Independent Women's Forum - In the Media > Press Room

JUST RELEASED NEW POLL: HEALTHCARE THROUGH WOMEN'S EYES

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:11:00 EDT

For Immediate Release: Contacts: Carol Eberly

October 28, 2009 (Radio) 202-349-5882 or
carol.eberly@iwf.org

                                                                                            (TV & Print) Kate Pomeroy
                                                                                             202-631-6704 or
                                                                                             kate.pomeroy@iwf.org

JUST RELEASED
NEW POLL: HEALTHCARE THROUGH WOMEN'S EYES
What Women Want, Think Should Be Done and at What Cost?

(Washington, DC) - A new poll released Wednesday by the Independent Women's Forum shows that only 16% of women believe that health care should be Congress's top priority and that a majority (51%) is unsatisfied with what they have read, seen, or heard about the proposals being considered today. The poll, conducted by WomanTrend, a division of the polling company^TM inc., surveyed 800 women registered to vote and was conducted between October 19-25, 2009.

In this poll, women were given the opportunity to answer, in an open‐ended fashion, what questions or advice they have for their Members of Congress and for the President on health care. Concerns about paying for reform, controlling costs, eligibility, and what is included and excluded from the actual legislative proposals dominated as some of the central "themes" for women.

Key findings:

• Government is not the solution: 61% of women think the private sector does a better job of providing choice in health care.

• Change for thee, but not for me: 75% want few to no changes to their own healthcare (40% ‐‐ be modified, but mostly left as is;

35% ‐‐ be left as‐is).

• No egg timers: 43% of women say that Congress and the President should enact healthcare reform "only when quality legislation is developed, even if it means there is no deadline." Less than three in ten think it needs to happen by the end of the year.

• Too expensive: Only 10% say that $1 trillion or more should be spent on health care reform. Most put the acceptable amounts in the thousands (16%), millions (24%), or billions (16%).

• Concerns with waste: 77% say government spends money in a mostly inefficient way and 55% believe CBO projections underestimate how much will ultimately be spent on health care reform.

The Independent Women's Forum commissioned this poll to gain a better understanding of women's attitudes toward the health care system and proposed reform, and how they will affect women's health care choices.

This poll and the executive summary can be found at www.iwf.org.

###

For more information about this survey, or to schedule an interview, please call Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882/carol.eberly@iwf.org or Kate Pomeroy at 202-631-6704/kate.pomeroy@iwf.org

IWF ANNOUNCES 2009-2010 ESSAY CONTEST

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:44:00 EDT

For Immediate Release: Contact: Carol Eberly

September 29, 2009 202-349-5882 or carol.eberly@iwf.org

IWF ANNOUNCES 2009-2010 ESSAY CONTEST

Thirteen Cash Prizes will be Awarded and First Place Winner Claims $5000

Washington, D.C.-The Independent Women's Forum's R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies is proud to announce its fifth annual college essay contest. College women enrolled in any four-year college or university worldwide during the 2009-2010 school year are invited to enter this competition. Deadline is December 1, 2009.

This year, students are asked to answer this question in 750 words or less:

Many campus coffee shops boast that they "proudly serve fair trade coffee," but does the fair trade movement actually make a difference in the lives of the poor and disadvantaged? Is free trade also fair trade?

To date, IWF has awarded more than $40,000 in prize money to students through its essay contest. This contest is an excellent opportunity for students to think critically about the most important issues facing our country and to have the opportunity to win valuable financial assistance for their education in the process. "In addition to over $10,000 in prize money, applicants have the chance to get their writing in front of an all-star panel with some of the best writers in the country including Kimberley Strassel and Melanie Kirkpatrick of The Wall Street Journal, and best-selling author Myrna Blyth," said Tatiana Posada, director of the Silberman Center.

For the 2009-2010 application visit www.iwf.org.

For more information or questions about this contest email essaycontest@iwf.org.

###

To schedule an interview with Tatiana Posada, please call Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882
or email Carol at carol.eberly@iwf.org.

The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and educational institution. Founded in 1992, IWF focuses on issues of concern to women, men, and families. Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to some of the nation's most influential scholars-women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom.

IWF TO HOST "ABOUT OUR CHILDREN..." FEATURING BILL COSBY

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:58:00 EDT

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sept. 9, 2009 - The Independent Women's Forum will host "About Our Children..." a live event featuring Bill Cosby," and moderated by IWF president and CEO and MSNBC political analyst Michelle D. Bernard, on Sunday, Sept. 20, 7-9 p.m ET. Live from Howard University's Ira Aldridge Theater and telecast on MSNBC, Cosby and several panelists will discuss poverty in America, focusing on the parenting, education, and health issues facing the poor in the United States.

Panelists include:
Dr. Daniel Amen, founder of the Amen Clinics; Derrell Bradford, deputy director of Excellence in Education for Everyone; Ben Austin, executive director of the Los Angeles based Parents Union; Dr. Ben Chavis, former principal of American Indian Public Charter School and author of the soon to be released book "Crazy Like a Fox: One Principal's Triumph in the Inner City;" Dr. Alvin Poussaint, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School; and, Paul Rodriguez, actor and civic and education activist.

