Independent Women's Forum - Carrie L. Lukas

Who Really Has the Ideas?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:34:00 EDT

The internet is awash today with articles about the terrible state of the GOP. And no doubt, the GOP has been greatly damaged by scandals and public frustration with things like the war, runaway spending, and GOP scandals. Yet articles like this from Eugene Robinson misdiagnose what's going on. He calls in the GOP's "Ideas Deficit" and claims that what has really lost its appeal in the idea of limited government:

It turns out that Americans don't want their leaders to simply shrug, as George Bush shrugs, at the fact that 47 million citizens do not have health insurance. It turns out that Americans don't want their leaders to simply tsk-tsk, as George Bush tsk-tsks, at the wrenching economic dislocations that stem from globalization.

It turns out that if government declines to adequately regulate or even monitor the financial system, unfettered markets can make catastrophic blunders.

First, it seems a bit of hyperbole to call the current economic situation -- slow growth, no doubt, but continued low unemployment and historically high sctock market -- "catastrophic." But more importantly, do Americans really now want an activist government, socialized medicine and protectionism? What are the Democrats great ideas that constitute an "idea deficit"?

As far I know, the Democrats continue to champion redistributionist tax policies, socialized medicine, protectionism, workplace regulations, higher spending without any reform in education, higher taxes as a means to prop up Social Security.... what is it that is so new and appealing?

The GOP may have done a terrible job implementing their policies for the most part, but the conservative vision of policy reform still resonates. Does anyone question that school choice is at the heart of real education reform? That we are better off moving toward a retirement system that resembles a 401k instead of a Ponzi scheme? That allowing goods to come from overseas is better for Americans because we then get both more diversity and higher quality goods, and get to sell our own products to consumers around the world? That government provision of healthcare would be a disaster and that the problem with today's healthcare system is that it isn't enough of a marketplace, not the other way around?

There is reason to be gloomy about GOP prospects, but it isn't because the fundamental conservative ideas are faulty.

Teachers' Unions Against Teachers

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:55:00 EDT

Teachers' Unions seem to be having an increasingly tough time hiding the fact that they really don't care about what's best for teachers, or kids for that matter. Washington state's teachers unions have refused a $13 million grant that would have gone to help teachers of Advance Placement course. Why? Because teachers would have been rewarded if their kids test scores improved. Read the whole sorry story here.

Housing Crisis a Matter of Perspective

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 15 May 2008 08:58:00 EDT

It's obvious that the so-called housing crisis has created really hardship among some, particularly those who took out loans on bad terms and then had their property values fall. Some of those people are clearly sympathetic, while others are much less so, such as those who knowingly took on big risks or lied about their financial situation to get a loan.

But it wasn't so long ago that the media was talking about a crisis of another sort -- a "housing affordability" crisis -- since housing prices had climbed so high that many were priced out of the market.

As George Will writes, the decline in home prices is the solution to that crisis and the current alarm over the state of the housing prices is really a matter of perspective:

Do young couples struggling to purchase their first homes concur with the sudden consensus that the decline in prices is a national misfortune? The Economist reports: "Monthly payments on a typical house with a 30-year mortgage and 20 percent downpayment were 18.5 percent of the median family's income in February, down from almost 26 percent at the peak -- and close to the historical average."

By this measure of housing affordability, the "crisis" is welcome.

The housing perhaps-not-entirely-a-crisis resembles, in one particular, the curious consensus about the global warming "crisis," concerning which, the assumption is: Although Earth's temperature has risen and fallen through many millennia, the temperature was exactly right when, in the 1960s, Al Gore became interested in the subject. Are we to assume that last year, when housing prices were, say, 10 percent higher than they are now, they were exactly right? If so, why is that so? Because the market had set those prices, therefore they were where they belonged? But if the market was the proper arbiter of value then, why is it not the proper arbiter now? Whatever happened to the belief, way back in 2007, that there was a housing "bubble"? Or to the more ancient consensus that, because of, among other things, the deductibility of mortgage interest payments from taxable income, too much American capital flows into the housing stock?

