Independent Women's Forum - Allison Kasic

Chicago 1, Food Police 0

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:25:00 EDT

On Wednesday the Chicago City Council repealed its controversial ban on foie gras. Details here.

Title IX Not the Answer for Scientific Men's Club

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:21:00 EDT

Graduation season is upon us. In the coming weeks thousands of American students will celebrate their accomplishments, reflect on four years' of memories, don silly robes and hats, and graduate from college. The majority of those students will be women, who nationally make up 6 in 10 college students.

Women have made tremendous strides in all aspects of life over the last few decades, but perhaps none is as pronounced as in higher education. In 1970, only 42 percent of undergraduate students were female. Women now dominate campus life, raking in the majority of bachelor's and master's degrees awarded each year. But those tremendous accomplishments won't stop those dedicated to convincing women they are victims.

The latest charge from the gender equity crowd is that women face widespread discrimination in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). They say government action (in the form of increased Title IX enforcement) is needed to correct this imbalance.

Much of the hysteria can be traced back to a 2007 report from the National Academy of Sciences. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering looked at the different rates of participation between the sexes in STEM fields and concluded that discrimination was the key factor holding women back. The report has been taken as gospel since its publication, but policymakers need to take a closer look at the potential causes of this gender disparity before jumping to "fix" the discrimination problem.

Most likely several factors are at play. Unfortunately, some of the likely factors are considered so taboo in the modern academic environment that few people will openly discuss them. Larry Summers came under tremendous fire at Harvard when he suggested that innate biological differences between the sexes might be a factor. Summer's detractors may have been offended by his comments, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an element of truth in there. There is a growing body of research revealing biological differences that affect how men and women learn and process information. Women also tend to profess different interests and priorities. The key question is how big of an impact do those differences have on the disparity in STEM fields.

At this point all potential factors should be on the table for serious inquiry, including differences in aptitude, learning styles, temperament, interest, work-life priorities, and discrimination. To jump ahead and label discrimination the key factor is, at best, intellectually lazy and, at worst, purposefully misleading. I, for one, find it incredibly unlikely that discrimination is the key factor. Women have broken down countless barriers in recent history, including "boys clubs" like business school and law school. Are we really to believe that the last unbreakable bastion of sexism in the academy is being led by scientists in white lab coats?

Even if there is a problem that needs fixing, politicians should pause before looking to Title IX as the solution. Currently, Title IX enforcement is most visible in college athletics where it is lauded for increasing female athletic participation over the past 35 years. But the successes of Title IX have often come with a serious price tag. Too often, Title IX gets used as a weapon against male athletes in the form of cut teams and roster caps rather than a positive force for women's athletics. The problem lies in the controversial proportionality measurement-the gender breakdown of athletes must match the gender breakdown of the student body. That leaves schools with two options: recruiting more female athletes or cutting opportunities for men. Schools often go for the latter. It's hard to see how that sort of quota mentality would benefit women in STEM fields.

Universities should aim to ensure that any remaining barriers to fields of studies are removed so that students are free to choose their preferred area of study. Yet any effort to create a politically correct gender balance is a misuse of power that disserves students.

Teachers Union 1, Kids 0

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:47:00 EDT

Longview, Washington's Daily News rightfully gives a "thumbs down" to the Washington Education Association for rejecting a $13.2 million grant to improve AP classes:

That $13.2 million grant Washington state won last year to enhance the teaching of Advanced Placement courses in math and science is history. It's lost because of the financial incentives it would have provided for teachers who improve test scores. The Washington Education Association didn't much like the idea of tying teacher pay to student performance on exams. Neither did the teachers union like the involvement of an outside party, the grant provider, in teacher-pay decisions.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which provided $10 million for the grant, couldn't understand why a compromise couldn't be worked out. Other states receiving similar grants had teachers unions and found ways to accept the grant money, said foundation official Steve Seleznow. "Honestly, I can't figure out why they couldn't solve this." Neither can we.

More commentary here.