"We have said it before and we will say it again: education is key for poor people..."
- Bill Cosby and Dr. Alvin Poussaint

"About Our Children..." is about the future of all of America's children and their shot at truly achieving the American dream. This program will challenge us individually and collectively to talk openly and honestly about what ails our children and then act on what we already know can be done to help our great nation's children achieve their dreams.
- Michelle D. Bernard

Questions for Bill Cosby and the other panelists will be taken in advance and during the event via Email, YouTube, Twitter, FaceBook and MySpace.

This event is free and open to the public. For ticket information please contact Howard University's Box Office at 202-806-7194.

If you are a member of the media, please contact Kate Pomeroy at 202-361-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.

###

Dr. Bill Cosby is one of the most influential performers in the last half century. Coming from a poor Philadelphia neighborhood, he rose to reshape the nation's airwaves through shows like I Spy and The Cosby Show. He became one of the most successful storytellers on record, and authored several blockbuster books, including Fatherhood, the fastest-selling hardcover book of all time, which spent 54 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. Bill Cosby, in his work as an entertainer, has always communicated philosophies that help people see their human commonalities.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and educational institution, and Independent Women's Voice. Bernard is a MSNBC political analyst and a regular panelist on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews as well as a columnist with The Washington Examiner. Bernard is the author of Women's Progress: How Women Are Wealthier, Healthier and More Independent Than Ever Before (Spence Publishing) and a contributing author to the National Urban League's State of Black America (2009) and Lifetime Networks' Secrets of Powerful Women: 25 Successful American Politicians Tell How They Got Where They Are and What It's Like (Hyperion Books/February 2010).

Women Speak Out Against Government Takeover of Health Care

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:52:00 EDT

(WASHINGTON, DC) - August 18 - 300,000 American women with breast cancer might have died over the last decade, if the US had adopted a British-style, government-run health care system. This shocking figure, based on recent studies, appears in a TV ad launched today by The Independent Women's Forum, a non-profit organization focused on issues of concern for women. The 60-second spot highlights the deadly risks to women under the "public option" - or co-op - plan currently under consideration in Congress.

"My odds of surviving cancer were high, because my care was the best," says Tracy, a 44 year-old breast cancer survivor featured in the ad, which airs over the next week on cable and broadcast stations and is currently featured on You Tube. "What are your odds if the government takes over your care?" she asks. The IWF is featuring stories similar to Tracy's on its website, and is inviting people to share their own experiences about how they and their families have benefitted from the ability to make their own health care choices.

"Shifting the decision-making authority from the American citizen to government bureaucrats is an offense to who we are as Americans," remarks Heather Richardson Higgins, Chairman of The Independent Women's Forum. "Nothing could be more central to the pursuit of happiness than the ability to control one's own health and health options of loved ones."

Though support for the so-called "public option" has diminished in the face of fierce and widespread public opposition, the basic idea survives with a new name: co-op. In July, Senator Harry Reid said, "We're going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op,' call it what you want." In addition, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement on August 17, declaring "There is strong support in the House for a public option. In the House, all three of our bills contain a public option."

In an August 2008 report, Lancet Oncology found the 5-year survival rate for breast cancer patients is much higher in the United States than in England, where the government controls care - 83.9% vs. 69.8%. Applying this difference in survival rates to the American Cancer Society's current estimate of 2.5 million US breast cancer survivors indicates that as many as 300,000 more American women might have died had they received health care under a government-controlled system like England's.

"These are numbers we simply cannot afford, no matter what the supposed ‘savings' of a public plan or co-op," Higgins states.

Founded in 1992, The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and educational institution focused on issues of concern to women, men and families. More information at www.iwf.org. For interviews, background and additional materials, contact Carol Eberly at (202) 349-5882.

New Study: Small Business Owners Believe EFCA Hurts Job Creation

Thu, 14 May 2009 11:28:00 EDT

Click here for full report

While many small business owners lack information about EFCA, what they do understand they do not like. In March 2009, commissioned by the Independent Women's Forum, Lombardo Consulting Group (LCG) conducted a survey testing the understanding of small business owners of the bill, LCG found:

Of the 500 surveyed, 41% of respondents are female. 94% of the respondents own their own business, ranging from $6,000 to $1,000,000 in gross revenue last year and nearly 70% of the respondents employed fewer than 10 people.
All of the respondents graduated from high school and the majority of respondents (61%) completed college or post-graduate school.
Respondents were asked if they have "read, heard or seen anything recently about the proposed federal legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as EFCA." Fewer than 1 in 5 (18%) small business owners say they "definitely" read, saw or heard something, and only 23% indicate they "might" have read, seen or heard something about the Employee Free Choice Act.
Once informed, the majority of small business owners (61%) believe EFCA would hurt their business.
Almost 6 in 10 (59%) small business owners believe EFCA would hurt their relationship with employees.
An equal amount of small business owners (62%) state that EFCA would hurt their ability to provide jobs in their community.
Not surprisingly, the economy is impacting small business owners. Approximately 6 out of 10 (57%) say their business is worse than last year and 30% have had to lay off workers.
Small business owners have a very negative opinion of labor unions and consider them outdated and bad for business.
Small business owners do not believe EFCA should be a legislative priority. They want Congress to focus on creating jobs, reducing payroll taxes and strengthening SBA lending.

For more information, please contact Kate Pomeroy at kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.

