At a time when workers’ rights and even child labor laws are under attack, it is encouraging to see a significant and hard-won victory for farm workers in New Mexico. Just before the holidays, Second District Judge Valerie Huling ruled that farm and ranch workers in New Mexico are entitled to be covered by workers’ compensation benefits. The New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty brought the lawsuit on behalf of workers who were injured on the job. At question was the constitutionality of a state law that denies workers’ compensation benefits to farm and ranch workers. New Mexico Voices for Children had long supported amending the law to allow them to get coverage, but legislation to do so repeatedly failed in the Legislature.

Congratulations and gratitude goes out to our friends at the Center on Law and Poverty for representing the workers and winning the case. Our thanks also go out to the injured workers who were courageous enough to bring the lawsuit on behalf of the 10,000 agricultural workers who will now benefit directly from workers’ compensation benefits. It’s a good time to remember that when more of us are protected, all of us benefit from a safer and more just society.

Bill Jordan is NM Voices’ Policy Director

If you’d like to comment on this blog post, please do so on our FaceBook page.

The shopping malls are filled with holiday spirit, colorful displays, and high-tech gadgets like the latest cell phones and video games.  It’s true that kids love these kinds of things for Christmas. But, as we lighten our wallets to acquire these gifts, we might want to pause for a moment and ask, “Is this the best way we can show not just our own children—but all children—that we love and care for them?” For children who are homeless and extremely vulnerable during this general time of cheer, there are things we can do to have a more lasting, positive effect.

The number of children experiencing homelessness in New Mexico is growing fast.  We have 16,260 homeless children—that’s enough kids to fill The Pit, UNM’s basketball arena. These children are often hungry, frequently sick, and always fearful of what each new day may bring. They never know how long they’ll stay in one place and many of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or other emotional problems. They live in a world basically invisible to most of us. They have no power and no voice to be heard by the policy-makers who could help. 

The current recession—accompanied by long-term unemployment, and stunning numbers of housing foreclosures and personal bankruptcy rates—has led to an increase in child and family homelessness. Up to six million families in the U.S., many of them middle- and low-income and minority families, have lost their homes due to foreclosure, and about double that number may lose their homes before the economy regains its balance. In New Mexico, the number of homeless children has more than doubled since 2007 when the recession began, yet we have no state planning effort focused on addressing this immense and growing problem.

Christmas for these children will be anything but magical. Even the massive and generous charitable contributions, the donated toys and gifts caring people provide, will probably only last through the holiday season. Then it’s back to life as usual for these kids.

As a new parent, I know that what my child needs from me—not just this Christmas, but long-term—is my presence, love, and care. He also needs a sense of security and safety much more than the high-ticket gifts of the season. This is also what homeless children in our state need, and though I cannot give that to them directly, I can stand and be a voice for them with those who make the policy decisions that can impact their young lives for better or worse.

What all children in New Mexico really need this Christmas—and year round—is for policy makers to address issues central to their health, education, and their families’ economic well-being. These are powerful issues and our action (or inaction) on them today will affect every child’s future and ability to attain the American dream. Parents can also be powerful advocates and need to ask our state’s policy-makers to improve the lives of these children and their families—to save families from foreclosure and children from homelessness, to keep food on their tables, and ensure they have access to health care and the early care and education opportunities that will set them on the path to a solid and successful future.  As a parent, I hope to see more parents using their voices to speak for children in the new year—giving a more enduring and valuable gift for all our children. 

For more information on how you can get involved in ending child homelessness, visit the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness,  check out the Campaign to End Child Homelessness—a program of the National Center on Family Homelessness (or go directly to the New Mexico Campaign page)—or contact direct service providers like Cuidando los Niños. You can also make a donation to New Mexico Voices for Children to support our work to improve the economic security of New Mexico’s most vulnerable families and kids.

Kwaku Sraha is NM Voices’ Finance Manager.
Chris Hollis, NM Voices’ KIDS COUNT Director, also contributed to this post.

If you’d like to comment on this blog post, please do so on our FaceBook page.

Federal health care reform (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, or ACA) will provide health insurance to an estimated 315,000 previously uninsured New Mexicans. In doing so, it will bring billions of new federal dollars into our state’s economy, creating many new jobs, and generating over $1 billion in new state and local tax revenue by 2020.