Government intervention -- like the bailout bill currently underconsideration -- by definition will help some at the expense of others. A sliver of homeowners currently in distress will certainly be better off, but the millions who prudently waited to buy, anticipating a decline in home values, are among the losers. They have reason to be angry, and if this website is any guide -- www.angryrenter.com -- many are.

The Steve Largent Show: The Youth Vote

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:40:00 EDT

IWF's Carrie Lukas joined The Steve Largent Show for a discussion on the youth vote.

Michelle Malkin on Kiddie Fashion

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:43:00 EDT

Michelle Malkin has a great piece lamenting new seductive clothes lines targeted to toddlers:

If you thought the soft-porn image of Disney teen queen Miley Cyrus - wearing nothing but ruby-stained lips and a bedsheet - in Vanity Fair magazine was disturbing, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Pop diva Beyonce Knowles, 27, and her fashion-designer mother have launched a girls clothing line that makes Miley's bare-backed glam session look like a Shirley Temple photo shoot.

Read the whole piece here. It's always tough with something like this because beyond boycotting stores that carry these type of stuff, there's not much one can do. Except I guess for raising awareness about it and the obvious: those of us with little girls should obviously not buy this kind of junk for our daughters.

Marion Barry Supports School Vouchers

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:08:00 EDT

There has been a steady stream of Democrats across the country embracing the idea of giving parent more control over where their children go to school, but there is still something jaw dropping about reading Marion Barry come out for school voucher and the DC scholarship program in today's Washington Post:

I know it may surprise some that I would support a school voucher program, but I am proud to do so -- and I especially support the D.C. scholarships. Many here in Washington also favor this program: community and business leaders, educators, parents, and elected officials who are putting children first. I would oppose this voucher program if it took money from the D.C. public schools, but it doesn't.

I support this package because it provides much-needed financial support to all D.C. schools and because it offers parents a choice without hurting public schools. That's a win-win situation. We must make sure that children in the District are given every chance to attend schools that work for them. To do anything else is wrong.

I disagree with the idea that voucher programs ever "take" money from public schools, but that's an argument for another time. Barry recounts his conversations with parents in DC whose children are receiving a better education because of this greater freedom:

One mom, Wanda Gaddis, has worked for a long time, including serving as a parent advocate at her daughter's public elementary school, to make sure her daughter gets a great education. At the meeting, I learned that her daughter is attending a private school in Ward 8 through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Gaddis told me, "The schools in D.C. were not educating my child. At first I did not have a choice, but I am so thankful that I and so many other parents did get choice with the Opportunity Scholarship Program. I can't begin to tell you how much my child's education has improved since starting with this program. It is a program that is helping to educate our children so they can have better, more productive lives and in turn create better communities here in Ward 8 and across D.C."

I am a father and understand how parents want and need to choose what's best for their children. When my son, Christopher, was entering fourth grade, my wife and I had to decide where he would go. We had enough money to send him to a private school and had the option of doing that, sending him to our neighborhood school or sending him to an out-of-boundary school. We chose to send him to Murch, in Upper Northwest, even though we lived in Southeast.

Over the years, Christopher went to public schools, and I am grateful that we could choose the right environment for him. I was fortunate that I could afford the right school for my son. As I have been in years past, I am focused today on those who most need help. We need to give the same opportunity to the District's low-income parents, and this package would help ensure that all parents in our city have choices about where their children attend school.

It's a very convincing defense of voucher program, making a point that seems plainly obvious that people do better when given more choices. Could Elenor Holmes Norton be next?

What Job Are They Are Applying For?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:09:00 EDT

It's easy to get caught up in the presidential horserace and forget how absurd the whole system has become. It isn't just the ridiculousness of modern campaigns that have would-be presidents running around from venue to venue making unkeepable promises to countless constituencies. The Presidency itself today has taken on a role in American life that is completely beyond what the Founders intended.

This is the case that Gene Healy makes in his new book, The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Presidential Power, and in a piece today in Reason Magazine:

This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. The vision of the president as national guardian and spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous it goes virtually unnoticed. Americans, left, right, and other, think of the "commander in chief" as a superhero, responsible for swooping to the rescue when danger strikes. And with great responsibility comes great power.

