In case you missed this

I want to increase the number of Portlanders reading Susan Nielsen’s excellent column published in the Sunday Oregonian almost two weeks ago. I find it brilliant because once read, the reaction is often “Of course!”, but perhaps not all of us connected the dots prior to that. Here it is in its entirety:

I’m a sucker for government programs that put men back to work, in manly jobs like bridge construction. It all sounds so traditional and reassuring, evoking a time when men could provide for their families and their work had more permanence.

But this is 2008, not the 1930s or ’50s. A smart government plan to rescue the economy, whether nationwide or in Oregon, should help women as much as the men.

Congress wants to salvage the economy with a stimulus plan that could fund new infrastructure projects, extend unemployment benefits and give financial aid to states. Here in Oregon, Gov. Ted Kulongoski says he wants to help fight the recession with an ambitious plan to build roads and railways.

Those building projects deserve traction, if funded responsibly. Our infrastructure is in tough shape after years of neglect, and the country brims with skilled laborers looking for work.

Plus, how can you resist the appeal of a working man? Men hold 97 percent of the nation’s construction-related jobs and about 70 percent of the jobs in production and manufacturing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They’re being laid off by the hundreds of thousands and feeling undercut by the economy. New infrastructure projects would create good jobs and improve society to boot.

There’s only one catch. Putting men to work isn’t enough to save the day. Extending unemployment benefits, for which men are more likely to be eligible, isn’t enough either. The feds and state government need to reach out to women, too.

Not to be politically correct, mind you.

To be effective.

Here are two ways. First, Congress can be generous with its aid to states, not treat it as an afterthought. The federal money would reduce the coming cutbacks in education, health care and human services. Such cutbacks disproportionately hurt women as workers and mothers: Women hold at least three-quarters of the jobs in these fields, and they’re more likely to raise children in poverty.

“Families are especially vulnerable as we enter this downturn,” the Joint Economic Committee of Congress warned in a report this summer, citing high debt and low home equity. “Federal aid to the state boosts family incomes by keeping more women employed.”

Second, Congress and the states can expand health insurance. Anything the government can do to help working families cope with coverage or costs will reduce foreclosures, evictions and bankruptcies — and free up money for food and gas. This benefit is especially clear for female-headed households, which often lack the reserves to pay premiums or unexpected medical expenses.

Women play a different role in the economy than they did generations ago, when their income was more likely to be sporadic and supplemental. Today, the typical family depends on two jobs to pay the bills. The typical wife earns more than a third of the family income. Also, a quarter of the children raised by single moms get no child support from their fathers.

Any way you slice it, women’s jobs matter. They matter in a more intangible way, too, since women make most of the household buying decisions.

If Momma ain’t happy about the economy, ain’t nobody happy. If women spiral into poverty, kids go, too. That’s worth remembering, as Congress funds bridge projects, extends unemployment benefits, props up the auto industry and writes other checks, mostly for men to cash.

Jobs for men help save the economy.

Jobs for women make the difference between sink and swim.

The big follow-up question is, what target programs/projects should/could be included in a local (Portland and/or Oregon) “economic stimulus package” to support and fund jobs filled disproportionately by women, as well as infrastructure and construction jobs? Ideas, readers?