Beginning in 2014, Medicaid will expand to cover almost all low-income New Mexicans under age 65. The New Mexico Human Services Department projects that by 2020 New Mexico will have added between 133,000 and 183,000 new Medicaid enrollees. These will primarily be adults who were previously unable to afford health insurance. Also beginning in 2014, the state will have a new health insurance exchange where individuals who earn too much to be eligible for the new Medicaid coverage will be able to purchase private insurance. They will receive sliding-scale federal financial assistance to help pay for their insurance.

The new federal dollars flowing to New Mexico health care providers will generate billions more in economic activity, creating tens of thousands of new jobs and raising about $1billion in new state tax revenue—far more than the state’s share of the cost of implementing ACA. The more aggressive the state is in expanding health care to uninsured New Mexicans, the greater the health and economic benefits to the state.

The table below is a summary of the estimated economic effects of implementing PPACA in the state of New Mexico during the first seven years (2014-2020). As the table shows, the new state tax revenue created by all of this new economic activity will more than pay for the new spending required by the state for Medicaid expansion.

These data are set forth in greater detail in two reports by New Mexico Voices for Children released in August of 2011: The Economic Benefits of Health Care Reform in New Mexico and The Tax Revenue Benefits of Health Care Reform in New Mexico.

Covering so many more people with health insurance will have tremendous benefits, not only in terms of better medical outcomes and quality of life but for our state’s economy. New Mexico has a very high rate of residents without health insurance, and that means our health care providers have a great deal of uncompensated medical costs. Much of this cost is shifted to those who do have private insurance—adding $2,300 to the average New Mexico family’s health insurance premium every year. New Mexico has the highest cost shifting in the country.

Our high cost shifting is an effective economic development disincentive for the Land of Enchantment. Who is going to want to create high-wage jobs here knowing that their health insurance costs will be on an unsustainable upward trajectory? The ACA is the only thing on the horizon that will help with this, by getting most New Mexicans insured so their health care costs aren’t passed along to businesses that provide health insurance.

New Mexico was just awarded a $34 million federal grant to establish the state health insurance exchange. This is a great step forward, and we hope the state will aggressively implement health care reform to really benefit our state’s health and economy. 

Nick Estes is NM Voices’ Deputy Policy Director

If you’d like to comment on this blog post, please do so on our FaceBook page.

Have you ever wondered what our children will think about what we did today when it’s become a part of history?  When they’re old enough to understand what’s going on today, whether it’s 15, 20, or 25 years from now, what are they going to think about our today?  Right now. 

Decisions that our leaders make today will affect today’s babies now and when they become the young adults of tomorrow, yet it seems that the only comments ever made about the future are simply political rhetoric.  “We have to cut government spending and bring down the deficit so our children don’t assume our debt.”  This makes sense when you listen to the words, but what’s the real message?  That making smart investments today to ensure a strong future is not a good strategy? I’m all for protecting future generations from assuming debts that they didn’t incur, but hasn’t every generation faced the same issue?  At what cost do we only think about cutting expenses and not increasing revenue?  Ask any business owner—minimizing expenses is always good, but increasing your revenues is much better!

I keep hearing that our public education system needs to be “overhauled” and we need to “stop throwing money at the problem.”  But I’ve yet to hear what this “overhaul” consists of.  Do we stop funding education altogether and produce a generation of the educated “haves” and the undereducated “have nots”?  Like one of my many wise public school teachers used to tell us in class, “don’t just point out the problem, give me a solution.”  Whatever happened to the standard investment mantra of “you gotta spend money to make money”?  Why doesn’t it apply to education or social services?

So back to wondering what our children will think when looking back at the decisions of today.  Will they be asking questions such as: 

• “I looked it up, but can’t find a good definition for ‘middle class.’ What was that?”  
• “Really, there used to be a time when helping rich people get richer was more important than making sure that America had an educated and healthy workforce?”  
• “What was Social Security?” 
• “Is it true that big corporations were sitting on trillions of dollars in cash in 2011, but didn’t use any of it to invest in education, jobs, or America?” 