It's difficult for 21st-century Americans to imagine things any other way. The United States appears stuck with an imperial presidency, an office that concentrates enormous power in the hands of whichever professional politician manages to claw his way to the top. Americans appear deeply ambivalent about the results, alternately cursing the king and pining for Camelot. But executive power will continue to grow, and threats to civil liberties increase, until citizens reconsider the incentives we have given to a post that started out so humble.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. The modern vision of the presidency couldn't be further from the Framers' view of the chief executive's role. In an age long before distrust of power was condemned as cynicism, the Founding Fathers designed a presidency of modest authority and limited responsibilities. The Constitution's architects never conceived of the president as the man in charge of national destiny. They worked amid the living memory of monarchy, and for them the very notion of "national leadership" raised the possibility of authoritarian rule by a demagogue ready to create an atmosphere of crisis in order to enhance his power.

I haven't had a chance to pick up the book yet, but knowing Gene's working, it will undoubtedly be eye opening and entertaining. In the meantime, read the whole article in Reason.

The Thom Hartmann Show: The Neighborhood Stabilization Act

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:12:00 EDT

IWF's Carrie Lukas joins The Thom Hartmann Show for a discussion on the housing bill, The Neighborhood Stabilization Act.

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.

High Costs

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:12:00 EDT

National Review

For the nation's capital, it's one step forward, another step back. D.C. has long been recognized as one of the nation's least friendly business climates, but in recent years, officials have attempted to lure employers into the city limits. The results can be seen around the city. The latest evidence is Columbia Heights's D.C. USA shopping complex, which features prominent retailing chains such as Target, Bed, Bath & Beyond, and Best Buy. These businesses not only bring new shopping opportunities to the neighborhood, but an estimated 1,200 new jobs, more than half of which will be filled by D.C. residents.

Yet while area residents were celebrating the opening of this new consumer paradise, the D.C. Council was busy discouraging other businesses from following D.C. USA's lead. In March, the D.C. Council passed and the Mayor signed the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act, legislation to force employers to provide workers paid sick leave. Businesses with twenty-four or fewer employees will have to provide three days of paid sick leave, while those with more than one hundred employees will have to offer seven days.

Most people naturally respond to this news by cheering the D.C. government: after all, who doesn't recognize the need for workers to take time off due to illness? The problem with this reaction, however, is that it focuses solely on the recipients of the new benefit without considering the other side of the ledger: those who bear the costs and suffer from the mandate's unintended consequences.

Consider what happens to a business if an employee uses paid leave. The job that person was hired to perform will go undone, another employee will have to pick up the slack, or the business will have to hire a temporary replacement worker. In any case, the employer's costs will go up or productivity will go down. Smaller businesses, which tend to be more financially vulnerable than larger ones, are particularly affected. Large employers may shift work with relative ease, but a store with a handful of employees often cannot function when one worker doesn't show up. The owner will have to hire a replacement while still paying the leave taker's salary. Those additional costs will have to be made up for somewhere: prices may rise for consumers or perhaps employees will receive lower pay.

Many advocates of these types of mandates also lament stagnating wages. Yet mandated benefits contribute to slow growth in wages since they raise the total cost of employment. As of 2006, more than 30 percent of the average worker's total compensation was paid as benefits.

Some workers may like this arrangement: they're happy to receive such a large portion of their compensation as benefits. But undoubtedly others would prefer to trade those benefits for more money. The problem is once government issues these kinds of regulations negotiation is no longer possible. Certain compensation packages are simply outlawed.

High employment costs encourage employers to hire fewer workers. Some business may combine jobs or outsource services. This is bad news for the nation's capital where the unemployment rate, at 6.2 percent, is more than a percentage point higher than the rest of the country.

It's those people - the ones who miss out on having a job because of the high cost of employment - who are overlooked by much of the media. The Washington Post, for example, highlighted a security officer who "is looking forward to getting seven days of leave," and quoted Councilman Marion Barry (D., Ward 8) who, while lamenting that the regulations didn't demand more from businesses, called the effort "humane."

