23, 2012. / AFP/Getty Images

(The Nation) Remember that time when Congress almost defaulted on our debt? It may seem like a distant nightmare, but we're still living with repercussions from the debt ceiling showdown. In order to get Congress to lift the ceiling a year ago, President Obama struck a deal that will cut $2.4 trillion in spending over 10 years and formed a Congressional committee that was supposed to recommend ways to cut another $1.5 trillion from the deficit. If the committee failed to come up with the cuts, sequestration would kick into gear, with $1 trillion in cuts evenly split between defense and non-defense spending come January 2. The latter never came to fruition, so we're now on a collision course with the former.

These automatic cuts, known as sequestration, have (unsurprisingly) become a political hot potato. They've even trickled into the campaign trail. But if the cuts move forward, the pain won't just be political. They'll hurt everyday Americans -- but not across the board. Women are going to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the burden. While the defense lobby has been loudly pushing back on the $500 million to be slashed from its budgets, the $500 million cuts from domestic programs could be devastating, especially for women.

Education will take a big hit, which impacts women in more ways than one. Immediately will be the fact that 100,000 children could get bumped from Head Start's rolls, out of a total of 962,000. That's because the automatic cuts will take a $590 million chunk out of federal spending on the program. That comes on top of a huge decline in state financing for the program over the past decade or so -- it fell 45 percent, or $122 million. While there have been concerns raised about whether Head Start's effects actually stay with enrollees, working mothers need more child care options when they head to their jobs, not fewer. Less than 60 percent of three-to-five-year-olds are enrolled in an organized child care or early education program, and just about half of low-income children are. Those numbers can only go down after these cuts take effect.

Speaking of childcare, working mothers who rely on options other than Head Start will also suffer. Assistance for 80,000 kids will dry up after the cuts take effect. The recession has already hammered this spending at the state level. While federal funds had flowed in to support these programs through the stimulus, by the end of 2010 the money had dried up. That meant that thirty-seven states pulled back on assistance in one form or another last year, making families worse off than a decade ago, according to analysis by the National Women's Law Center.

Women will also, of course, share some of the pain from cuts to other programs like AIDS drug assistance and substance abuse treatment programs. And while these cuts sound bad now, they could actually get worse down the road. While there's a now "firewall" between defense and non-defense spending to make sure both are equally cut, that disappears after two years. NWLC has warned that this could mean a bigger share of the cuts fall on the non-security programs at that point.

The spending cuts will trickle down in other ways. It's not just mothers who will find their struggles increasing. Women are the majority of the public sector workforce -- and they've lost more than their share of those jobs as federal and state spending has been slashed during the recovery. These cuts will only push that trend along. Cuts to Head Start alone will eliminate 30,000 teacher, aide and administrative positions.

Other public sector workers could be hit. If (and when) federal spending is cut from state and local budgets, many may have to eye even more government layoffs. Just after the debt ceiling deal was announced, mayors and governors were already bracing for the cuts to impact their budgets. Budget restrictions at the federal level also mean many agencies will likely have to turn to furloughs, hiring freezes and layoffs.

The sequestration cuts may have morphed into an election-year football, but they have real consequences for Americans who are already struggling to get by. And women, who have really suffered from the sluggish recovery, are going to be hit fastest and hardest. While figures in the millions and billions are hurled like insults from side of the aisle to the other, it's worth keeping in mind how drastic the real life consequences will be and who will feel them.

Bryce Covert is the Editor of the Roosevelt Institute's New Deal 2.0 blog. She lives and works in New York. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

The Nation
17 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Galactus909 says:
First of all the article uses the term 500 Million, not 500 Billion. Second, after reading this article, I am almost thinking that a forced trillion dollar cut combined with increased taxes could be a good thing. It would do a lot to cut budget deficits.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Sir_Andrew_Bruskin says:
Most of "the programs" (Child Develpment Centers) are fOr the benefit of women.

Men pay tax and it's used to facilitate courts and programs that break up good homes, take children away from good fathers and support women in giving men a run for the very same income the tax is being collected ON!

If you can't feed 'em, DON"T breed 'em! Wear a BAG!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Jaylah54200 says:
Why is this written in future tense?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Dmorris_Engage_America says:
Americans deserve full scale tax reform that follows the principles of the Bowles-Simpson plan. http://******/noTDPF
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
1stlttightwad says:
See what happens when you tell the American people that you can cover 30 million more peoples health care and that it will save us money? Tell you what.Next time one of your friends plan a wedding reception tell em, instead of asking 100 to attend, try 300..WE'LL SAVE MONEY.Hah,Hah.
reply
retiredgustav replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Who do you think pays for those 30 million who don't have health insurance now (hint look in the mirror.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
tsigili says:
Amusing.

What special benefits do men get??????????

Time for the government to stop subsidizing women and kids, and run the country, not the household.
reply
CaptainSmollett replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
...while the US Advisory Panel says MEN should NOT get screened for prostate cancer, the second highest cause of cancer death among men.
A preview of what's to come under Obamacare - government panels gambling with our lives instead of our own highly-trained doctors giving personal recommendations...all to save a few bucks on a blood test?
retiredgustav replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
CaptainSmollett... Please cite you source. I believe the US Advisory board doesn't recommend prostate screening for those with a life expectancy of less than 10 years. This was their position long before Romney/Obamacare.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
shipwrecked54 says:
'Women are the majority of the public sector workforce' - I didn't know that! So women have scooping up our tax dollars at a disproportionate rate and the author wants this to go on forever? We have a spending problem..Lets make it 2.4 trillion over 5 years - not 10! This is serious!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sepa2 says:
Most of these jobs are kind of welfare and do not grow economy
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
CaptainSmollett says:
Everyone should be aware of the Dem's ultimatum:
If the GOP doesn't agree to raise taxes on income over $250,000 annually, the Dems will force taxes to increase on everyone.
reply
democracy8 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Since those tax breaks were originally supposed to expire after 10 years, it seems that it's the Republicans holding the middle class hostage so that the wealthy can continue to benefit.
CaptainSmollett replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Demo,
1. Raising taxes on anyone now will only harm the economy.
2. The existance of wealthy folks does NOT adversely effect your miserable lot in life.
3. Why should you receive more tax breaks than someone who has contibuted more to society (thus earned more)?
4. Why should our society punish success, and take capital out of the hands of consumers and investors?

You must be consumed by envy and self-pity.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sallychicago says:
For the past month, I have met only women who are unemployed. Whatever progress made, like African Americans, have been taken back by this economy. It will take a generation to reclaim their advances.
reply
CaptainSmollett replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
We got what we voted for.
Solarrays247 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I never voted for Bush!
See all 17 Comments