Small Business Owners Fear EFCA

Fri, 08 May 2009 06:37:00 EDT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Carol Eberly
202-349-5882
carol.eberly@iwf.org

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - The Independent Women's Forum, National Black Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the HR Policy Association launched a new web site today, www.EFCA-Info.org, developed to provide facts and information and to educate small business owners, employees and the middle class about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) under consideration by the U.S. Congress. As part of the work in building the site, the Independent Women's Forum commissioned a poll of small business owners for their opinions regarding EFCA. The poll, conducted by Lombardo Consulting Group (LCG) found that small business owners believe that EFCA will not only hurt their business in general, but will also hurt their relationship with employees and their ability to provide jobs in their community.

The EFCA-Info web site is accessible to the general public, and the information is aimed at educating those most affected by the legislation - - small business owners, employees, the middle class, and arbitrators. The site is focused on both the merits and specifics of the legislation and is sponsored transparently by these associations who represent a variety of American businesses, including minority-owned and women-owned small businesses.

Michelle D. Bernard, President and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum (IWF) said, "Women entrepreneurs are among the fastest growing group of business owners. According to our recent survey, small business owners lack information about EFCA, but what they do understand they do not like. We are pleased to provide our members with this important information."

EFCA-info.org contains IWF's small business survey and other new research on how EFCA would affect the middle class and the economy, policy papers and reports on the provisions of the legislation, and fact sheets that explain how EFCA would change current workplace law. The web site also contains simplified explanations of the provisions in the legislation, definitions of the terms used in it, and rebuttals to common misperceptions about EFCA.

"We believe that enacting EFCA and other pro-union legislation will have a very negative impact on the African-American business community, on African-American employment, and as a result, on our economy as a whole. At a time when we should be focused on greater opportunities and more jobs, voting for EFCA is the wrong choice for the African-American community," said National Black Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Harry C. Alford. "EFCA-info.org provides credible research and useful information about the impact of the Employee Free Choice Act on small and minority business owners."

In addition to providing facts and information, EFCA-info.org will also offer a way for visitors to voice their opinions about the legislation to their elected representatives through the "Make Your Voice Heard" section. And, by selecting "Get Updates" on the web site, visitors will be notified when new information such as changes in the legislation, press releases and other EFCA-related advisories are posted to the site.

"If we as a nation are interested in economic recovery, job creation, and developing the new technologies and industries of the future - the Employee Free Choice Act is a bad starting point," said USHCC President & CEO Augustine Martinez. "In the long run, both business owners and employees would suffer. If made law, this bill would boost costs, restrain productivity and make businesses less competitive. Small businesses create nearly 80 percent of all new jobs, much like we produce the vast majority of patents and this legislation would hinder productivity as the small business community becomes a target of labor organizers, strikes and labor agreements," he added.

# # #

The Independent Women's Forum

Founded in 1992, IWF focuses on issues of concern to women, men, and families. Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to some of the nation's most influential scholars-women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom. www.iwf.org

National Black Chamber of Commerce
The NBCC reaches 100,000 Black owned businesses. There are 1 million Black owned businesses in the United States. Black businesses account for over $100 billion in annual sales. African Americans have over $800 billion in expendable income each year according to the US Bureau of Census. The National Black Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to economically empowering and sustaining African American communities through entrepreneurship and capitalistic activity within the United States and via interaction with the Black Diaspora. www.nationalbcc.org

U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Founded in 1979, the USHCC actively promotes the economic growth and development of Hispanic entrepreneurs and represents the interests of almost 3 million Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States that generate nearly $400 billion annually. It also serves as the umbrella organization for 200 local Hispanic chambers in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Bolivia and Uruguay. www.ushcc.com

The H.R. Policy Association
HR Policy Association brings together the chief human resource officers of more than 260 of the largest corporations in the United States who are concerned about the direction of HR public policy and practices in the United States and globally. Representing nearly every major industry sector, HR Policy members have a combined market capitalization of more than $7.5 trillion and employ more than 18 million employees worldwide. www.hrpolicy.org

Card Check Bill to Be Introduced Today

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:40:00 EDT

Experts: Carrie Lukas, Allison Kasic, Donna Wiesner Keene

Today, the Democrat-controlled Congress is set to introduce the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), more commonly known as card check. This bill fundamentally changes how workplaces are unionized. Despite the positive-sounding name, the bill would not afford workers any new rights. Instead, it would take away a fundamental right: the right to a secret ballot election as to whether or not to join a union. The right to a secret ballot election is fundamental to American democracy.

With a new study showing that 600,000 jobs could be lost by passing card check, and a new poll indicating that 74% of rank and file union workers oppose card check, one should wonder why President Obama and Congressional Democrats think this legislation will be good for the economy.

Additional resources:
Big Labor vs. Workplace Democracy by Michelle D. Bernard
Card Check Will Harm, Not Help, American Workers by Allison Kasic
The Fight Over Workplace Democracy by Allison Kasic

To schedule an interview contact Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882 or ceberly@iwf.org.