Or will they ask:

• “You old people sure were smart to make early childhood education, public education, health care, and most importantly, the children, a priority when you were planning for the future. What made you decide to do that?”

Children first, ideology second.  That’s how decisions should be made in order to prepare this great country of ours for the future.  I hope the comments made in the future by today’s children are reflective of smart decisions that the adults of today make. 

Troy Martinez is NM Voices’ Interim Executive Director

If you’d like to comment on this blog post, please do so on our FaceBook page.

Lenore Wolfe, a long-time early childhood leader, friend, and advocate, passed away October 7, 2011, at age 95. Lenore was a role model, mentor, and leader for many of us in the early childhood community. She touched many lives and remains with us as an example of how one person can truly make a difference.

Lenore was one of the individuals responsible for influencing the state of New Mexico to offer early childhood programs in the public schools. She established the Head Start program at Laguna Pueblo (which recently won a national award) and helped develop bilingual early childhood education on the Navajo Reservation and throughout the pueblos. Lenore worked with more than 18 tribal programs in many communities to integrate tribal and traditional values into their curriculum. This work even took her to Nepal to help develop a similar program.

Among her many pursuits, Lenore served on the APS School Board, was one of the founding members of the NM Association for the Education of Young Children, was a board member for NM Voices for Children, worked at the NM Public Education Department, and retired at age 93 from consulting with the city of Albuquerque’s child development centers. It was only fitting that she was honored on her 90th birthday with a reception inside the Roundhouse in Santa Fe, where she spent many hours advocating for funding and to establish standards for public school kindergarten education.

Lenore spent her long life working to improve the rights of others, following a path set down by her father in Oklahoma. As a college student in New York City, she was a labor organizer. She started her advocacy in early childhood education in the 1960s in New Mexico. She earned both her B.A. and M.A. in elementary education at UNM, and began her career as a preschool teacher and as an instructor at the Navajo Nation through UNM’s Navajo Study Bilingual Teacher Training Program.

Lenore was also known for her menagerie of birds and reptiles at her home, which was often a destination for various elementary school field trips. In her 50s, after her Nepal experience, she began traveling the world. In her 70s, she became a docent at the Rio Grande Zoo. In her 80s, she was a docent at the NM Museum of Natural History and, in her 90s, she worked with many child development efforts.

Only ten days before her death, she said, “It’s been a good life.” She indeed taught many people how to live.

Lenore Wolfe’s life will be celebrated at the UNM Alumni Memorial Chapel on Saturday, November 12, 2011, at 4:00 p.m.

In lieu of flowers, the family requests that contributions be made to the NM Association for the Education of Young Children’s T.E.A.C.H. scholarship program for training teachers for early childhood education (NMAEYC, 2201 Buena Vista SE, Suite 42, Albuquerque, NM 87106).

We will miss you, Lenore.

Myra Segal is the Deputy Policy Director at New Mexico Voices for Children with a focus on early childhood policy

If you’d like to comment on this blog post, please do so on our FaceBook page.

We congratulate Governor Martinez and CFYD Secretary Deines for putting some much-needed funding into child care services for our most vulnerable children. This has been a difficult time for families and for CYFD, as their budget came up short last year and they were faced with the difficult decision of where to cut. Now that more revenue arose in the department, I applaud CYFD and the Governor for making child care assistance a priority.

Child care assistance is key to enabling parents to work. Since many parents can only find low-wage jobs, and child care is so expensive (it’s more than UNM tuition and can eat a third of each paycheck), sliding-fee child care assistance also means that these children are more likely to get a higher quality of care. These are families living at poverty level, earning no more than $22,350 a year for a family of four. These families live on $1,860 a month while quality child care can cost $700 a month. When income requirements were tightened last year it meant that nearly 7,000 children were put on a waiting list. The wonderful news from the Governor’s announcement is that 1,300 families will be able to get assistance and get their child into higher-quality care.

The other part of this good news is that CYFD is reinstating the 4 percent that it had to cut in reimbursement rates to child care providers. Facing a budget shortfall last year, CYFD had to make tough choices. This reimbursement rate is already lower than the market rate, and child care centers that accept children on the program only get reimbursed for a portion of the actual costs (much in the same way that doctors who take Medicare and Medicaid patients are reimbursed). The funding shortfall has had real impacts on families and small businesses, as a number of child care centers had no choice but to close their doors.

