Independent Women's Forum - Inkwell

Wait, a Few Jobs WILL be Created!

info@iwf.org (Nicole Kurokawa) — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:19:00 EDT

…In the IRS, that is.

Via the Washington Examiner’s J.P. Freire:

A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit the new tax information Obamacare requires families and small businesses to provide.

(And let’s not forget, these are cushy federal jobs.)

Let’s get this straight. An expansive, expensive health care plan will:

Hike taxes and fees on businesses and average Americans, killing jobs in the process.
Benefit bureaucrats – specifically, bureaucrats who have a vested interest in keeping our tax code punitive and complex, because it gives them job security.
Add to the deficit (when computed correctly) – which will weaken our economy and lead to inflation.

Does that sound like a recipe for economic growth to you?

Must I Repeat Myself? Americans Still Down on Healthcare Reform

info@iwf.org (Sabrina Schaeffer) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:15:00 EDT

Matthew Continetti over at The Weekly Standard sums up public opinion on ObamaCare:

More bad news for Democrats in the latest Pew survey. Forty-eight percent oppose the health bill, 38 percent approve. Obama's job approval is down to 46 percent, with 43 percent disapproval. A majority says health care costs will increase despite passage of health care reform. Ask voters what they think of Congress, and the four words you are most likely to hear are “dysfunctional,” “corrupt,” “self-serving,” and “inept.” "Tickle fight" didn't make the cut.

This goes hand-in-hand with what IWF’s sister organization Independent Women’s Voice found in its recent health care reform survey.

IWV found that “Pluralities of men (48%), women (38%), and voters of all ages, regions, and incomes felt that Congress should start anew with a bipartisan proposal.”

It also learned that this latest push by the Obama administration and Democrats to pass healthcare reform has backfired. In fact, only 29% of respondents said their support of healthcare reform has increased this month, while a majority (55%) became less supportive of the idea. And, to add insult to injury, “ 42% say they have become MUCH less supportive.”

And perhaps the reason so many voters refer to Congress as “corrupt” and “self-serving” -- as Continetti acknowledges -- is that they don’t see the same healthcare emergency that the President and his allies like to claim exists. IWV learned that the public hopes Congress takes their time in getting reform done right (79%), even if means taking a little longer (14%).

Job Losses from Health Reform

info@iwf.org (Nicole Kurokawa) — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:39:00 EDT

Since misery loves company, I thought it fit to pile on to my earlier comments about negative effects that current health reform proposals will have on the country. Americans for Tax Reform released an important new study today on the job losses that the nation will face as a direct result of this health care legislation. Written by David Tuerck and Paul Bachman of the Beacon Hill Institute, the study conservatively estimates that 119,000 jobs will be lost between this year and 2019 – but losses could run up to 700,000! From manufacturing to mining, forestry to finance, every sector of the economy takes a hit (in some cases, a pretty significant hit.)

The study debunks a report written by the liberal Center for American Progress that asserted how Congress’ health care reform plans would create jobs – and interestingly, uses CAP’s own methodology.

In its executive summary, the study articulates the problem with the “health reform will create jobs” narrative:

CAP’s claim about job creation rests on its assumption that various developments ensuing from passage of the bill – upgrades in medical technology, the promotion of preventive care and the reduction in administrative costs – would save $683 billion over ten‐years and thus set in motion new incentives for firms to create jobs. The trouble is that the claimed costs savings are at odds with estimates from both Congress and the Executive Branch, which, together, are responsible for considering and ultimately implementing the legislation.

Tuerck and Bachman conclude:

The optimistic jobs outlook provided by CAP overestimates the ability of government to manage costs. There is no assurance that the federal government can cover more people by simply squeezing inefficiencies or by curbing unnecessary medical tests or revising doctor reimbursement rates. History shows otherwise. The fact that Medicare, based on a single‐payer model, can theoretically deliver medical services more efficiently misses the point that the system itself is not sustainable in the long term given the demographic challenges of a graying population.

To borrow a phrase from the 1986 movie “The Fly”: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Tell Congress to Say out of Business's Business

info@iwf.org (Sabrina Schaeffer) — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:22:00 EDT

With all the attention being paid to the health care fight in Congress this week, it was easy to miss another important (and costly) vote that took place today in the Senate.

This afternoon, the Senate approved 68-29 a $17.6 billion jobs bill. The bill was not as big as Senate Leader Harry Reid initially wanted. According to Politico, Reid “ scaled back the package from a $150 billion bill to move it more quickly and attract more bipartisan backing.”

Nevertheless, with the help of 11 Republicans, the Democrats still showed that they don’t know how to improve the current economic downturn. Included in the bill is an incentive for businesses to hire workers who have been unemployed for at least 60 days. By doing so, businesses would be exempt from paying the 6.2 percent payroll tax on those employees’ earnings through the end of the year.

Sounds good, right? Wrong.

As even NPR (!) pointed out this morning, when the economy took a turn for the worse, employers were forced to do more with less. Often that meant letting go of their least productive employees. But Congress thought it would be good to “lessen the burden” on those who have been unemployed longest.

Well-meaning, perhaps, but it’s still illogical. Would the government encourage a business to invest in a second-rate product even if a better one was available? If Washington wants to generate growth, shouldn’t they encourage businesses to hire the best person for the job?