Hat tip: Union Label

The 411 on Card Check

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:45:00 EDT

Over at Reason magazine, Dave Weigel explains why the Employee Free Choice Act will give unions too much power.

IWF Video: Scared to Death

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:07:00 EDT

If you missed IWF's book event for Scared to Death From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North, catch video footage of the event here.

Climate-Tax Hikes

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:52:00 EDT

Phil Kerpen has a good article over on NRO today looking at the nature of cap-and-trade policies (hint: it's like a tax hike):

The Washington Post recently called the phrase cap-and-trade "a pithy marketing gimmick," because it obscures the sprawling regulatory scheme that would be created and the real costs it imposes on energy consumers. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors and a supporter of environmental taxes, has explained that cap-and-trade schemes that give away carbon allowances amount to combining a carbon tax with corporate welfare.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the leading cap-and-trade scheme, the Lieberman-Warner Secure Climate Act, would include a huge tax hike, raising federal revenues an astonishing $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. (It's really only seven years because the bill's cap doesn't take effect until 2012.) It also would increase spending by about the same amount, partly in the form of valuable allowances given to the very same companies whose emissions are targeted for reduction. The bill includes no tax cuts.

Many in the energy industry support the bill because the costs, according to the CBO, are passed on almost entirely to energy consumers, while the benefits, in the form of free allowances, accrue largely to energy companies and their shareholders, as well as a wide variety of politically favored special interests.

More here.

What do our energy subsidy dollars buy?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:40:00 EDT

That's the question posed in today's Wall Street Journal:

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

...

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.
All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That's a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of "green jobs." Those jobs won't come cheap, and you'll be paying for them.

More here.

Double Trouble

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:23:00 EDT

In an editorial today, the editors of National Review Online do a good job in laying out the problems with the housing bills that passed last week:

Defying a White House veto threat, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a pair of housing bills Thursday that would reward foolish lenders and borrowers, weaken the reputation of American securities, and punish renters. Not bad for a day's work. The centerpiece of the first bill is a $300-billion mortgage-insurance fund that would allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure an estimated 500,000 troubled home loans, at a cost to taxpayers of $2.7 billion. Under this bill, lenders can get the FHA to insure a souring loan by agreeing to write down the loan's value by as much as 15 percent. This works out well for those lenders who let their standards plummet as housing prices soared, as well as for borrowers who took out loans they couldn't afford. It doesn't work out so well for taxpayers who exercised better judgment.

...

A separate housing bill passed Thursday would provide states with $15 billion in grants and loans to purchase foreclosed homes. The ostensible purpose of this bill is to allow states to prevent foreclosures from blighting neighborhoods and driving down property values. In reality, the bill is a massive subsidy to lenders who made bad loans and now find themselves struggling to find buyers willing to take foreclosed homes off their hands. What's worse, the bill provides an incentive for lenders to foreclose on struggling borrowers rather than work out deals with them.

More here.

IWF Podcast: American Consumers

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:02:00 EDT

Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas discuss high gas prices and other issues on the minds of American consumers.

Is it too easy to get a a student loan?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:31:00 EDT

Jenna Robinson of the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy has an interesting piece in Clarion Call recounting her personal experience with government-backed student loans. Jenna and her friends spent a good deal of their loan money on non-school related activities, such as vacations, concert tickets, and off-campus apartments. She concludes:

My friends and I didn't really cause the student loan crisis. In the grand scheme, our dalliances were a drop in the bucket. But we did make bad decisions. We misused taxpayer money, accrued years' worth of debt and postponed adulthood's important financial lessons to have a good time. Now that the college-loan business is in trouble, perhaps Congress will mend its ways and no longer permit these excesses to continue. Students who receive today's scaled-back loans should be better off as a result.

Point of View with Carmen Pate: Beyond Obama

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:23:00 EDT

Allison Kasic joined Point of View with Carmen Pate to discuss her op-ed, Beyond Obama, and the real issues in the presidential campaign.