It has been gratifying to see the media attention given to the impact that revenue decisions like the reimbursement rate cuts have had on small businesses and families. Yet, we aren’t ready to say “mission accomplished.” Too many of New Mexico’s children do not have the opportunity to access the important high-quality services that are proven to set them on the path to success in school and in life. I am happy for the 1,300 children who will now be getting higher-quality child care and hope that the 5,600 children who remain on the waiting list will be served very soon.

We urge you to follow the funding story as we approach the legislative session next January and hope that you will speak up with us in support of New Mexico’s children.

For more information about high-quality child care, see: www.newmexicokids.org

Myra Segal is NM Voices’ Deputy Policy Director.

A reader’s letter recently published in the Albuquerque Journal, which took aim at the Occupy Wall Street/99% movement, stated that America doesn’t need to “level the playing field” because it’s already level for everybody. This is hardly a new supposition—it’s woven into our national mythology that anyone can “make it” in America if they just work hard enough. But it got me thinking about statistical probability (which is quite a feat considering that math was always my least favorite subject). The letter writer’s point seemed to be that, since the rich are beholden to no one for their own financial success, then the poor have no one to blame but themselves for their own financial failure. But here’s the thing: if the playing field was indeed fair and even, then—statistically—equal rates of people from every socioeconomic level would end up as financial failures. And that’s simply not the case.

I see the “playing field” as a metaphor for life—that is, life as a marathon. If the playing field was level, everyone would begin from the same starting point and would run on the same equally smooth or equally rugged track. Everyone would have to jump the same number of equally high hurdles. You reach the finish line by becoming the best person you can be, as well as an engaged and accepted member of society where you make a positive contribution. In that sense, the finish line isn’t really the end of the race—but a goal to be achieved along the way.

So, all things being equal, the percentage of people who don’t make it to the finish line—the people who stumble and are sidelined by drugs, crime, gang activity, and other problems—would represent the same percentages of the populous that make up the different socioeconomic levels of the country. In other words, if half of the people in this country come from the middle- and upper-classes, then half of the people in jail should also come from the middle- and upper-classes. But the numbers tell a very different story.

A report by Every Child Matters Education Fund shows that the vast majority of people in our prison system come from low-income backgrounds. Similarly, numerous studies have shown a strong link between poverty and low rates of graduation from high school. Of course, people like the Journal letter writer could try and use that information to back up their argument—that people are poor because they make bad choices, like dropping out of high school or getting involved in drugs. But such a conclusion is erroneous in one important way: we’re not dropped on to the playing field fully grown at age 18, when we are old enough to make the decisions that will lead to our financial success or failure. We all begin at the starting line as babies—greatly influenced by an environment that is completely beyond our control.

No matter what you think about poor adults, there is no way you can make the case that children choose to grow up in poverty or that it’s something they brought on themselves. When it comes to your socioeconomic status as a child, none of us has a choice. So if you’re born on a starting line that’s way behind the starting line for babies born to middle class families, chances are that you’ll still be behind when you get to the age where you can take the reins of your financial future. It should come as no surprise, then, that the vast majority of adults who live in poverty also grew up in poverty.

Not only do children who grow up in poverty start behind, they are also very likely to come up against hurdles that will set them back further. This is because one of the most basic foundations for success as adults is laid during early childhood. More than 80 percent of brain development occurs before we reach the age of five. During these years the architecture of the brain is created—it is the frame upon which later learning will be hung. The quality of our later learning—and whether or not we will succeed in school and life—is dependent on the quality of the architecture built in our early years. The quality of life—both good and bad—in our early years will influence the quality of the architecture. If our caregivers are nurturing, responsive, and educated, we’re likely to build good, solid brain architecture. If our caregivers sit us down in front of the TV instead of interacting with us, our brain architecture will not be as robust. If we grow up in an environment where there is chronic, toxic stress, brought on by the economic instability of poverty or the emotional chaos of a whole host of poverty-related problems (drug use, untreated mental illness, the incarceration of parents, etc.), we will build a different kind of brain architecture altogether—the kind that constantly has us on high alert, waiting for the next crisis. This architecture is not conducive to listening to your teacher or following instructions in the classroom.