And what’s more, these are all temporary tax incentives. If Washington is really interested in spurring economic growth, they ought to invest in policies that encourage more freedom in the market place, not less. They should keep our taxes low, cut the corporate tax rate, reform entitlement spending, and expand educational freedom (which would save bundles!). Oh, and not pass the pending health care legislation. This would free up resources and establish certainty, which is exactly what the economy needs right now.

When government gets into the business of telling business how to do their job, they inevitably get it wrong.
Tell Congress to stay out of business's business.

The Feds are Making the State House the Poor House

info@iwf.org (Nicole Kurokawa) — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:02:00 EDT

Even though the health care debate has moved into the stage of bizarre, constitutionally questionable procedures in order to force an unwanted plan upon the American people, it’s still worth reminding people about some of the damaging effects it will have if it is implemented.

The Republican Governors’ Association has a clever video on the unfunded mandates that Obamacare will impose on states at whathappensinDC.org. Check it out:

As the video says, “What happens in Vegas may stay in Vegas. But what happens in DC… affects the entire nation. From Nevada to Iowa to Ohio, all the way to Florida and Massachusetts, too much of the President’s prescription for America would do more harm than good. His health care plan alone would raise taxes and shift millions of unfunded mandates to the states, forcing states to spend money they don’t have.”

Boy, the RGA isn’t kidding when they say that states don’t have extra money to spend! Today’s Wall Street Journal gives us a glimpse of the troubles that lie beneath:

Strapped states, facing up to $180 billion in budget deficits in the next fiscal year, are going hat in hand to Washington.

California wants $6.9 billion in federal money for the next fiscal year, and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he'll have to eliminate state health and welfare programs without it. Illinois, facing a $13 billion deficit that equals roughly half of the state's operating budget, has what it dubs a stimulus team and a group in Washington pressing for additional state aid.

Among other things, Illinois is hoping the federal government will keep paying a higher share of Medicaid costs. "That's $600 million we desperately need," said Kelly Kraft, a spokeswoman for Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn's budget office. Those funds already are counted in the governor's budget proposal.

But in Congress, members are balking at further subsidies amid an election-year outcry over the U.S. deficit and federal involvement in the economy.

That tension sets up fierce battles as states work out budgets for the fiscal year beginning July 1. Because they can't run deficits, most states face yet more tough choices: raise taxes, cut services, lay off workers or trim employees' wages and benefits over union opposition.

As it turns out, federal stimulus money that went to states last year didn’t actually help. Throwing money at bloated state governments merely delayed the inevitable, while saddling states with additional obligations under federal law. A few governors, like Rick Perry of Texas and Mitch Daniels of Indiana, had the foresight to turn down the “free” money and the strings it came with. But the rest of the country’s governors weren’t as smart, and have dug themselves an even deeper fiscal hole than they were in to start with.

It should come as no surprise, then, that a backlash against federal overreach has begun. I’ve noted in the past state legislators’ efforts to promote freedom of choice in health care, but it looks like the movement has spread beyond that effort! As The New York Times reports:

“There’s a tsunami of interest in states’ rights and resistance to an overbearing federal government; that’s what all these measures indicate,” said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, which led the drive last year for one of the first “firearms freedoms,” laws like the ones signed last week in South Dakota and Wyoming.

In most cases, conservative anxiety over federal authority is fueling the impulse, with the Tea Party movement or its members in the backdrop or forefront. Mr. Herrod in Utah said that he had spoken at Tea Party rallies, for example, but that his efforts, and those of the Patrick Henry Caucus, were not directly connected to the Tea Partiers.

And in some cases, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, the politics of states’ rights are veering left. Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, for example — none of them known as conservative bastions — are considering bills that would authorize, or require, governors to recall or take control of National Guard troops, asserting that federal calls to active duty have exceeded federal authority.

Alas, there is no straightforward solution to this dilemma. Realistically, the federal government isn’t going to stop bribing states with federal money and overriding their sovereignty, despite the Constitution explicitly prohibiting it from doing so. Going forward, however, states should be mindful of the adage “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” and attempt to be as self-sustaining as possible in order to minimize exposure. If there ever was an argument for limited government, this is it: state governments of finite, defined purposes shouldn’t need vast amounts of revenue, and they certainly shouldn’t be dependent on federal pursestrings to exist.

Rational Education Policy Working in Cleveland

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:09:00 EDT

The Cleveland Metropolitan School District has a $53 million deficit, nearly three out of four of its schools are on academic emergency or "watch," and barely half (54 percent) of its high school students graduate according to a just-released analysis by the Reason Foundation's Lisa Snell. No wonder almost 40,000 middle-class students have fled the district; while more than 25,000 urban students are attending charter schools and using private-school scholarships. But there are solutions to fix the schools. Among Ms. Snell's Top 10 recommendations are to:

• Make every failing school a charter school;

• Base funding on students, not incomprehensible and inequitable funding formulas;

• Give parents more education options;

• Free Cleveland schools from stifling collective bargaining agreements; and

• Keep the best teachers based on merit, not seniority.

Ms. Snell's not alone. Drew Carey shares some of his ideas in Episode 2 of Reason TV's "Fix the Schools" video-like this gem: "Maybe hiring teachers based on seniority isn't the best idea," he quips, "because just hangin' around doesn't make you good." Neither does more money. In spite of receiving $14,000 per student, Cleveland schools aren't making the grade. This is devastating news for Cleveland, or any city, in the throes of revitalization efforts.

Oakland, California for example, is turning its schooling performance around through successful charter schools that rely on autonomy and accountability. Children who would likely be another dropout statistic elsewhere are on their way to college, thanks to charter schools like Think College Now (TCN). "These children can be the first generation of college students," says Jean Higgins, proud grandmother of a TCN student. This, says Ms. Higgins, gives the community hope.

