INDIANAPOLIS – One in three Hoosiers struggles to afford the basic necessities, and those also are the workers least likely to have access to paid family and medical leave.

A new report by the Indiana Institute for Working Families looks at what other states and countries are doing for working families. The report said in states where there are strong family-leave policies, employers report less job turnover, especially with female employees.

The Institute's policy analyst, Erin Macey, said Indiana welcomes about 85,000 new babies into the world every year, yet many parents don't have paid time off, so they either lose pay or go back to work early.

"We're seeing estimates that as many as one in four women are going back to work two weeks after giving birth," she said. "And we know that a car accident or a cancer diagnosis can just sink a family financially, in the absence of access to these kinds of support."

The report's recommendations include setting up job protections for those who take leave, replacing lost wages, and creating more flexible time-off policies. The Indiana Commission for Women got a federal grant to come up with proposals for paid family leave in the state. That will likely result in some legislation, but Macey said it probably won't be until 2018.

Macey added lack of paid leave also affects people who have sick or elderly parents. She said some are losing, or leaving, their jobs so they can take care of them.

"And that's a problem that's only going to get worse as our communities continue to age and we sort of cap out of the resources we have to support them," she added.

The Council for Disability Awareness suggests one in four of today's 20-year-olds will experience a disabling event, such as a back injury, cancer, or heart disease, before they retire. It also said those who drop out of the workforce due to illness or to care for family lose an average of $300,000 in wages and benefits over their lifetime.


get more stories like this via email

A new report showed how states such as Connecticut are allocating Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative funds.

The report from the nonprofit Acadia Center found the 11 states participating in the initiative are using the funds on a variety of initiatives. Connecticut has allocated up to 80% of its funds for clean energy projects. However, some advocates said there are ways the funds can be put to better use.

Paola Moncada Tamayo, policy analyst for the center, said New Jersey serves as a model for other initiative states.

"They have a plan which they publish and that plan goes through a period of public comment," Tamayo explained. "They go through several iterations of the public comment period. They also publish a dashboard which has all the investments they do."

The report recommended states such as Connecticut consider increasing funding investments in environmental justice, including requiring at least 40% to 50% of initiative funds be invested in environmental justice and other underserved communities. The Connecticut Environmental Justice Mapping Tool showed the highest concentrations are located around larger urban areas such as New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport and Danbury.

Advocates said the recommendations can better hold states accountable for how their funding is spent. The report found some underreporting occurring, which benefits some states' narratives of how the money is being spent. Tamayo acknowledged implementing the report's recommendations could prove challenging.

"I'll say probably in some states, there has been lack of funding and so they've been trying to fill funding holes from it," Tamayo observed. "Other states might just be that they don't have the manpower to do the level of reporting that we would want them to do."

Tamayo hopes the improvements will be implemented so states such as Connecticut can make better use of their initiative funding. While it has not been front and center, she feels it has been an important tool for helping states decarbonize.

President Joe Biden has entered a "lame-duck" period, prompting a Michigan political science expert to analyze his potential actions before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January.

Outgoing presidents typically work on a smooth transition while the president-elect fills key positions. As Biden nears the end of his term, he has approved long-range missiles for Ukraine to strike inside Russia, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy.

Jordan Cash, assistant professor of political theory and constitutional democracy at Michigan State University, examined the possible reasons behind Biden's actions.

"He's trying to find some way to push Ukraine and Russia to a certain end point in the war," Cash explained. "Perhaps to get a final foreign policy victory to vindicate his administration at the end, or perhaps because he fears the way President-elect Trump is going to approach the Ukraine war."

Most political experts agree with Congress divided, it is unlikely much will be accomplished before the new session starts in January. However, they said it wouldn't be surprising if Biden takes other bold or controversial actions as he prepares to leave office.

Cash pointed out while lame-duck periods can have advantages, such as settling electoral disputes or confirming votes, they also come with risks. He warned an extended lame-duck phase, which is typical in the United States, can encourage an outgoing president to make partisan decisions, potentially leading to actions driven more by political motivations than the public good.

"Bill Clinton commuted several dozen sentences, including for Mark Rich, who had been convicted of tax fraud but whose wife was a major Democratic donor," Cash recounted. "President-elect Trump commuted a bunch of sentences including pardoning his former adviser Steve Bannon."

The term "lame duck" originally referred to a financial trader on the London Stock Exchange in the 18th century who defaulted on debts. It was later adapted to describe politicians with reduced influence or authority.


get more stories like this via email

House lawmakers have passed a bill advocates said will be harmful to nonprofits in New York and nationwide.

House Resolution 9495 passed with a 219-184 vote after failing to get a two-thirds majority in the chamber last week. The bill gives the Treasury Secretary power to rescind tax-exempt status for nonprofits considered "terrorist supporting organizations." On its first vote, it had strong bipartisan support.

Jeff Ordower, U.S. Lead for the group 350 Action, said President-elect Donald Trump's rhetoric about "the enemy within" makes this bill's return troubling.

"They are trying to consolidate the number of tools in their toolbox," Ordower contended. "So they can move quickly to call some people the enemy within and shut down organizations that are supporting causes that are unpopular, supporting causes that are fighting corporate power, fighting structural racism."

Voting in favor of the bill were 15 Democrats, including Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y. It could be due to its other provision giving tax breaks to Americans wrongfully imprisoned abroad or held hostage by terror groups. Ordower noted it is the result of a push by groups who want Israel and Gaza's status quo before Oct. 7 restored, which aid organizations could jeopardize.

Beyond public concern, some experts feel the bill's primary goal is helping President-elect Trump consolidate power within the Executive Branch. Ordower pointed out it is one of the many battles with the second Trump Administration about what defines a healthy and sustainable democracy.

"What we need in order to really have a good fight that defends civil society, that leads us towards and continues some of the ways that are flourishing democracy is to have lots and lots of groups that are able to push their agendas, and not just groups with particular ideologies or point of views doing that," Ordower stressed.

Ordower is surprised by lawmaker's persistence to pass this bill given wars occurring across the world, as well as ongoing economic, climate and immigration issues at home. Some 150 groups including the ACLU signed a letter to House lawmakers urging them to oppose the measure.