Beyond Obama

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:54:00 EDT

Townhall.com

In modern politics, few things are as over-hyped as the youth vote. Every election cycle is billed as the one that young voters are finally going to be the key player in shaping the results. Institutions like MTV's Choose or Lose and P.Diddy's Vote or Die campaign spring up to corral the supposedly massive base of youth waiting to cast their vote on election day. The youth vote always fails to live up to the hype. But 2008 is shaping up to be different. Already, we've seen a massive amount of enthusiasm from younger voters, who have been entranced by Senator Barrack Obama.

It's great that so many young people are engaged in this election cycle. If nothing else, Obama deserves credit for reaching out to a lot of new voters and inspiring so many young adults to get involved. This is surely a positive development. But what happens next is of tremendous importance to the future of America.

Obamamania has been largely driven by the Senator's appealing personae and inspiring rhetoric. But for this upswing in interest in politics to have real meaning it can't just be a cult of personality.

It's crucial that young voters focus on the many pressing issues of concern to them and future generations.

Take Social Security, for example. In 2017 Social Security will start to pay our more money in benefits than it collects in taxes, and by the time, today's college students retire, the program will be able to pay only 74% of promised benefits. Unless reform happens soon, young voters will face massive tax hikes, massive benefit cuts, or some combination of the two.

Or, take the economy. Many young voters have recently graduated or will be graduating soon. As they enter the job market, they will face a slowing economy. The key question on their minds should be, what will make the situation better? While the government cannot effectively "plan" or "fix" the economy (though that won't stop some politicians from promising to do so) it can shape the rules of the game to promote prosperity. Promoting liberal trade policies would be a great place to start. Many students on campus are bombarded with anti-globalization propaganda that focuses on jobs lost because of increased competition. There is another side of the equation-trade liberalization creates jobs in this country and gives us access to higher quality goods at lower prices. Lower trade barriers will help spur economic growth here and around the world.

Fixing our tax code is another way policymakers could help our economy both through this current economic downturn and in the future. Our overcomplicated tax system is a drag on the economy as companies and individuals spend millions of hours filling out paperwork. Simplifying the tax code, and ending the outlandish practice of discouraging saving and investment through high taxes, would encourage entrepreneurship and promote growth.

Another issue that young voters should be concerned about is education. For most college students, the days of sending your children off to school may seem to be in the distant future, but the truth is they are right around the corner. And, unfortunately, most will find that their local public school has massive shortcomings. They should think about the process they used to select a college, and ask why a similar process doesn't take place for elementary and high school. Young voters ought to seriously consider supporting school choice programs that give parents more control over where they send their children to school and brings much need competition to the current government-run public school system.

These are just a sampling of the many issues facing young voters. As both political parties try to capitalize on their newfound interest in politics, let us hope that the focus of the conversation is on these issues, and not solely dependent on politicians' personalities.

Children of the Corn

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:04:00 EDT

Over at NRO, Dave Freddoso has a great primer on the ethanol debate, including this history of the subsidy:

Corn ethanol would not exist at all without Uncle Sam. The handouts began with ethanol tax credits in the Energy Tax Act of 1978. It was an attempt to solve two problems at once: our vulnerability to oil shortages and corn prices that had been depressed by our agricultural subsidies. In 1980, a punitive tariff of 50 cents per gallon was laid against ethanol imports (the rate today is 2.5 percent plus 54 cents). This and government sugar-price supports and tariffs guaranteed that American corn would be the only cost-effective feedstock for ethanol. Ethanol producers also became eligible in 1980 for government-guaranteed loans for up to 90 percent of their construction costs. (By 1988, the government had lost $352 million in defaults.) The government provided other assistance as well - R&D funding, for example.

Government help was a windfall for ethanol: Production shot upward from 20 million gallons in 1979 to 750 million gallons by 1986. In 1990, a tax credit of ten cents per gallon was created for small-capacity ethanol producers. In the same year, Congress mandated the use of oxygenated gasoline. The subsequent downfall of MTBE boosted demand for ethanol, a rival but less cost-effective oxygenate, so that production surged to 3.6 billion gallons by 2004.