Back in Cleveland, Citizens' Academy charter school not only closed Ohio's 30 percentage-point achievement gap between African-American students and white students, the charter school annihilated the gap altogether-beating the state's non-minority performance average by 7 percentage points. Even better, charter schools do more with less, since they have no taxing authority-something to consider the next time a bond measure or local tax increase for schooling appears on the ballot. In Ohio's case, charter schools like Citizens' Academy receive about $5,000 less than traditional, district-run public schools.

Overall, "Schools of choice are the way to go," says Gwen Minter, former Cleveland Municipal School District board Member. "That's the way it is once you get to college." So why wait?

"You Know What I Hate?"

info@iwf.org (Sabrina Schaeffer) — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:51:00 EDT

To borrow a phrase from Andy Rooney, “You know what I hate?”

I hate when defenders of ObamaCare accuse Republicans of trying to avoid talking about the legislation.

This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Salon.com’s Joe Conason joined the hosts to discuss the House Democrat’s newest ploy to pass health care reform – the “Slaughter Solution,” which is a procedural maneuver that would “deem” the Senate health care bill to pass without an actual vote. A little unsteady on the “history” of this approach, Conason quickly pivoted the conversation:

“…at every stage of this debate Republicans want to talk about anything except the actual substance of this bill. They want to talk about death panels; they make up all sorts of stuff that’s not true about this legislation and now they want to talk about how they’re going to get this passed…Why? Why is that the only thing they want to talk about?”

Paul Waldman over at The American Prospect seems to agree. He writes today:

Without question, the GOP won the language battle over health care. With a few vivid terms, like "government takeover" and "death panels," Republicans captured the public's imagination in an otherwise dull policy debate. . .Words can be powerful, and symbols matter. But so long as we're talking about how we're talking, we're no longer talking about what we're doing.

Well, I certainly agree that words matter. But I strongly disagree that Republicans are just using words and props to turn public opinion away from health care reform.

First of all, in the (approximate) words of Sen. John Kyl, Republicans have a responsibility to object to a terrible piece of legislation.

And second, Republicans and their conservative friends have not simply been obstructionists, as so many on the left like to claim. Conservatives have raised countless issues with the legislation (see here, here, and here for some examples). And they’ve offered up many potential reform options that would truly drive down costs and improve care.

It’s funny, in all the talk about Republicans obstructing this bill, I didn’t hear Conason or Waldman mention expanding health savings accounts and high-deductible insurance plans. I didn’t hear anything about extending the same tax privileges to individuals for purchasing health insurance as the government gives businesses. I never heard a thing from them about allowing people to shop for health insurance over state lines. And they were silent about medical malpractice reform.

Interesting, huh? I guess they were all just too busy talking about House procedure to actually talk about what’s not in the bill.

The Hypocrisy and Revisionist History of D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:29:00 EDT

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) began planning the death of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program nearly two years ago, proclaiming in June 2008, "I can tell you that the Democratic Congress is not about to extend this program." A vote to extend and expand the program could occur as early as today, thanks to Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and his bi-partisan coalition of Senators. Now Norton is trying to re-write history.

"The political maneuvering of District congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton can be breathtaking," writes the Washington Examiner's Jonetta Rose Barras. Norton has requested $5 million for hundreds of D.C. school children whose Opportunity Scholarships were revoked by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan-the fruit of Norton's poisonous tree. Yet she told Barras, "I cannot imagine sending a child to a school everybody knows is terrible." Don't think for a minute that this is about "the children."

Norton's request for cash comes now because hundreds of children shut-out of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program Norton and her allies want killed are now pouring back into the system they tried to flee. Never mind that D.C. Public Schools cost more than $28,000 per pupil compared to $6,600 for the average private-school Opportunity Scholarship-which eases overcrowding and saves money, which Norton supposedly wants.

What program opponents like Norton also don't to mention is that by law, under the District's funding system, whatever sum is appropriated for the Opportunity Scholarship Program (typically $14 million annually until this year), public schools receive an equal amount on top of their regular annual funding. So if Norton were really concerned about more money-for the children-then she'd be the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship's biggest fan.

Barras' response to such hypocrisy is priceless:

Get out of here! Norton knows she and other Democrats are the reason the program has yet to be reauthorized, after its initial five-year funding expired. When her party gained control of the House, it was on Dems' top 10 list of things to kill. The Obama administration agreed to fund the scholarships for only two more years -- despite the fact hundreds of low-income black and Hispanic children accepted for 2010 would be turned away and other young people already in the program might not be able to finish. ... Truth be told, Norton's request is for guilt-easing money.

Let's hope the Senate behaves more honorably and votes today to extend this life-changing program.

Washington Post Takes on Unions, DC Politicians Over Vouchers

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:22:00 EDT

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT) plans to introduce an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill that would revive the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. The Washington Post takes on the leading fallacies opponents are making-again-against the program. Here's the blow-by-blow:

• The National Education Association claims the program "has yielded no evidence of positive academic impact on the students the program was designed to assist." ...To those who claim that the program hasn't helped targeted students, we offer the results of the rigorous scientific study that Congress insisted on when the pilot program was launched in 2004. "The D.C. voucher program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the federal government's official education research arm so far," wrote Patrick J. Wolf, principal investigator for the Education Department's study.