Hot Topics: Free Speech, Glass Ceiling, and Blue Ribbon

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:43:00 EST

HOT TOPICS
A Weekly Interview Resource from the Independent Women's Forum
December 3, 2008

Contact: Carol Eberly 202-349-5882 or ceberly@iwf.org

In this issue:

Do So-Called Liberals Really Believe in Free Speech?
What Glass Ceiling? Debunking the Sexism Argument
Blue Ribbon or Black and Blue?
How the No-Child Left Behind Blue-Ribbon Award Helps Conceal Accountability Avoidance

Do So-Called Liberals Really Believe in Free Speech?
Expert: Carrie Lukas, Vice President for Policy and Economics

Among the most sacred rights guaranteed by our Constitution is that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Yet some Democrats seem to want to ignore the First Amendment, and get government in the businesses of micromanaging media content, for the express purpose of squelching political speech. Democrat attempts to "hush Rush" by reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine are contrary to the founding principles of the United States and should be opposed by Democrats and Republicans alike.

*****

What Glass Ceiling? Debunking the Sexism Argument
Expert: Sabrina Schaeffer, Visiting Fellow with the Independent Women's Forum

On November 20^th, Marie Cocco asserted in her article, entitled "The Glass Ceiling Holds Strong," that the 2008 presidential election confirms the political glass ceiling remains firmly in place. Cocco even states that since we failed to elect a woman to the presidency - or, to the vice presidency - that the United States is on par with third world nations where oppression of women is the norm. Both Sen. Clinton and Gov. Palin were subjected to harsh and at times grossly inappropriate criticism by the media and rival campaigns. Yet, Cocco's willingness to exaggerate these attacks and all but dismiss the truly outstanding accomplishments of American women in politics, does a much greater disservice to women than any of the slights we saw this political season. It's a shame that instead of seriously addressing the question of why we see fewer women than men in politics, Cocco unthinkingly advances the unfortunate image of women as victims.

*****

Blue Ribbon or Black and Blue?
Expert: Vicky Murray, Visiting Fellow with the Independent Women's Forum

Earlier this year, more than 300 U.S. schools were honored in Washington, D.C., as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Blue Ribbon Schools. These schools are among "America's most successful schools," according to the U.S. Department of Education. But a closer look at grade-level achievement among last year's batch of award-winners may cause some parents to rethink the Blue-Ribbon bumper sticker on the back of their family car. According to Vicky Murray, in a report released for IWF titled Peeking Behind the Blue Ribbon, there is mounting evidence that states are watering-down academic standards and reducing the number of questions students must answer correctly on state assessments, among other shenanigans, to inflate the number of students deemed "proficient." Instead of piling on additional, expensive mandates, the federal government should require greater transparency in exchange for funding. This would preserve the delicate balance between flexibility for states and accurate information for parents.

To interview IWF scholars please contact Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882 or ceberly@iwf.org.

###

The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Founded in 1992, IWF's mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF fosters greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to the next wave of the nation's most influential scholars-women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom.

Female Factor #7: MacKinnon Is Wrong, Bigger Government Won't Help Women

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:09:00 EDT

The Female Factor
A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, feminist icon and University of Michigan law professor, Catherine MacKinnon painted a bleak view of the state of American women while arguing for an Obama presidency.

"American women are wealthier, healthier, and better educated than at any time in our history. Yet Professor MacKinnon casts women as under-siege in America and victims of a system stacked against them," said Carrie Lukas, IWF's vice president for policy and economics. "She sees a bigger and more activist government as the cure women's ills. Unfortunately, big government policies tend to backfire on women, leading to a less flexible workforce, fewer job opportunities, slower economic growth, and less freedom for women and their families."

"Perhaps the most outrageous suggestion Professor MacKinnon makes is to institute a comparable worth regime. Like many radical feminists, she's frustrated that women, on average, gravitate toward different careers than men, often opting for more flexible and personally fulfilling jobs over those with high pay," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "She says that she wants ‘equal pay for work of equal value.' What that would mean in practice would be government bureaucrats micromanaging the wages of every job in the land. You don't have to be an economist to recognize that this would be a disaster leading to shortages in some professions and oversupply in others, not to mention the potential for corruption and politicization of such a process."

"What women really need is for government to get out of the way of private enterprise by lowering taxes and reducing burdensome regulations that prevent entrepreneurship and innovation," added Carrie Lukas.

To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.

Female Factor #6: Is Sarah Palin a Feminist?

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:13:00 EDT

The Female Factor
A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum

Conservative commentator Laura Ingraham recently told the Los Angeles Times that, "Sarah Palin represents a new feminism..." The feminist establishment, however, is quick to counter that Gov. Palin is not truly a feminist.

Yesterday, NOW released a plea for support as they struggle to control what a small minority of women believe feminism is. With working-class women flocking to the Palin camp, it appears they are fighting a battle they have already lost. NOW's president, Kim Gandy finds it ironic that the word "feminist" has been spoken in public so many times since the Palin explosion. However, what's ironic, is that a true feminist suddenly arrived on their playground, and because she is a conservative, anti-abortion, pro-gun, mother of five, they don't want to play.

"It is not surprising to see feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women dispute the term ‘feminist' as it applies to Gov. Palin," said Carrie Lukas, IWF's vice president for policy and economics. "After all, groups like NOW have worked for years to redefine ‘feminism' to fit their liberal agenda. Anyone who exposes conservative views is not welcome in their feminist club."

"Whether you agree with her policy positions or not, it seems foolhardy to deny that Gov. Palin represents a strain of American feminism," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "She is a strong-minded, successful, independent woman, and has the potential to hold one of our nation's highest offices. The fact that she's a Republican shouldn't exclude her from being a female role-model or a feminist."