But these efforts are "humane" only if you focus exclusively on those who benefit and ignore those who lose out. The Washington Post mentions the concerns of Councilman Harry Thomas Jr. (D., Ward 5) who "feared that the legislation would force small businesses to fold and prevent others from starting," but there was no real life example to illustrate this concern. The businesses that will not open and the person who would have gotten that important first job are abstract concepts, but policymakers, and the D.C. public, should not discount their loss.

The greatest loss, of course, is the basic freedom to negotiate your own employment contract. Is it really government's job to make it illegal for me to accept a job offer that doesn't include paid sick leave? Apparently, that's a question that few in the D.C. government think to ask.

Changing Times for Ethanol

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:38:00 EDT

It really is amazing to see how many prominent politicians and opinionmakers are abandoning the idea of forcing Americans to use ethanol fuels. The Wall Street Journal, a long-time opponent of distortionary ethanol subsidies and mandates, writes today about how this remarkable turnaround:

Even the environmental left, which pushed ethanol for decades as an alternative to gasoline, is coming clean. Lester Brown, one of the original eco-Apostles, wrote in the Washington Post that "it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that food-to-fuel mandates have failed." We knew for sure the tide had turned when Time magazine's recent cover story, "The Clean Energy Myth," described how turning crops into fuel increases both food prices and atmospheric CO2. No one captures elite green wisdom better than Time's Manhattan editors. Can Vanity Fair be far behind?
All we can say is, welcome aboard. Corn ethanol can now join the scare over silicone breast implants and the pesticide Alar as among the greatest scams of the age. But before we move on to the next green miracle cure, it's worth recounting how much damage this ethanol political machine is doing.

To create just one gallon of fuel, ethanol slurps up 1,700 gallons of water, according to Cornell's David Pimentel, and 51 cents of tax credits. And it still can't compete against oil without a protective 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imports and a federal mandate that forces it into our gas tanks. The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America's corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption.

In December the Congressional Research Service warned that even devoting every last ear of American-grown corn to ethanol would not create enough "renewable fuel" to meet federal mandates. According to a 2007 OECD report, fossil-fuel production is up to 10,000 times as efficient as biofuel, measured by energy produced per unit of land.

Now scientists are showing that ethanol will exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions. A February report in the journal Science found that "corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years . . . Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%." Princeton's Timothy Searchinger and colleagues at Iowa State, of all places, found that markets for biofuel encourage farmers to level forests and convert wilderness into cropland. This is to replace the land diverted from food to fuel.

As the article goes on to detail, a growing number of politians, lead by Senator John McCain who has long been an outspoken opponent of ethanol subsidies, are asking the EPA to provide relief from government mandate. Let's hope the momentum keeps going so that policymakers (who are responsible for these mandates in the first place) can repeal these distructive laws.

The Right Balance: Spare Consumers The High Costs of Bad Government Policy

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:11:00 EDT

Carrie Lukas joined the The Right Balance with Greg Allen to discuss the economy to

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.

The Thom Hartmann Show: How Women Would Run the World

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:28:00 EDT

IWF Vice President for Policy and Economics Carrie Lukas joined The Thom Hartmann Show for a discussion on how women would run the world, which was inspired by a recent Financial Times article.

Spare Consumers the High Costs of Bad Government Policy

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:44:00 EDT

Townhall.com

The news stories appear daily: gas prices inch up from previous record-breaking highs; food costs soar and shortages spread in much of the world. When combined with the souring housing market, it's no wonder that so many Americans are pessimistic about the country's economic future.

These economic reports reflect a glass-half-empty mentality. After all, March's 5.1 percent unemployment rate is still low by historical standards, and the current economic slowdown comes after six years of uninterrupted growth, which means the economy remains bigger than at any other time in history. Yet that doesn't mean that Americans shouldn't worry about our economic future. One real cause for concern should be the policies opportunistic politicians will pass in a rush to "solve" current economic challenges.

Consider what's being pushed by the House Majority in the name of addressing high gas prices. One piece of legislation being championed by Speaker Pelosi is the "Energy Price Gouging Act," which would expand the federal government's power to target anyone in the energy supply chain who "artificially inflates the price of energy." Those found guilty would be subject to fines and possible jail time.