• Americans United for Separation of Church and State says vouchers have "taken money away from the D.C. public schools."...In fact, additional federal funds were directed to the city's traditional public and charter schools as part of the three-sector initiative establishing the voucher program. If, as critics claim, public schools are suffering, why has D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee emerged as one of the strongest advocates of continuing the voucher program? Unlike some members of Congress, she has a hard time consigning children to dismal futures.

• Others, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say it's improper to use taxpayer dollars to fund the religious education of children...[C]harges about it being inappropriate to use public money for religious schools ignore the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such scholarship programs to be constitutional in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. Parents can choose to spend their scholarships in parochial schools or secular schools, just as older students do with federal Pell grants.

The Post rightly concludes:

Perhaps the most important thing being overlooked is the experiences of the parents whose children have been able to go to better schools because vouchers afforded them the means to make that choice. Over and over, parents cite their satisfaction with schools that are safer, where students are more respectful and where teachers better meet their children's needs. Politicians like to say they want to do what is best for kids; here's their chance.

A Warning to Members from Swing Districts

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:33:00 EDT

IWF's sister organization, Independent Women's Voice, is releasing a poll today at 11 am. Heather Higgins, who leads IWV, and the polling company's Kellyanne Conway have an oped in today WSJ's, which offers a few highlights:

Voters in key congressional districts are clear in their opposition to what they have seen, read and heard on health-care reform. That's one of the findings of a survey that will be released today by the Polling Company on behalf of Independent Women's Voice. The survey consisted of 1,200 registered voters in 35 districts represented by members who could determine the outcome of the health-care debate. Twenty of those members voted for the House bill in November but now may be reconsidering. Fifteen voted against the bill but are under tremendous pressure to change their vote.

The survey shows astonishing intensity and sharp opposition to reform, far more than national polls reflect. For 82% of those surveyed, the heath-care bill is either the top or one of the top three issues for deciding whom to support for Congress next November. (That number goes to 88% among independent women.) Sixty percent want Congress to start from scratch on a bipartisan health-care reform proposal or stop working on it this year. Majorities say the legislation will make them and their loved ones (53%), the economy (54%) and the U.S. health-care system (55%) worse off-quite the trifecta.

Seven in 10 would vote against a House member who votes for the Senate health-care bill with its special interest provisions. That includes 45% of self-identified Democrats, 72% of independents and 88% of Republicans. Three in four disagree that the federal government should mandate that everyone buy a government-approved insurance plan (64% strongly so), and 81% say any reform should focus first on reducing costs. Three quarters agree that Americans have the right to choose not to participate in any health-care system or plan without a penalty or fine.

That translates into specific concerns with the Senate legislation-and none of these objections would be addressed by the proposed fixes. Over 70%-indeed in several districts over 80%-of respondents, across party lines, said that the following information made them less supportive: the bill mandates that individuals purchase insurance or face penalties; it cuts Medicare Advantage; it will force potentially millions to lose existing coverage; it will cost an estimated $2.3 trillion over its first 10 years; and it will grant unprecedented new powers to the Health and Human Services secretary.

Should members from these districts and those like them be concerned? Yes. Walking the Democratic line now means walking the plank. Sixty percent of the voters surveyed will vote for a candidate who opposes the current legislation and wants to start over.

Read the whole oped here, and to find out more about the poll, be sure to check here this afternoon.

Obama Keeps Fighting for Health Care, But Why?

info@iwf.org (Sabrina Schaeffer) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:27:00 EST

As the health care fight goes on…and on…and on, some might begin to wonder why President Obama and the Democrats continue to press forward despite the lack of public support and the deepening economic woes that confronting the country.

Gallup tells us that Obama’s job approval has reached a new low at 46 percent, with a 45 percent disapproval rate. And Rasmussen tells us that 82 percent of the country views jobs and the economy as a very important issue. (And 81% see ethics issues as very important!)

Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal is wondering the same thing. The fact is, over the past year, the Democrats have gone through several different reasons to fight. Early on, for instance, she explains they relied on the hypothesis, "If We Build It, They Will Come."

But ObamaCare ain’t no baseball field. Today the American public still rejects government-run health care:

Whatever their view on individual elements of the legislation, Americans now firmly believe the sum total is a monstrosity that will harm the economy, cost too much, raise their premiums, and result in higher taxes.

With the spring recess just weeks away, President Obama and his congressional colleagues are making one final push. Strassel calls this the "'Democrats Must Prove They Can Lead' theory." Or, we better show voters why they should show up and vote for us in November:

Put another way, Democrats will prove to voters how capable they are by passing a bill that most voters—including 62% of independents—hate. Curious. This theory also assumes Americans will confuse Cornhusker kickbacks, Christmas Eve votes, and a desperate reconciliation process with "governance." Curiouser. Most curious is that this theory does not allow for Democrats to prove their leadership by dropping ObamaCare and instead passing measures that are popular with the public and have bipartisan support.

The truth is, the American people don’t want a massive overhaul of health care (Stay Tuned for an IWV healthcare poll, to be released next week!), and it’s looking more and more like they question Democrats ability to get the job done.

Government-Run Student-Loan Scheme a Higher Edu-bacle

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:08:00 EST

It seems health care isn't enough-now the feds want to taker over college loans. U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan blasted banks last month for making profits on student loan interest. Secretary Duncan says his department is the better education investment vehicle. More like Department of Motor Vehicles, says Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), a former U.S. education secretary and former president of the University of Tennessee.