To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.

Female Factor #5: Supporting Big Government Isn't Supporting Equal Pay

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:45:00 EDT

The Female Factor
A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum

In an attempt to attract women voters, Senator Barrack Obama has released a campaign advertisement highlighting the so-called "equal pay" issue. In addition to repeating false statistics about differences in women's and men's earnings for the same work (for more on these misleading statistics, see the article"Yesterday's Women for Obama," on IWF's website), this advertisement wrongly equates supporting legislation to change statutes of limitation for lawsuits with support for the basic concept of equal pay.

"It is already the law of the land that men and women must be paid the same when they perform the same work. Everyone supports this basic concept of fairness," said IWF vice president for policy and economics Carrie Lukas. "In this advertisement, Senator Obama attempts to tar those who oppose changing the statue of limitations for filing discrimination lawsuits as being somehow 'against' equal pay for women. That is a ridiculous leap. Surely people can honestly disagree about the appropriate balance between protecting the rights of the accused and the accuser without degenerating into this kind of character assassination."

In addition, Senator Obama supports expanding government's ability to micromanage how compensation packages are arranged in private companies. "This is a bad idea," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "It will reduce workplace flexibility-recognizing that simple fact doesn't mean that I don't believe in equal pay, it just means I don't believe in big brother government."

To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.

Female Factor #4: An Erroneous Sex Education Debate

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:22:00 EDT

The Female Factor

A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum

The Female Factor #4
An Erroneous Sex Education Debate

Opponents of abstinence education have attempted to use Bristol Palin's pregnancy to claim such an approach is a failure and push for comprehensive sex education curriculums. For example, National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy wrote: "May I point out that this apparently unplanned pregnancy only highlights the right wing's foolish and dangerous abstinence-only education stance?" Yet this logic suggests that whoever taught Ms. Gandy educators should have taken a different tact when teaching mathematics and statistics.

"One unplanned pregnancy tells us absolutely nothing about the relative effectiveness of one educational theory over another," said IWF vice president for policy and economics Carrie Lukas. "I don't know whether Bristol Palin was taught abstinence-only sex education or not. But regardless of her schooling, her pregnancy doesn't prove that abstinence education doesn't work just as it wouldn't prove that sex education emphasizing contraception doesn't work if that is indeed what she was taught."

"This debate about the content of sex education is a perfect example of why we need greater school choice," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "Ms. Gandy should be free to enroll her children in a school that teaches in the way that she wants, and other parents should also be free to choose schools that reflects their values. There are no one-size-fits-all answers in education, which is why we need to encourage a diverse education marketplace."

To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.

For more information on the Independent Women's Forum, please visit www.iwf.org.

Recent Female Factors

#1 The Mommy Wars
#2 Governor Sarah Palin and the Issues
#3 NOW Needs to Move Beyond Stereotyping
#5 Supporting Big Government Isn't Supporting Equal Pay

The Female Factor #2: Governor Sarah Palin and the Issues

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:41:00 EDT

The Female Factor

A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum

September 4, 2008

The Female Factor #2
Governor Sarah Palin & The Issues

As she accepted the vice presidential nomination Governor Sarah Palin brought up many important issues facing Americans, including government spending and energy policy. Unfortunately, much of the media coverage surrounding Governor Palin hasn't focused on her take on those issues. Instead, we've seen personal attack after personal attack in a shameful display of partisanship on behalf of the mass and tabloid media.

"This election should be decided on the issues of importance to Americans, not on political cheap shots," said IWF vice president for policy and economics Carrie Lukas. "From education to energy policy to the economy, there are simply too many important challenges facing our country to get caught up in the politics of personal destruction."

"Whether you agree with her or not, Governor Palin deserves to be judged on merit, just like any other candidate," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "I hope that the media coverage leading up to the November election will give the American public an accurate view of Governor Palin's policy positions so that voters can make an informed choice. We need to move past the personal jabs that have dominated the news in the past few days."

To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.

For more information on the Independent Women's Forum, please visit www.iwf.org.

Recent Female Factors

#1 The Mommy Wars
#3 NOW Needs to Move Beyond Stereotyping
#4 An Erroneous Sex Education Debate
#5 Supporting Big Government Isn't Supporting Equal Pay

The Female Factor #1: The Mommy Wars

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:19:00 EDT

The Female Factor
A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum

September 4, 2008

The Female Factor #1
The Mommy Wars

John McCain made a bold political statement last Friday by picking a very little known, dark horse candidate by the name of Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. Unfortunately, since then, many individuals, in politics as well as in the media, have used this opportunity to focus on trivial issues and make personal attacks on Gov. Palin.

"The media spectacle over Gov. Palin reeks of a return to the mommy wars," said IWF president and CEO Michelle Bernard. "It is ridiculous to think that in 2008 with all the progress women have made in every facet of American life that some people have called into question whether a mother of five is capable of serving as vice president. Some mothers choose to stay at home while others choose to work. We should respect mothers regardless of what decision they make on behalf of their family."

"The only thing that matters is if Palin would be a good vice president," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "This election should be about issues, not family matters. Gov. Palin's family should be given the same privacy and respect as the other candidates."

To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.

For more information on the Independent Women's Forum, please visit www.iwf.org.