The Federal Trade Commission already has the power to investigate charges of price gouging, and numerous government studies have failed to find any wrongdoing. But this legislation and the threat of harsh penalties against business executive could have a real effect on the marketplace by discouraging companies from doing business.

Consider what this could mean after a big natural disaster. With access to the region disrupted, transportation becomes more costly and supplies are scarcer. In a free market, prices play an important role in ensuring that supply meets demand. Prices jump, sometimes precipitously, which signals suppliers, both domestic and international, that it's worth making the extra investment to get their product to affected areas. High prices also encourage consumers to buy only what is necessary.

Legislation discouraging price adjustments would thwart this important process, which would deter suppliers from coming online, encourage overconsumption--even hording--in affected regions, and could result in shortages. One study examined this legislation's potential impact during the 2005 hurricane season (which included hurricane Katrina) and found it would have imposed $1.9 billion in economic costs.

Another proposal favored by Speaker Pelosi is to raise taxes on "Big Oil." Undoubtedly, there are countless inefficient tax deductions for favored industries that riddle the tax code. These should be scraped as a part of comprehensive tax reform. Yet it's illogical to assume that raising taxes on a company would encourage it to lower prices. Just the opposite should be expected: Taxes raise business costs and companies pass those costs on to consumers. In other words, Speaker Pelosi's tax hike would move gas prices in exactly the wrong direction.

Of course, while the Speaker wants to punish "Big Oil" with higher taxes, she wants to use the tax codes to reward "green" energy sources. The results of previous government efforts to tip the market in favor of politically correct energy industry players should give the public pause.

Republicans and Democrats alike have embraced subsidies for corn-based ethanol fuels, and the results are now being felt across the world. World food prices have risen by 83 percent since 2005, leaving many areas with shortages and relief organizations struggling to meet a rising demand for assistance. Studies have suggested that between a third and a quarter of the rise in prices is due to biofuel production. Ironically, the environment has been another loser in the push for ethanol. As Time Magazine recently detailed in its cover story, "The Clean Energy Scam," forests, wetlands, and grasslands-considered environmental jewels-are being destroyed in a rush to farm crops that can be turned into gasoline.

This history should give politicians some humility. Instead of attempting to micromanage the marketplace, policymakers should roll back unnecessary government intervention. Biofuels, solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources may have a big role to play in our future energy marketplace, but the government also needs to allow for more exploration for oil and the development of additional refining capacity. Instead of trying to pick winners and losers, the government should let the market work.

Speaker Pelosi's grab bag of energy proposals would be more likely to cause gas prices to rise than to bring consumers any relief. Instead of asking the government for help, Americans frustrated with rising prices-whether it's at the gas pump or in the grocery store-should ask politicians to first do no harm.

Government at It's Worst

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:44:00 EDT

It's hard to be surprise by bad policy that comes out of government, yet somehow I am still amazed that Congress would be preparing to pass another farm bill complete with giveaways for millionares in the agriculture businesses (it isn't really appropriate to call many of these folks "farmers"). As an editorial in the Sacramento Bee describes:

Given that big growers and commodity corporations are enjoying the windfall - and experts say these price spikes are not just a temporary "blip" - you might think that Congress would want to pass a farm bill that reflects current realities.

Nope.

Congress is close to approving another five-year farm bill that would cost the treasury about $300 billion. A good chunk of this funding - about $5.2 billion a year - will be in the form of "direct payment" subsidies to growers of corn and other crops, including some growers who are millionaires....

Will Congress ever reform the farm bill? Possibly, but not while powerful commodity interests have a lock on leaders of both parties, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Until that changes, Amercians will continue to pay twice for their food - once at the grocery store and once in their federal tax returns.

Politicians always say they are concerned about the middleclass and rising prices, but apparently that doesn't extent to issues like this one.

The Steve Largent Show: Equal Pay Day No More

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:43:00 EDT

Carrie Lukas disscusses the social relevance of Equal Pay Day on The Steve Largent Show.

IWF Podcast: Equal Pay Day No More

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:59:00 EDT

IWF's Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas discuss the social relevance of Equal Pay Day.