"Here is what they haven't told us," says Sen. Alexander. "The Education Department will borrow money at 2.8 percent from the Treasury, lend it to you at 6.8 percent and spend the difference on new programs. So you'll work longer to pay off your student loan to help pay for someone else's education -- and to help your U.S. representative's reelection." But what about Secretary Duncan's concern that college students graduate with debt averaging more than $20,000? Sen. Alexander does the math.

Typically students have an "average loan debt of $24,651. Assuming a standard 10-year repayment at 6.8 percent, those students would pay roughly $9,400 in interest. If we really want to save students money, why not just reduce the interest rate by 1.5 percentage points, to 5.3 percent, saving students $2,240 in interest?" Sen. Alexander explains that roughly 2,000 lenders offer government-backed student loans on more than 4,000 campuses. If students are smart enough to go to college, shouldn't they be smart enough to pick the lender they prefer?

Apparently not. Secretary Duncan says it's time to shift to "direct lending"and end "wasteful subsidies to banks." But how is ED, a government bureaucracy, better situated to be a lender-much less one that's not wasteful-since it exists on subsidies, too?

A better approach would be to let parents and students put aside as much as they can into tax-exempt college savings accounts at banks that offer the most competitive rates. Keeping more of their money would also get to the source of wasteful subsidies, namely government. Let other family members and even employers make tax-deductible contributions to those accounts as well. Meanwhile, cut the ED bureaucracy and redirect funds into college grants for students based on financial need. Make postsecondary institutions' federal funding contingent upon matching those federal grants by streamlining their own administration and cutting costs.

Such an approach would expand students' and their families' options for financing higher education, while helping shrink government back to its proper scope.

The Internet as a Battleground

info@iwf.org (Megan Carl) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:44:00 EST

The Washington Post ran an article Wednesday about the Iranian regime's response to the opposition movement's online activities. Truly, the internet is a critical battlefront for the opposition to the current Iranian regime. The article explains that after the controversial June presidential election in Iran, the opposition took to the Web to engage, organize, and get their message out. This very real and serious political drama is being played out on the most expansive and effective media platform in the world.

The internet is the newest frontline for political debate and organization, both here at home and abroad. It provides a space for those with similar convictions and causes to meet, discuss, organize, and promote their ideas. This medium is essential to the ‘tech-savvy' opposition movement in Iran-which utilizes social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and blog platforms. In many countries, it is a relatively safe place to organize politically--but not in Iran.

Just as physical demonstrations in the streets have been met by harsh crackdowns by Iranian security forces (whose orders come from the regime), such is the case with the online demonstrations. Anti-government activists who use the internet as a medium for their message are being shut down, even detained. Bloggers and Facebook users who write the truth about the regime and who organize for the opposition are facing regime-backed hackers and ‘cyber-intelligence units.' A law is also on the books, which threatens to jail bloggers for the vague crime of "[defaming] sanctities."

This is unsurprising behavior. We have come to expect Iran to impede upon civil society and free speech. Since we enjoy such uninhibited internet access here in the States, it is hard to comprehend the extent to which the Iranian regime controls the internet access of its people. They have the power to shut off the internet entirely (e.g., during a protest), filter blogs, and regularly block millions of domestic and foreign websites. News sites such as CNN and BBC are inaccessible. (How dare they report on the popular unrest in Iran!) The supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei defends the regime's restrictive actions as necessary. He claims they are in response to the U.S. and other Western countries using the internet in an aim to defeat the Islamic Republic.

The Post's article describes a recent change in U.S. trade policy - pushed by the State Department - which will now allow American companies to export social media technology to Iran. Companies like Google and Microsoft can now export "free mass-market software," to Iran. Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said that the "free flow of information" is a basic human right, and that Iranians will be able to benefit from this software. However, if and when the software will become readily available to the people is yet to be seen.

Big ED Takes Aim at Waste...With 27 New Shotguns

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:51:00 EST

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan vowed this year's $47 billion department budget would advance reform and cut waste. Apparently Big ED isn't kidding.

His department is buying 27 Remington Brand Model 870 police 12-gauge shotguns, which must be compatible with ED's existing shotgun inventory-"all new, no re-manufactured products, thank you," says the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is the education department's law enforcement arm and "is responsible for the detection of waste, fraud, abuse, and other criminal activity involving Federal education funds, programs, and operations. As such, OIG operates with full statutory law enforcement authority, which includes conducting search warrants, making arrests, and carrying firearms."

The OIG would not provide any examples of using firearms while cracking down on fraud. Still, knowing that the OIG is packing may help deter would-be crooks.

Growing Skepticism About Global Warming

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:13:00 EST

Although many lawmakers seem increasingly willing to discount public sentiment about public policy, it's certainly good news that a fewer Americans are buying global warming alarmism. Gallup reports:

Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.

Gallup also notes that today fewer Americans believe that global warming is due to human activities. In 2003, six in ten thought temperature increases were the result of man; now just five in ten do. In 2003, 33 percent thought temperature changes were just part of nature: today, that's the opinion of 46 percent.

Too bad Gallup didn't ask more about the public policy options that leaders are advancing in the name of global warming. Undoubtedly, even a big chunk of those who believe in man-made global warming recognize that U.S. efforts to curb carbon emissions wouldn't be meaningfully changing rising temperatures and would have a devastating impact on our economy and on family finances.