Regardless of whether you think the playing field is level for adults, only someone in deep denial could conclude that it is level for children. And only the most pessimistic among us could espouse that we will not be far better off as a society if we address this inequality among our most vulnerable citizens. After all, as Frederick Douglass said, it is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. It’s also cheaper and makes for a stronger country and economy.

I was reading an article today aimed at telling the story of the new challenges that immigrant families in Alabama are facing.  Alabama recently passed legislation that has been deemed among the most severe immigration policies undertaken by a state. The law allows police officers to detain people during routine traffic stops or arrests if a “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the country without documentation. Now I have heard all of the arguments to support this type of divisive legislation, but I don’t want to spend time talking about the legal implications right now. Today, I want to talk about the children.

Back to the article. The story was centered on the fear that parents in Alabama now have about their children’s future. Many are finding friends and family members who will take their children in if they themselves are arrested or, worse, deported. They are meeting with local advocacy organizations to get legal advice on how to ensure the safety of their children, many of whom were born in the United States.

While reading the story, it got me thinking about a conversation I recently had with a friend who is expecting.  She was talking about how scary it was to think about leaving her child with a stranger when she goes back to work. She talked about how difficult it was going to be to let go of the reins and allow another individual to care for her child for eight hours a day. I gave her the same advice any friend would. I assured her that she would be spending lots of quality time with her child and that she would find the perfect child care provider.

Then I thought about the mothers in Alabama who are planning for their children’s futures not just for eight hours a day but, possibly, for the rest of their lives. Many immigrant parents come to the United States seeking a better life for their children—giving their children access to better education and economic opportunities. Basically, what every parent wants for their child. Now imagine wanting that so badly that you will do everything in your power to protect that child from being without a family on this quest.

The Alabama senator who sponsored this legislation said he wonders if these stories are “designed to pull on heart strings and build sympathy for illegal immigrants.” I would respond to that by saying, these stories are not “designed” or crafted. For immigrants in Alabama, these stories represent their new reality. He also said that he “would do whatever it took for my family to stay with me. It’s beyond my comprehension that you would just leave your children anywhere.” Unfortunately, that is exactly what this new law is forcing people to do. I would then ask the senator, “Have you made arrangements for your child’s safety in the event that something should happen to you?” My guess would be yes. Would we all do everything in our power to ensure that our children are safe and lovingly cared for? In theory the answer is yes, but legislation that is being passed across the country is making that nearly impossible. When you encounter all of the rhetoric around the immigration issue, take a moment to think about the children.

Alicia Manzano is NM Voices’ Outreach Director

The 2011 Domenici Public Policy Conference, held on the NMSU campus in Las Cruces last week, brought together experts on America’s national debt and economic outlook, national and cyber security,  science and technology, and health care reform to discuss progress in these areas and what can be done to maintain America’s competitiveness on a global scale.

Even though I work for a public policy organization, I attended the conference as a student representative from UNM. There were three other state schools represented―NMSU, NM Tech, and Western NM University. The UNM student group included 14 students. The conference reinforced one thing for me: America can address its national debt and reform health care while protecting safety net programs like TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP, Medicaid and Medicare, which are so essential to the most vulnerable in our society.  Politicians from both sides of the aisle need to work together to draft legislation that protect America’s future and generations to come.

Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle spoke at length about health care reform, saying that despite ideological difference as to how America should address reform, considerable progress has been made.

“There is agreement that, unlike many developed nations, the United States spends far more on health care while access and quality have not improved,” the former senator said. “We spend 2.5 trillion today on health care … and the cost keeps on growing.  In 1990 35 million Americans were uninsured, in 2000 45 million were in the same situation, and in 2020 it is estimated that if nothing is done 65 million Americans will not have insurance,” said Daschle. 

According to the former senator, the U.S. spends $8,500 for every man, woman and child—at a growth rate that is unsustainable over the long term. Delivering a higher quality of care at a lower cost can be done by making preventive care a priority and an integral part of health care reform.

Even as he paints a drab picture of the American health care system, Daschle was also optimistic about Americans’ future and what we can all do to address health care costs in this country. He emphasized that the issue is ‘’emotional, very, very difficult and extremely challenging. What we do know is that we can’t afford to fail to fix the problems because at the current rate it is unsustainable.”