Media Advisory: STEM Faculty in US Schools Need to Focus on Excellence

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:57:00 EDT

For Immediate Release: Contact: Carol Eberly

August 20, 2008 202-349-5882 or
carol.eberly@iwf.org

STEM Faculty in US Schools Need to Focus on Excellence

IWF Releases New Report that looks Deeper into the Debate over Title IX and whether it should or should not be used to balance gender discrepancies in STEM fields.

Washington, DC - A new report released by The Independent Women's Forum, "Excellence, Not Gender Parity, should be Priority for STEM Faculty," addresses the fact that women have made tremendous progress in academia, but remain a minority of faculty, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments.

Gender activists and opportunistic politicians are increasingly trying to interfere in academia in the name of rooting out sexism. At best their efforts are a waste of energy and taxpayer dollars, but at worst they will damage our education system. The goal of our universities shouldn't be to have an equal number of male and female professors - it should be to provide students with the best education by having the best teachers possible.

"It is unlikely that institutional discrimination is the primary cause of the discrepancy between the number of men and women in STEM faculties. Research suggests that women have a greater challenge in balancing work pressures, particularly related to the tenure process. Raising children and individual interests play central roles in generating this outcome," said Carrie Lukas, IWF Vice President of Policy & Economics.

Some of the measures advocated by those who want more "balance" in STEM faculties could have adverse, unintended consequences, including undermining the position of women within faculties and creating reverse sexism, as hiring policies blatantly favor women over their male peers. In addition, some have suggested that the government should use Title IX as a mechanism to increase female representation in STEM faculties, yet this suggestion ignores the significant problems with Title IX's application to athletics.

Schools should work to create a supportive environment that encourages both women and men to fulfill their potential and, to the extent possible, provide flexibility so that those who also have family or other responsibilities can continue to contribute to the important work of the institution. Their goal should be to generate the best, most productive academic departments, not to achieve a politically correct gender balance."

###

If you'd like more information about this topic, or to schedule an interview with Allison Kasic, please call Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882 or email Carol at carol.eberly@iwf.org.

The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and educational institution. Founded in 1992, IWF focuses on issues of concern to women, men, and families. Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited governmnet, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy.

Media Advisory: IWF announces the 2007-2008 Essay Contest winners

Mon, 05 May 2008 12:21:00 EDT

IWF Essay Contest Winners

May 5, 2008

The Independent Women's Forum is pleased to announce the winners of the 2007-2008 IWF College Essay Contest. IWF received hundreds of essays for this year's contest. Full-time, female undergraduate students were asked to submit an essay no longer than 750 words, answering the question: What role should "women's issues" play in the 2008 elections and how do you define women's issues?

The awards include: First Place Award - $5,000, Second Place Award - $2,000, Third Place Award - $1,000, and Ten Honorable Mentions - $250

The winners are:

1^st Place Cassidy Bugos, Christendom College

2^nd Place Lauren Migliore, Kalamazoo College

3^rd Place Sara Elizabeth Walter, Lafayette College

Honorable Mentions:

Ashley Amidon, George Mason University

Kyli Archibald, Hobart and William Smith Colleges

Marina Buryak, Stetson University

Catherine Helsley, Randolph College

Jeanette Moll, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Courtney Parry, Saint Mary's College Notre Dame

Megan Proehl, Ohio State University

Jessica Richman, Stanford University

Morgan Wilkins, Indiana University Southeast

Jiayi Zhou, University of California, Berkeley

Congratulations to all of the winners!

Equal Pay Day has lost relevance

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:29:00 EDT

Equal Pay Day is held annually in April to signify the point into a year that a woman must work to earn what a man made the previous year. According to the 2006 Census Bureau, women on average earn 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts however, Carrie Lukas, vice president of policy and economics for the Independent Women's Forum, has an op-ed in today's Baltimore Examiner debunking the myth that discrimination is the cause of the wage gap. As Lukas describes, it's women like her who take into account many factors--not just salary--when pursuing jobs that cause this statistical discrepancy.

Excerpt:

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.

Read the complete article here.

To interview Carrie Lukas or Allison Kasic, please call Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882 or carol.eberly@iwf.org.

Media Advisory: Scared to Death

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:19:00 EDT

For Immediate Release: Contact: Carol Eberly

April 2, 2008 202-349-5882 or
Carol.Eberly@iwf.org

London Authors Come to U.S. to Debunk Al Gore Alarmism

Scares like Global Warming Threaten Civilization

Washington, D.C. - A book that has been touted by Mail on Sunday as a must read for every politician, journalist, and consumer of journalism makes its way to the United States. First released in the UK, Scared to Death, by authors Christopher Booker and Richard North, shows how the major scares of the last two decades follow an overarching pattern, reveals the devastating fiscal repercussions of such scares, and debunks Al Gore's version of global warming while exposing how political forces have driven global warming debates.

Scared to Death tells the inside story of each of the major scares of the past two decades by providing the real facts and demonstrating how these scares have followed a remarkably consistent pattern. It analyses the crucial role played in each case by scientists who have misread or manipulated the evidence; by the media and lobbyists who eagerly promote the scare without regard to the facts; and finally by the politicians and officials who come up with an absurdly disproportionate response. The end result is often that the public pays a colossal price for the scare through misplaced and often ill-conceived legislation that addresses illusory and scientifically unfounded concerns. The book features analyses of all of these scares, among others: Asbestos, Global Warming, Second-Hand Smoking, Lead, and Salmonella.