Our ethanol policy always made food slightly more expensive by increasing demand and reducing supply. But 2005 was the year that Congress went all-in. Just before the oxygenate mandate disappeared in 2006, Congress guaranteed that ethanol use would expand dramatically no matter what. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated the use of 4 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006, increasing each year toward an annual consumption of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. This immediately brought about increased ethanol investment and production - and much higher demand for corn, leading to higher prices. By 2007, when ethanol production had already reached 6.5 billion gallons, the new energy bill upped the mandate to 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2015.

More here.

Think we don't need entitlement reform?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:02:00 EDT

Think again. Social Security and Medicare take up an increasing amount of the federal budget each year, and that trend will only increase as Baby Boomers retire. The National Center for Policy Analysis crunched the numbers and this is what they found:

In the absence of a tax increase, if the federal government keeps its promises to seniors and balances its budget:

By 2012, the federal government will stop doing 1 in 10 other things it has been doing.

By 2020, the federal government will stop doing 1 in 4 things.

By 2030, about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years, the federal government will stop doing about 1 in 2 things.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), if Medicare spending continues to grow at the historical growth rate of total health care spending:

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (the health care program for the poor) will consume nearly the entire federal budget by 2050.

By 2082 Medicare spending alone will consume nearly the entire federal budget.

The CBO also found that if federal income tax rates are adjusted to allow the government to continue its current level of activity and balance the budget:

The lowest marginal tax bracket of 10 percent would have to rise to 26 percent.

The 25 percent marginal tax bracket would increase to 66 percent.

The current highest marginal tax bracket (35 percent) would have to rise to 92 percent!

Additionally, the top corporate income tax rate of 35 percent would have to increase to 92 percent.

More here.

Interesting News Out of Dartmouth

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 06 May 2008 10:16:00 EDT

There's certainly been a lot of it recently. Here's the latest out of Hanover:

Often it seems as though American higher education exists only to provide gag material for the outside world. The latest spectacle is an Ivy League professor threatening to sue her students because, she claims, their "anti-intellectualism" violated her civil rights.

Priya Venkatesan taught English at Dartmouth College. She maintains that some of her students were so unreceptive of "French narrative theory" that it amounted to a hostile working environment. She is also readying lawsuits against her superiors, who she says papered over the harassment, as well as a confessional exposé, which she promises will "name names."

More here.

Polar Bear Politics

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 06 May 2008 10:13:00 EDT

To add the polar bear to the endangered species list or not to add the polar bear to the endangered species list? That is the question.

Rob Bluey has a great article over at Townhall.com looking at the consequences of listing the polar bear on U.S. energy policy. The results aren't pretty:

Listing the polar bear as a threatened species would be a devastating blow for U.S. energy exploration and a boon to global-warming alarmists.

The classification would open the door for environmentalists to challenge any new forms of energy production -- including oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or new power plants and factories that emit fossil fuels. It also would jeopardize a highly promising arrangement in Alaska's Chukchi Sea, which contains an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Now is not the time to cut back on domestic oil production. With gas prices soaring to nearly $4 per gallon in some parts of the country, there's hardly been a better time to embark on energy exploration in the United States to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

"Alaska is America's last best frontier for domestic oil and natural gas," Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation said in arguing against the polar bear's listing. "Closing off these potential resources would add to energy prices for decades to come and increase reliance on imports."

But what about those cute polar bears, you ask. Turns out, they are doing quite well:

...environmentalists conveniently ignore the facts about the bears' growing populations in Alaska, Canada, Russia and other countries. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears live around the world today, up significantly from the 8,000 to 10,000 in the 1960s. The alarmist views about global warming clearly don't jive with the facts.

More here.

Score one for transparency proponents!

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:44:00 EDT

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled federal financial transparency laws apply to certain public-sector unions, traditionally exempt from such regulations.

If it stands, the decision will allow workers across the country to have increased access to records of their unions' financial dealings.

