It seems that Gwen Rubinstein, a program officer here at The Women’s Foundation, isn’t the only one wondering about where the bailouts are for low-income families as the country faces the prospect of very expensive corporate bailouts.

On Friday, Hank Kalet, writing for his blog, Channel Surfing, asked, "Whatever happened to welfare reform?", quoting Gwen and noting, "If the banks and other lenders who created the economic mess that has Washington rushing to help were treated to the same kind of rules that apply to the poor, it is unlikely that this kind of bailout would even be proposed."

Gift Hub asked, "Whom would Jesus bail out?", quoting a theologian who observed, "That doesn’t mean that it escapes my notice, though, when the Congress and the world’s financial systems can within a week decide to allot more than a half a trillion dollars toward shoring up already-wealthy people and institutions. Under the circumstances, one can hardly avoid the conclusion that political leaders don’t think of malnutrition and starvation, disease, and the lack of educational resources and economic opportunity as not that big a crisis."

Last week, WomenseNews offered a piece by Mimi Abromavitz called, "Wall Street Takes Welfare It Begrudes to Women.  Abromavitz offers a historical perspective on the sliding economic security of women and concludes by saying, "The public bailout of corporate America may be necessary given the risks of a collapse to the global economy. But why is it that the rich and reckless accept "welfare" for themselves while steadfastly rejecting the same for women in need? It’s time to take a billion here and there to assist the women raising families on too little income to keep a roof over their heads."

Finally, the Washington Post had an article on Sunday by Joel Berg called, "No Rescue for the Hungry," which begins, "When social services advocates like me hear that the cost of the federal bailout of the finance sector might top a trillion dollars, we’re not quite sure how to process such a massive figure. Our country has been told that a gargantuan government rescue of the private sector is necessary because the collapse of major financial institutions would lead to unthinkable outcomes for society. Almost as if by magic, our nation’s leaders conjure up vast sums to respond to this crisis. Yet when advocates point out that our nation is facing an altogether different kind of crisis, one of soaring hunger and homelessness, and that a large-scale bailout is needed to prevent social service providers nationwide from buckling under the increasing load, we are told that the money these agencies need just doesn’t exist."

While it’s not $700 billion, Washington Area Women’s Foundation, and women’s funds throughout the country and the world, are striving to help build the economic security of low-income families–particularly those headed by single women. 

Here in Washington, there are 10 Ways that you can help set women and their families on a path to economic security.  If you’re not in the Washington metropolitan area, find a women’s fund near you by visiting the Women’s Funding Network.

Whatever happens on The Hill, there is still a way to make a difference in your community by investing in women and girls.  Join us. 

The Federal Treasury is on the verge of bailing out Wall Street with an infusion of $700 billion of taxpayer dollars.  Bad decisions by many actors (banks and lenders, consumers, insurers and others) have contributed to the crisis, we are told, and now it is an emergency.

What a difference a policy area makes.

In our nation’s social welfare programs, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, bad decisions are grounds for sanctions and a denial of assistance–not a helping hand or a cash infusion (Just imagine!).  Certainly, our leaders have not treated poverty as an emergency or a reason for government action.

Other differences abound….

Corporate welfare: Corporate executives, mostly men, being bailed out.

Social welfare: Mostly low-income women with children, being given minimal assistance, and certainly not enough to help move them out of poverty.

Corporate welfare: Few restrictions on the money.

Social welfare: TANF beneficiaries face numerous restrictions, including having to sign a “personal responsibility” statement in some states (Something, personally, I’d like to see these corporate executive do).

Corporate welfare: It is a major “concession” not to cap compensation to the executives in the affected firms.

Social welfare: Under TANF, most states impose income and asset limits on eligibility.  For assets, these limits are generally between $2,000 and $3,000.  In some states, if your car is worth much more than this, you are not eligible. (States similarly limit eligibility for Food Stamps and Medicaid.)

So, how many of our corporate executives would be disqualified from the bailout if this were taken into account? 

Corporate welfare: Few details about the accountability required under this bailout are available. Given the lobbying frenzy around the agreement, don’t expect much.

Social welfare:  Significant oversight, including additional and burdensome requirements around supervision and documentation of program participation enacted in 2005 and codified in regulations earlier this year.

Corporate welfare: $700 billion.

Social welfare: $16 billion per year, which has not changed since 1996.

Just think what a $700 billion investment in poverty reduction could do.  Bailouts to help low-income single mothers get job training to move them into careers with good pay and benefits, and a lifetime of economic independence.  Bailouts to support access to quality child care so that single mothers could afford to leave their children in a safe environment while they go to work.  Bailouts to support transportation vouchers that would get low-income parents to job training sites or worksites so that they can gain access to the careers and salaries that would eventually make them economically secure.

If only…

Gwen Rubinstein is a program officer at The Women’s Foundation.

Today is Women’s Equality Day – the anniversary of the day that women finally won the right to vote in 1920.  In a year when a woman was a serious contender for the Presidency and another woman is Speaker of the House, we should take a moment to celebrate how much has changed thanks to the work and sacrifices of the suffragettes.

But when that moment is over, we need to start having a serious conversation about how far things still have to go.

Ironically, today is also the day that the Census Bureau releases the annual poverty statistics. It spells out just how unequal things still are for women when it comes to dollars and cents.

Single-women headed families are still far more likely to be in poverty than families headed by married-couples or single men.  More than 28 percent of families headed by a woman live in poverty.  In fact, of the 7.6 million families living in poverty, 4.1 million (well over half) are headed by single-women.

This has consequences not only for the women themselves, but for their children as well.  Between 2006 and 2007, the poverty rate for children increased. And, children living in women-headed families are far more likely to be poor. Forty-three percent of children under 18 living with a single mother were living in poverty and 54 percent of children under six living with a single mother were living in poverty as well.

What is one of the major reasons that women are poorer than men?

The fact is that women still earn less than men. In 2007, women earned 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man. 

This is the smallest the wage gap has ever been in history. So, let’s recognize it for what it is – a small step in the right direction.  But, it is a very small step. The reality is that the wage gap has barely increased in the past 20 years.  In 1983, the wage gap was 19.9 percent.  Today it is 22 cents.

So, to honor Women’s Equality Day, every person reading this blog should go out and demand that all candidates for office champion laws and programs that will assist women to have jobs that pay enough that they can support their families.  We need bold leaders if we are going to address the big issues like the wage gap and the poverty rate for women.

I know that The Women’s Foundation community is filled with the strong, visionary women that we need to get this job done.

Sharon Levin is The Women’s Foundation’s Director of Major Events and Policy Advocacy.