Sample Questions for Christopher Booker and Richard North:

Scared to Death has aroused a lot of interest in Britain. Why should it be of interest to an American audience?
What is a specific example of one of the scares you describe in your book to show how the experts got it wrong?
So scares, as you say in your book, are costing us the earth, often without our being aware of it?
We hear so much about the consensus among scientists about the grave danger of global warming. Can the public trust these scientists, particular at the prestigious United Nation?

Credentials: Christopher Booker was one of the founders of Private Eye and its first editor. He has a weekly column in the Sunday Telegraph and a regular column in the Daily Mail. He has published several books. Richard North is a political analyst who has been a research director in the European Parliament, and was formerly a nationally known consultant on public health and food safety.

Availability: April 14-17, 2008 in Washington, D.C. and via telephone.

Already released in the UK, Scared to Death has been reviewed or featured in the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Mail on Sunday, Morning Star, Time Out London, The Scotsman, among other publications.

For more information or to schedule an interview with Christopher Booker and Richard North,
please call Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882 or carol.eberly@iwf.org.

America's Climate Security Act Bad for the Economy

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:25:00 EDT

For Immediate Release:                                                                        Contact: Carol Eberly
March 17, 2008                                                                                         202-349-5882 or
                                                                                                                      carol.eberly@iwf.org

(Washington, DC) - - The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study last week on the economic impact of the America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191), legislation which is designed to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 63 percent by 2050. The study found that this legislation would significantly impede economic growth in the United States.

"This legislation, if passed into law, would cost the United States trillions of dollars in the coming decades and lead to the loss of millions of jobs," said Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum. "The average American family will see their income go down by thousands of dollars and their energy costs soar. Simply put this policy would be bad news for American families."

The numbers in the analysis are staggering. Gross Domestic Product would be reduced by $151 billion to $210 billion by 2020 and between $631 billion to $669 billion per year in 2030. Americans would lose 1.2 million to 1.8 million jobs in 2020 and 3 million to 4 million jobs in 2030. Household income would be reduced by $739 to $2,927 per year in 2020 and $4,022 to $6,752 per year in 2030. Electricity prices would increase by 28% to 33% by 2020 and 101% to 129% by 2030, and gasoline price would increase 20% to 69% by 2020 and 77% to 145% by 2030.

"The saddest aspect of this legislation is that, if the global warming theory and current predictions are correct, than this won't make any meaningful difference in future temperature increases. The economic slowdown will leave us with fewer resources to invest in improving the environment or combating other challenges that may lie ahead," said Lukas. "Policymakers should not lose site of the unintended consequences of policies such as this and focus on ways to improve our environment without sacrificing our economy."

To view the comprehensive national and 50-state reports, please visit www.nam.org/climatechangereport or www.accf.org.

###

For additional information, or to schedule an interview with Carrie Lukas, please contact Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882 or carol.eberly@iwf.org.

Tax Increase Will Make America's Energy Problems Worse

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:24:00 EST

For Immediate Release: Contact: Carol Eberly

February 27, 2008 202-349-5882 or
carol.eberly@iwf.org

Washington, D.C.-Americans frustrated with record high home heating bills and increasing costs at the gas pump may be surprised that Congress is trying to make things worse by passing a bill to raise taxes on energy companies.

"As everyone knows, if you want less of something, you should tax it," said Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum. "The propose tax increases on energy companies will discourage investment in energy infrastructure-that means less energy in the future which means prices will continue to rise."

"This is one of those rare instances when both business and labor groups agree. They recognize that American needs more energy, not new energy taxes that undermine our economy and destroy jobs," said Lukas.

While raising taxes on oil and gas companies, policymakers are considering further subsidizing alternative fuels.

"The government should stop attempting to dictate energy use by subsidizing some energy and penalizing others," said Lukas. "Policymakers should focus on creating a level playing field so that providers can compete and have an incentive to increase the supply of energy regardless of its source."

"Those who suggest that these are tax loop holes that benefit the oil and gas industry should join the movement to simplify the tax code. It would be a great to scrap our complicated tax code and dramatically lower the corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the world," said Lukas. "Just eliminating a few deductions for the purpose of punishing a specific industry-in this case energy producers-is bad policy and counter-productive."

Media Advisory: Take Back the Date

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:24:00 EST

**MEDIA ADVISORY**

For Immediate Release: Contact: Carol Eberly

February 12, 2008 carol.eberly@iwf.org or 202-349-5882

"Take Back the Date"

Campaign to rescue romance from radical feminists and their "hook-up culture"

Washington, DC - Radical feminists have hijacked Valentine's Day on college campuses by turning February 14^th into "V-Day." In the process, they are discouraging traditional romance and chivalry on campus. Most people are unaware of the extreme, vulgar behavior that is encouraged on college campuses in the name of V-Day.

"It's a shame that on Valentine's Day, romance is nowhere to be found on college campuses. Instead, the hook-up culture dominates campus social life and campus feminists host events like The Vagina Monologues that reinforce the "women as sex object" mentality," said Allison Kasic, Director of The R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies at the Independent Women's Forum. "The reality is that most students are not satisfied with this situation-they would prefer to go on dates and have lasting relationships, but they find it hard to escape the hooked-up culture."