Daschle said that the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 is just the beginning of health care reform. He emphasized that there are several things we must do as a country to contain the growth of health care costs. We can start by requiring the health care industry to promote transparency and preventive medicine, and cut back on administrative costs by requiring 80 percent of expenses go to recipients while 20 percent go to administration. Currently, it’s estimated that about one-third of all health care expenses go toward non-health related costs.  The adoption of efficiencies and coordination of care―also known as integrated patient care―with an evidence-based approach would also be instrumental. 

During the question-and-answer period, a student asked whether single-payer is still an option. The former senator said he believes a single-payer systems is simply not possible in the U.S. because of the ideological differences between the two main political parties. In a single-payer system, one entity—a government-run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs, much like Medicare.

In closing his speech, Daschle said not only do we need an effective policy framework to address health care costs but, above all, Americans need to be innovative, collaborate, employ a technique called intelligent engagement, and use our leadership skills to drive high-performance and high-quality patient-centered health care.

Click here for a webcast of all conference speakers.

Kwaku Sraha is NM Voices’ Finance Manager.

If you’d like to comment on this blog post, please do so on our FaceBook page.

Politicos on both sides of the aisle make accusations about the “other side” all the time. What’s almost as bad as the ugly partisanship is the fact that they’re making very simple claims about very complex subjects. So it’s refreshing when some group puts down the basic facts in a simple-to-follow format like the charts referred to below, which have lately been making the rounds on the Internet.

Given the acrimony expressed in the current debate around deficit spending and the federal debt—this seems like a good place to start. Since they’re somewhat connected, we’ll look at the first two charts together: spending and deficits.

Two points have been conspicuously absent from the national debate about spending and deficits: 1. the cause of the deficit, and 2. what we gained from the spending. During the Bush Administration, the bulk of the deficit spending was caused by two things: tax cuts and wars—neither of which was “paid for” by increases in other taxes or cuts to other spending. The income tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest Americans so what we “gained” from them was greater wealth inequality. In terms of the gap between the richest and the poorest, we’re starting to look more like a Third-World country and less like a global superpower whose main strength lies with its vibrant middle class.

Regardless of what you think of the wars, One thing is irrefutable—although the U.S. has often fought wars on credit before, this was the first time in our nation’s history that wars and tax cuts went hand-in-hand.

Note that the biggest jump in the federal deficit began in 2007, and that points to the biggest underlying cause of the current federal debt—the recession. Notice that I wrote ‘recession’ and not ‘economic stimulus.’ That’s because when the economy tanks, so does the revenue the government receives in the way of income taxes. Unless spending is cut to match the decrease in revenue—a very bad idea during a recession—the loss of revenue increases the debt.

Finally, we’ll tackle the oft-made claim that President Obama’s stimulus program “failed.” This is nonsense. The Congressional Budget Office says it preserved or created 1.5 to 3 million jobs. The third chart shows the effect of the stimulus in turning around the job losses due to the Great Recession. It shows the number of jobs lost or gained every month since the beginning of 2008 and up to July 2011.

Under President Bush, the monthly job losses got to be worse and worse. Under President Obama, the loss rate stabilized for a few months and then, in early 2010, private-sector jobs began to grow. This was due to spending on safety net programs like unemployment insurance and Medicaid and the stimulus program—both of which put more money into the economy. The chart shows dramatically how these factors helped stop the slide into another Great Depression.

The chart also shows that while the stimulus helped the economy level off, it turned out to be not enough. Unemployment has leveled off at about 9 percent, but that is much too high. That cold number masks millions of families who are suffering every day because their breadwinners can’t find jobs. So we have to do more. Another stimulus is clearly called for because it will cause the bars representing job gains to raise higher—enough to bring down the rate of unemployment. This will add to the short-term federal budget deficit, but energizing the economy will help us pay down the national debt later, when the economy is doing better. Only then should we take a serious look at slowing spending and paying down the debt. To do so before the economy recovers would be disastrous—as several European counties have already learned.

Nick Estes is NM Voices’ Deputy Policy Director.

If you’d like to comment on this blog post, please do so on our FaceBook page.