The case, Alabama Education Association v. Chao, has worked its way up and down the court system for several years. The most recent decision, issued in late March, requires state-level public-sector unions to disclose their finances to the federal government if those unions are affiliated with a national union that must comply with the federal reporting laws.

While the case deals directly with affiliates of the National Education Association, the same principle applies to other public-sector unions, including the American Federation of County, State, and Municipal Employees and Service Employees International Union.

More here. (Hat tip: The Union Label)

Nancy Brinker Makes Time 100

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 05 May 2008 09:47:00 EDT

Last year's IWF Woman of Valor award winner Nancy Brinker recently made Time magazine's Time 100 list. Check out the tribute to Brinker here.

Quote of the Day

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:41:00 EDT

From William Tucker in the Weekly Standard (via the Wall Street Journal):

Wind, hydro, and all the "alternate" sources of energy have been dubbed "green" because they are supposedly clean, renewable, and sustainable. In fact, what being "green" really means is that they all require vast amounts of land.

Interesting Strategy

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 02 May 2008 11:38:00 EDT

New York is paying teachers not to work.

Details here.

IWF Podcast: Government Band-aids

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:48:00 EDT

Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas encourage policymakers to consider policies that will spur economic growth and job creation, rather than focusing on big government band-aids.

Who Knew Hot Dogs Were So Controversial?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:01:00 EDT

In his latest video for Reason.tv Drew Carey follows vendors in Los Angeles selling illegal goods--bacon-wrapped hot dogs:

"Do Union Leaders Make Too Much?"

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:46:00 EDT

That isn't a question you're likely to hear. Much more common is the claim that corporate executives make too much money. But it turns out that union leaders aren't doing so bad themselves (and their salaries come from the dues of union members, not company profits):

The Plumbers paid former General President Martin Maddaloni $1.3 million in total compensation, and Secretary-Treasurer Thomas Patchell almost $900,000 - after they were ousted for disastrous pension investments in a Florida hotel. According to the Association for Union Democracy, the buyout agreement included "salaries and benefits plus free use of cars and other perks through the end of 2006."
AFSCME President Gerald McEntee recorded total compensation just shy of $585,000.
General President of the Laborers Terence O'Sullivan made more than $528,000.
National Education Association President Reg Weaver made almost $439,000.
The presidents of unions for players in the National Football League and the National Basketball Association made more than $1 million each. The NFL union head, Eugene Upshaw, made $2.4 million. Moreover, Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb received $900,000 from his AFL-CIO affiliated union as a player representative.

More here.

Title IX in the Courts

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:42:00 EDT

Here's the latest Title IX litigation news out of California:

A federal judge has ruled in favor of the University of California, Davis, in a Title IX case filed by four women who wanted to be on the intercollegiate wrestling team.

In an order issued Wednesday in Sacramento, the court held that the plaintiffs in Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California failed to give the campus notice that they were making an allegation against the entire women's intercollegiate athletic program. The plaintiffs had changed the focus of their lawsuit to allege Title IX violations in the overall program after the court dismissed their claims pertaining to the wrestling team last October, finding them to be untimely.

In his 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. held that a complaint filed by the former students with the Office for Civil Rights in 2001 was not sufficient to give the campus notice of the broad-scale discrimination allegations they made in the lawsuit.

In noting that Title IX requires a complainant to provide notice to a school of an alleged violation so that it can resolve the issue, Damrell held "the court does not find that Congress intended to create an implied enforcement scheme that may impose greater liability, in the form of monetary damages potentially exceeding the level of federal funding, absent comparable conditions." In addressing the UC Davis case, he ruled "the evidence simply fails to establish that plaintiffs gave defendants notice of a Title IX claim for failing to provide enough athletic opportunities to female athletes."

Emphasis mine. More info here.

The Andy Caldwell Show: The Economy and Government's Role

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:39:00 EDT

IWF Director of the R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies Allison Kasic joins The Andy Caldwell Show to discuss the economy and what role the government should play.

Network: KINF AM 1440
Program: The Andy Caldwell Show
Time: 6:00 - 6:30 am ET
Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2008