A Race or a Scramble to the "Top"? First-Round Finalists for Federal Cash Baffling

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:17:00 EST

(This post was co-authored by Evelyn B. Stacey, education policy analyst at the Pacific Research Institute, a free-market think tank in Sacramento, California)

Last week's Race to the Top (RTTT) announcement of the 16 finalist states has generated an outpouring of media coverage. At issue isn't just who made the cut but who didn't. Among the 40 states that applied for a slice of more than $4 billion in federal-funding pie, California didn't make the cut. Its share would have been up to $700 million.

The Los Angeles Times speculated that union influence compromised California's application: "...from our perspective, what the schools needed were rules allowing district administrators, not union contracts, to determine which teachers should work at specific campuses, so that urban schools with mostly poor, minority students would be staffed by excellent educators." The San Francisco Chronicle agreed:

One thing that definitely went wrong [with California's application] was the attitude of the state teachers' unions. Union leaders fought the reform legislation at every turn and managed to water down the package that eventually passed in January. Marty Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers, even said he wasn't sorry that California lost the first round.

Others were surprised New York made the first cut. The Washington Post suggested the finalists' list needs some "whittling." States like Louisiana, Tennessee and Florida mandate that student achievement factor heavily into teacher evaluations-so their inclusion made sense But "it's puzzling to see how New York, with its failure to enact new charter school laws and its ban on the use of student test scores in teacher tenure decisions, made the grade," noted the Post. "Ditto Kentucky, where there is no charter law. Some observers who thought Ohio had a weak application wondered if its importance on the political map might be a factor."

The Wall Street Journal called it a case of "no state left behind," and quoted Joe Williams of Democrats for Education, who called New York's inclusion "baffling." AEI's Andrew Smarick likened the RTTT competition thus far to a "cake walk" because a many state finalists "have glaring deficiencies that would make them unable to get over a medium bar, much less the ‘very, very high bar' that Secretary Duncan said he would set."

There results may go to show that government-no matter how lavishly it spends-can only do so much when it comes to meaningful education reform. True change comes from empowering parents to become involved in their own child's education.

But stay tuned on April 1^st when the final winners will be announced. The deadline for round two of the RTTT competition is June 1. It's anyone's guess where the race goes from here.

This Week's Top Ten

info@iwf.org (Megan Carl) info@iwf.org (Helen Whalen-Cohen ) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:29:00 EST

10. So much for public 'servants'.

9. Are you an avid fisherman or fisherwoman? Don't want the government intruding on your favorite pastime? Then you must read this.

8. Is hurtful speech protected speech?

7. We're all criminals now, or at least will be treated like them.

6. The damage and consequences of the chaos after the Haitian quake are far-reaching and conditions in make-shift camps are dangerous for everyone-particularly women.

5. Ironically, the DC government provides evidence of the Laffer curve at work.

4. A Californian, ‘landmark' legislation is now just a source of embarrassment-especially for Governor Schwarzenegger.

3. If Obama's health care plan is so great, then why all the trouble to get people to accept it?

2. A comical, but nonetheless serious look at what us humans could learn about health care from...pet health care?

1. Check out Carrie Lukas' profiling of New York Times endorsed classroom activities aimed at teaching kiddies about global warming. (Hope you're not looking for a balanced presentation of viewpoints in this curriculum.)

More Blame for Unions that Block Reform

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:47:00 EST

Teachers unions protect bad teachers, stifle reform, and hurt students' education in USA Today's opinion. They're not alone.

In recent weeks, Time, the Economist, the Los Angeles Times, and others have expressed frustration (and outrage) at union leadership's efforts to block common-sense reforms. Even President Obama and U.S Secretary of Education Arne Duncan praised a Rhode Island school district superintendent for firing the entire staff at a local failing high school because of over-the-top union demands. As USA Today says:

At this time of high unemployment, one group of professionals has no shortage of job security: bad teachers.... Nationwide, 2% or fewer teachers are ever fired or fail to have their contracts renewed because of poor performance. Among tenured teachers - those who get job security, typically after two or three years of satisfactory performance - there are often no dismissals at all, according to the U.S. Education Department.

Union leadership is not only contending with seemingly eroding public support but support from its own members as well. According to Education Week, there is a generational divide between veteran teachers and newcomers:

Early-career teachers' commitment to the union is tentative at best. Many are not even sure they need a union. Frequently, they say that the uniform pay and standardized practices embodied in contracts limit individual initiative and reinforce mediocre performance. They especially resent paying dues to an organization that they suspect defends poor teachers.

Unless union leadership evolves, unions themselves could devolve right out of existence.

Senate Democrats Continue Job Crushing Agenda

info@iwf.org (Julie Gunlock) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:27:00 EST

The U.S. unemployment rate remains at over 10 percent and there appears to be no relief in sight. In fact, CNN reports this morning that "the number of people filing continuing claims jumped to 4,558,000 in the week ended Feb. 27, the most recent data available. That was up 37,000 from the preceding week's upwardly revised 4,521,000 claims."

Last week, Democrats made quite a show of their concern for the unemployed. Who can forget the sound of their shrieks over Senator Bunning's mere suggestion that they actually pay the $10 billion bill for continued unemployment payments.

Given their show of concern, it's more than a bit galling that the issue Senator Tom Harkin has chosen to focus on this morning as the Chairman of the Senate HELP Committee is another jobs crushing piece of legislation-the Paycheck Fairness Act. This bill, which passed the House last year, would make lawsuits against employers even easier and would shift the burden of proof to the employer to show that the difference in wages results from "any factor other than sex."

