Reid's bill falls short for women and minorities

In Congress' tug-of-war around the economy and jobs, last week Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader, pulled a move that could make Americans sink deeper into the mud. He rejected weeks worth of bipartisan work on an $85 billion jobs bill from the House supported by Obama by introducing in the Senate an incredibly ineffective, pared-down $15 billion bill that won't work to solve the employment problem, but will cause more problems, especially for women and people of color.

Reid's bill will likely tick off more Americans than it appeases. The best way to understand the bill is to break down January's unemployment numbers. While women's unemployment rate fell short of men's-- about 7.9 percent compared to 10 percent of men, sparking some to call this a "man-cession"--the number of women who are unemployed within this recession is "a number larger than men's increased unemployment in most previous recessions," according to a study released this month by the Institute for Women's Policy Research. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate for black women rose to 13.3 percent, while it fell to 6.8 percent for white women. Black men overall rose to their highest percentage yet, to 17.6 percent.

But politicians have not focused on women's employment. They've invested more energy into creating jobs in traditionally male fields, such as construction and manufacturing, the Institute study concludes. "Job losses that have also occurred among women in such sectors as retail, hospitality, and personal and business services are not discussed." They've also devoted little attention to programs to benefit people of color, who have a tougher time finding employment than whites.

Reid's bill is no different, and in many ways worse. It not only scraps the House's plan for $48.3 billion for infrastructure projects on roads, bridges and clean water, eliminating jobs which would go to men (including men of color), but the bill also scraps desperately-needed aid for state governments, which typically fund sectors that employ and benefit more women. Even more egregiously, it fails to protect those who are currently unemployed. It does not include unemployment benefit extensions or health care coverage for the unemployed. Economically, this makes little sense. With fewer consumers, demand is down, profit is down, thus, companies won't hire. The only way now to set the cycle aright is for the government to spend more on jobs, not less. -Jean