Don't Use Women To Justify Bad Economic Policy

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:53:00 EDT

Townhall.com

Senator Ted Kennedy feels sorry for women. In a report entitled "Taking a Toll: The Effects of Recession on Women," Kennedy laments: "It is now clear that our economy has sunk into a recession that threatens the wellbeing of countless American families. Yet despite their critical role in the workforce and in raising families, women and their vulnerability in economic downturns have received too little focus."

At first glance, American woman might thank the Bay State Senator for casting a spotlight on the precarious financial situation of many of our sisters. But a closer look reveals it is a classic, politically opportunistic document designed to advance the author's agenda while shedding little light on women's real economic challenges.

The report begins by highlighting opinion polls revealing growing economic anxiety. More Americans are concerned about the economy today than they were a year ago, and a majority expects things to get worse. In keeping with the report's theme, women are gloomier about the economic situation than men are. The report intones "women in particular feel profoundly anxious about their economic future" and "recent polling data show that women are more likely than men to say they are very worried about the economy."

Is this really a sign that women are being disproportionately affected by the economic downturn? A look at the Gallup poll cited in the report reveals an alternative explanation. Women were more concerned about the economy last year too, and it's not just the economy that worries women. As the poll's summary details: "Other areas for which Gallup finds significant gender differences -- all with women more concerned than men -- include healthcare, crime, the environment, drug use, the possibility of terrorist attacks, unemployment, and hunger/homelessness."

In other words, women worry more than men about everything. It shouldn't take extensive polling or Congressional research to reach this conclusion. Any psychology student-or anyone who has a mother or wife, for that matter-could tell you that women tend to be our worriers.

The report also cites the unemployment numbers as evidence that women are particularly burdened by the economic downturn. Yet while women's unemployment rose faster than men during the past year, women's unemployment started at a lower level. And today, adult men and women's unemployment rate is both 4.6%.

Any uptick in unemployment is concerning since it represents real hardship and frustration for people who desire productive work. Yet there's something condescending about Sen. Kennedy's decision to single out women and cherry pick data in an attempt to advance his big government agenda.

Undoubtedly, there are ways in which women are more vulnerable in tough economic times, especially single women with children. Yet the policies that will help women find gainful employment and help them make ends meet are the same policies that will help the broader economy.

Senator Kennedy offers a laundry list of government programs and regulations that he claims will help women. But he ignores these proposals' costs. For example, he wants to require employers to provide employees paid sick leave. It sounds like a good idea: Everyone understands the need to take time off from work due to illness. But such a mandate imposes costs on employers and discourages job creation. Similarly, increasing unemployment benefits or providing more generous welfare programs may sound like pure acts of charity, but they have real implications for the economy, discouraging people from finding and taking jobs.

Unemployed workers who are struggling to find jobs don't want government handouts. They want a growing economy that offers opportunity and rewards work. Instead of focusing on government band-aids, Senator Kennedy should consider policies that will actually spur economic growth and job creation.

Lower taxes and less regulation, for example, would actually have an impact on businesses, encouraging new investment and expansion. Congress needs to embrace trade liberalization, which has served as an engine of economic growth and lowered prices on countless goods.

While Washington could take positive steps to help the economy, policymakers should also first do no harm when it comes to the economy. Members toying with legislation to mandate a reduction in carbon-emissions, for example, should consider the costs of such an effort to the economy. While the relationship between carbon emissions and changes in the global temperature remain uncertain, we know that carbon-capping legislation would act as a significant drag on the economy, discourage job creation, and all for little if any environmental benefit.

Senator Kennedy may try to convince women that he can be their economic savior, but smart women know that government tends to create more problems than it solves.

Radio America: The G. Gordon Liddy Show

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:28:00 EDT

IWF's Carrie Lukas on The G. Gordon Liddy Show, discussing more on Equal Pay Day.

The Ron Smith Show: Equal Pay Day No More

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:29:00 EDT

IWF's Carrie Lukas on The Ron Smith Show discussing Equal Pay Day.

The Andy Caldwell Show: Equal Pay Day No More

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:31:00 EDT

Carrie Lukas disscusses the social relevance of Equal Pay Day on The Andy Caldwell Show.