The Heritage Foundation summarizes this bill as a jobs killer. The report states that by facilitating lawsuits, the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) will hurt employers:

The PFA would give a windfall to trial lawyers, exposing employers to unlimited punitive damages.
The PFA would encourage trial lawyers to initiate many frivolous class-action suits in hopes of winning a few large judgments.
The successful lawsuits could transfer billions of dollars from employers to trial lawyers, bankrupting businesses and costing jobs.
The increased legal risks would also reduce the incentive for business owners to start new business or invest in and expand their firms, thereby costing even more jobs.
Under the PFA the courts will micromanage businesses. For instance, the courts would have to decide: Does experience constitute a "bona fide factor other than sex"?
A woman earning less than a more experienced man could argue that her employer should be required to send her to training and then pay both employees identical wages. She would have a strong case to argue that experience was not a "bona fide" factor because an alternative employment practice would eliminate the disparity.
Government micromanaging over areas in which the courts have no business expertise would reduce business competitiveness and cost jobs.

Read the entire report here.

Sticker Shock: New Study Shows the Real Price Tag for Government Schooling

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:26:00 EST

Public-school spending is on average 44 percent higher than officially reported, according to a new report from the Cato Institute's Adam Schaeffer. Analyzing district budgets and state records from the country's five largest metro areas and the District of Columbia, he finds those districts spent an average of nearly $18,000 per student but claimed to spend just $12,500. On average, public-school spending is 93 percent more than the estimated median private school for those areas. According to Schaeffer, "Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area."

This kind of "dishonest accounting," says Schaeffer, "is a nationwide problem." The lack of transparency and common district-level reporting standards means politically sensitive figures such as capital, debt, employee health, retirement, and benefits spending are typically excluded from publicly reported figures. Government school officials say those dollars shouldn't "count." Not so, says Schaeffer. "Parents and taxpayers have the right to know what public schools cost them," he says. "All of these are K-12 education expenses paid with taxpayer dollars. There's no good reason to exclude them."

Schaeffer recommends that states should require each local education provider to create and maintain a detailed expenditure and revenue database that presents information in an easily accessible, searchable, and downloadable format. That, he suggests, would help promote an honest education policy debate-a particularly pressing public concern since education typically represents the largest share of states' general budgets.

California Teachers Union Tops Big-Political-Spenders List

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:00 EST

Leading California's "billion dollar club" is the California Teachers Association (CTA), the state's largest teachers association and National Education Association affiliate, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).

In their new report Big Money Talks, the FPPC looks at 15 of the state's biggest political players, who have spent $1.3 billion combined on political activities in the past decade. "This tsunami of special interest spending drowns out the voices of average voters," says FPPC chairman Ross Johnson, "and intimidates political opponents and elected officials alike." The CTA tops the list at $212 million-more than Big Pharma, and also more than Big Oil and Big Tobacco combined.

The CTA spent more than $173 million in the past decade to influence voters. Of that amount, the union's largest expenditure was more than $26 million in 2000 to defeat a ballot proposition to enact vouchers. The CTA spent another $12 million in the special election of 2005 to defeat a ballot measures that would prohibit the use of public employee union dues for political contributions without individual employees' prior consent (also known as paycheck protection).

[For a more extensive look at union opposition to education and budget reform efforts, see an article by my Pacific Research Institute colleague Evelyn Stacey and me in today's Human Events.]

Both of those measures are anathema to teacher-union leaders. Former chief legal counsel for the CTA's parent organization the NEA Robert Chanin said at the time that requiring teachers' permission to use their dues for political activity is "a royal pain in the [expletive]." It's easy to see why: Given the chance, teachers overwhelming opt out of paying for union leaders' political agendas. After paycheck protection passed, teachers union membership in Utah dropped from 68 percent to 6.8 percent, and from 82 percent to 6 percent in Washington State.

Having a place at the policy debate table is one thing. Stifling dissenting voices is another. Not surprisingly, Big Money authors conclude, "What is good for the people of California matters less than what hurts or helps the individual interests of these groups. ...The conclusion is inescapable: A handful of special interests have a disproportionate amount of influence on California elections and public policy."(See pp. 4 and 5).

AFT and AFL-CIO, Throwing Stones at Glass Houses

info@iwf.org (Nicole Kurokawa) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:27:00 EST

As prospects of a comprehensive takeover dimming by the day, progressives in town are desperate for a scapegoat. Fortunately for them, however (and unfortunately for insurers,) the Administration settled on health insurance companies as the bad guys a long time ago.

Cue this week’s AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association) annual meeting. Given the meeting’s ill-fated location in Washington – a town known best for its political theater – it was unsurprising that activists organized a protest march against these bloodthirsty capitalists on Tuesday, cleverly chanting “hey hey, ho ho, insurance companies got to go.” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called the insurance companies’ actions “criminal.” Despite calls to action by AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka and DCCC chairman Howard Dean, however, protesters’ attempts to conduct “citizens arrests” on executives fell flat.

Given the inflammatory rhetoric, one can only assume that the AFL-CIO and the AFT have relentlessly advocated for increased quality and lower costs in the industries that they represent, right? Maybe? Sort of?

Um, no.

The New Yorker highlighted several months ago how the AFT has a nasty habit of defending subpar teachers. Consider that, and then check out the Mercatus Center’s Veronique deRugy in BigGovernment.com, where she adeptly charts the ways that teachers’ unions have benefited from the stimulus – small wonder, given that legislators’ favorite fear-mongering tactic is “we need more money or we’re going to fire thousands of teachers” (cough, Governor Quinn of Illinois, cough).

Our friends over at the Alliance for Worker Freedom have a ton of great information on the numerous policies that the AFL-CIO (and the SEIU, and others) have advocated that have driven up the costs of goods and services in this country, making America less competitive in the global economy. The Cato Institute also has a recent study on how public sector unions negatively affect taxpayers. Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch just debated this topic the other day, which I also recommend if you can listen in the background at work.

These unions would be well-served to look in the mirror before they start lobbing unfounded accusations at… well, anyone.

And really, at the end of the day – insurance companies aren’t the bad guys. They’re the easiest mark in the debate given the esoteric nature of their business: managing risk for a fixed price. Punishing insurance companies and imposing price controls on premiums isn’t the right way to address the underlying driver of health care costs.

A better way to make insurance more affordable – and in turn, to cover more people – is to give individuals more control over their health care dollars, so that they make smart choices with their money. In addition, removing mandates that drive prices up and changing the tax treatment of individual plans to enjoy the same breaks that employer-sponsored plans do would give consumers more flexibility in selecting (and keeping) the plans they need. Fixing health care so doesn’t require a one-size-fits all government solution. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

School Choice Under Siege in DC; Surges in States

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:23:00 EST

While some DC politicians are doing their utmost to kill the Opportunity Scholarship Program, a growing number of state lawmakers are embracing school choice. Education Week reports, "The momentum in Florida to expand one of that state's voucher programs is a subtle but significant sign that such programs, which have been anathema to many Democrats, are beginning to win bipartisan support in a number of states." They include a new proposal in Illinois-home of President Obama, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and voucher-opponent-in-chief Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)-that would give vouchers to students in failing Chicago schools. A plan has also been introduced in New Jersey, as well as an expansion of Florida's choice programs. Currently, there are 18 school voucher and tax-credit scholarship programs nationwide serving nearly 180,000 students. Given such momentum, opposition to educational opportunity programs in DC and elsewhere will become increasingly difficult to defend.

Politics, Not Procedure, Killed D.C. Voucher Vote in the Senate

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:36:00 EST

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT.) and a bipartisan coalition of U.S. Senators have been working to save the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program for current and future students. Their latest effort was to introduce an amendment yesterday to the American Workers, State and Business Relief Act to enact the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act, which would extend and expand the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Joining Sen. Lieberman in offering the amendment were Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), John Ensign (R-NV), and George Voinovich (R-OH).

The Washington Post rightly recalled that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has been promising to allow a vote on the Opportunity Scholarship Program-yet hasn't. Sen. Lieberman also tried to work with Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), who authored the original language effectively killing the program. But Sen. Lieberman was forced to withdraw the amendment. "Not germane" a spokesmen for Sens. Reid and Durbin told the Post.

Nonsense.

As Sen. Lieberman explained (See Amendment No. 3381 to Amendment to No. 3336, pp. S1293-S1293, about halfway down):

In my view, this amendment did belong on the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act--the underlying bill before the Senate--because, obviously, the opportunity to seek and receive a better education enables our children to be better, more productive workers, to help our businesses and, of course, to grow our national economy. Achievement gaps in our schools have a profound effect on the quality of our workforce and on the future of our economy. Most importantly, the quality of our schools has a profound effect on the quality of the lives of the children who go to better schools and get a better education. ... The DC voucher program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the Federal Government's official educational research arm so far. [Emphasis added]

The real reason for squashing a vote has little to do with procedure, and everything to do with politics. As the Post explains:

This is exactly what the program's chief antagonists, the teachers unions, want; the National Education Association lobbied fiercely against Mr. Lieberman's amendment. Given that a rigorous, federally mandated study confirmed the program's effectiveness and that local leaders such as D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee have supported it, we understand why Mr. Reid sits on his hands. What possible explanation could Democrats devise for killing something that has been so crucial in the lives of thousands of poor D.C. children? How would it look? No, better to do nothing and hope the issue goes away.

Thankfully, Sen. Lieberman and his allies will continue fighting. In fact, Sen. Lieberman intends to introduce the SOAR Act as an amendment to the next bill that comes to the Senate floor.

Common Core or National Curriculum? New Standards Ignite Debate

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:49:00 EST

High academic standards encourage high hopes for better educational outcomes. But proposed new standards are generating controversy.

The National Governors Association and Council for Chief State School Officers announced their draft common academic standards today for K-12 education. President Obama has also made academic standards a priority and supports the proposed core standards. Under the U.S. Department of Education's Race to the Top (RTTT) competition, adoption of the common core standards weighs into states' applications. Last week the Department announced 16 state finalists who will compete to receive the first round of Race to the Top grants. Of those states, only Kentucky has agreed to adopt the common core standards, even though they won't be finalized until the spring. Georgia will likely adopt them, as well as Maryland, which is not a first-round RTTT finalist.

The common-core standards are intended to replace a "hodgepodge" of state standards. But will academic quality be sacrificed for the sake of consistency? Another concern is whether the federal government is attempting to establish a national curriculum, which is expressly prohibited (See "Federal Control of Education Prohibited," Sec. 604, p. 90).

States already have academic content standards in place. But standards on paper won't translate into quality education and improved student learning unless parents are free to choose the schools they believe do the best job for their children. Such freedom puts powerful pressure on schools to hire the best teachers, pay them well, and give them the freedom they need to choose the best instructional materials and methods for ensuring all students learn.