The Thom Hartmann Show Equal Pay Day No More

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:22:00 EDT

IWF's Carrie Lukas on Air America's The Thom Hartmann Show discussing Equal Pay Day on Tuesday, April 22, 2008.

Equal Pay Day has lost relevance

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:14:00 EDT

The Baltimore Examiner

Political experts have just begun to analyze why Sen. Hillary Clinton, considered a shoo-in for her party's nomination just a few months ago, lags behind Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries. Surely one factor has been that compared with the fresh-faced Illinois senator, Clinton seems like an anachronism. She may as well be wearing horn-rimmed glasses and bell bottoms as she attempts to rally the sisterhood to join her in the cause of electing the first female president.

The problem for Clinton is that most women today don't think in terms of gender solidarity. Women take for granted our access to education and job opportunities. The steady march of women into positions of political power reassures most that, regardless of the fate of her candidacy, it's only a matter of time before we have a woman in the Oval Office.

Other dealers in gender grievance face a similar challenge. Tuesday, April 22, has been labeled "Equal Pay Day" by old-school feminist groups: By their logic, it's the day that women finally get to stop working to make up for last year's pay discrimination. They will issue news releases containing the same statements about the need for more government oversight to end this unfairness.

Yet few people actually believe this rhetoric. The statistic that women make about 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man has been ingrained into public consciousness, but most people intuitively understand discrimination isn't solely to blame; something else is going on.

And in fact, studies of pay differentials reveal that it's not discrimination, but the choices men and women make, that are the primary cause of the wage gap. The wage gap statistic comes from the Department of Labor's comparison of the median income of a full-time working woman with that of a full-time working man, and it regularly shows that women make about 80 percent of what men make. But this statistic fails to take into account critical factors, such as occupation, number of years and hours worked, and education.

For example, in addition to taking more time out of the labor force, full-time working women spend less time at their jobs than their male counterparts. According to the Department of Labor, women spend .7 hours a day less in the office than men do. Should it be a surprise that an extra 3.5 hours a week at work result in higher pay?

Even a study done by Equal Pay Day sponsors like the American Association of University Women found that three-quarters of the pay gap disappears by controlling for hours, occupation and other factors that affect earnings.

Might discrimination account for some of the remaining gap? Absolutely, but other explanations are also worth considering. For example, research conducted by a professor at Carnegie Mellon University found that women are less likely than men to negotiate their starting salary and to ask for raises. The differences that result are significant over a worker's lifetime and would clearly affect statistics like the wage gap.

It helps women to hear that fact and to appreciate the importance of negotiating salary. As a result, we can push ourselves to be our own advocate and take care to teach our daughters to be comfortable talking about money and valuing their time.

If feminism's goal remains to empower women, then events like Equal Pay Day, which rest on inflated statistics about the extent of sex discrimination, are counterproductive. Far from empowering, convincing women we are victims disguises the real choices we face and the power we have. Armed with knowledge about how decisions about our work life affect our lifetime earnings, women still may opt for careers that provide greater flexibility and personal satisfaction over money, but we will feel better knowing that it was our choice, not a conspiracy against us.

Thankfully, most American women are too busy living their lives to worry about fighting the gender wars of the past. That may not be welcome news to Hillary Clinton, but it should be to the rest of us.

A New Step in the Global Warming Scare

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:04:00 EDT

So today the President will make a statement about global warming. We will wait and see until what he says, but in today's Washington Times, Tony Blankley explains some of the dangers of the Administration embracing the global warming hype:

First of all, as Chris Horner, the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism," shrewdly has pointed out, the Democrats desperately want Bush and the Republicans "to take ownership" of the global alarmists' issues before he goes.

This is important. Whatever restraint likely to be exercised by the Democratic Party majority next year will be induced by the political fear that the Republicans would be able to say I told you so if the Democrats' policies contract the economy and put yet more people out of work.

That will give them political cover for the entire program, which, whatever it may try to do regarding "global warming," certainly will give governments and international organizations vastly more control over the United States economy.

This is a perfect backdrop for IWF's event tonight on the outstanding book Scared to Death. We hope you can join us for this event and buy a copy of this book which will put global warming in the context of other scares.