V-Day is a striking reminder of just how dysfunctional the collegiate dating scene has become. Gone are candlelit dinners and a night out on the town. Dating, in general, is an endangered species on campus and in its place is the hook-up: casual physical encounters ranging from kissing to sex, with no expectation of commitment.

"The research is clear," said Kasic, "The hook-up culture has real harmful effects, especially on women. Women are more physically vulnerable to sex, running the risk of getting pregnancy and are more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases. Many also face emotional distress associated with casual sex-women may tell themselves that it's no big deal, but their bodies and hormones signal otherwise. Many young women are left feeling confused and depressed."

Laura Sessions Steep, author of Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love, and Lose at Both, sums up the hook-up scene in this way, "Love, while desired by some, is being put on hold or seen as impossible; sex is becoming the primary currency of social interaction. Some girls can handle this; others are exhausted physically and emotionally."

Luckily, all is not lost. The power to transform the hook-up culture rests with individual students, and there is no better time to start than Valentine's Day, and Take Back the Date.

For additional information on "Take Back the Date" or to schedule an interview with Allison Kasic or Carrie Lukas, please contact Carol Eberly at carol.eberly@iwf.org / 202-349-5882.

###

Allison Kasic is director of the R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies at the Independent Women's Forum in Washington, DC. Allison Kasic will be available this week for interviews to discuss the problems of the hook-up culture, and the new trend on college campuses of reviving traditional dating and developing real relationships.

Media Advisory: AFGHAN WOMEN DETAIL SECURITY CHALLENGES IN AFGHANISTAN

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:47:00 EST

* * MEDIA ADVISORY * *

For Immediate Release: Contact: Kate Pomeroy
January 23, 2008 202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org

AFGHAN WOMEN DETAIL SECURITY CHALLENGES IN AFGHANISTAN
Visiting leaders join forum to discuss impact on civil society and directions for the future

Washington, DC - The Independent Women's Forum is honored to host a delegation of senior women leaders from Afghanistan. This forum, "Securing Afghanistan: The Role of Women," will give insight into the challenges Afghan women face and how Afghan women can contribute to a more secure Afghanistan.

"As Afghans and the international community become increasingly concerned about Afghanistan's future, we are reminded of how security is a key essential to Afghanistan's long term development," said Halima Karzai, Associate Director for Foreign Policy and International Women's Issues at the Independent Women's Forum.

This forum is free and open to the public/media.

WHEN:          Thursday, January 24, 2008
TIME:            2:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
WHERE:        National Press Club - 529 14^th Street, NW,
                       First Amendment Lounge, Washington, D.C.

Featuring:
Orzala Ashraf, Founder and Senior Advisor for Humanitarian Assistance for the Women and Children of Afghanistan
Shukria Barakzai, Member of Parliament, National Assembly, Afghanistan
Dr. Nadera Hayat Burhani, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Public Health, Afghanistan
Wazhma Frogh, Senior Gender Advisor, Canadian International Development Agency
Shahgul Rezaie, Member of Parliament, National Assembly, Afghanistan

For additional information on "Securing Afghanistan," or to schedule an interview with one of the experts, please contact Kate Pomeroy at kate.pomeroy@iwf.org /202-631-6704.

###

The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and educational institution. Founded in 1992, IWF focuses on issues of concern to women, men, and families. Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited governmnet, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to some of the nation's most influential scholars-women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom.

Success in the Global Economy: An Agenda for the 110th Congress

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:26:00 EST

For Immediate Release: Contact: Kate Pomeroy
Date: November 27, 2007 202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org

Success in the Global Economy: An Agenda for the 110th Congress
What does America need to do to succeed in the global economy?

Washington, DC - As a prelude to the 18^th U.S. - China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade meeting in Beijing, the Independent Women's Forum will be hosting a summit titled Success in the Global Economy: An Agenda for the 110^th Congress. This is the second event in IWF's signature series.

Date:              Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Time:               8:00am - 2:00pm

Location:         J.W. Marriott Hotel
                      1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Salon F
                      Washington, DC 20004

This bi-partisan event will highlight some of the most important policy issues affecting the U.S. economy-from globalization and free trade to our tax code and health and retirement programs, to our educational system and regulatory environment. Panelists will identify the key challenges facing our nation and propose sensible, market-oriented policies to enhance U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. Particular attention will be paid to the effects of the emergence of China as a global economic force.

###

If you would like more information about this event, please contact Kate Pomeroy at
202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.

Chairman Rangel's "Tax Relief" Plan Largest Tax Increase in History

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:36:00 EDT

For Immediate Release: Contact: Kate Pomeroy
October 26, 2007 kate.pomeroy@iwf.org or 202-631-6704

Chairman Rangel's "Tax Relief" Plan Largest in History
Discouraging Work, Slowing Growth, and Reducing Job Opportunities

Washington, DC - Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) has just released a tax proposal that would increase taxes by an estimated $3.5 trillion, making it the largest increase of individual taxes in history.

Among the bill's provisions are dramatic increases in the top marginal rate faced by individual taxpayers. All Americans would be affected by this increase in taxes, but many women would be particularly hurt. This bill would create a significant new marriage penalty and discourage many married women from working.

The higher marginal tax rates would affect not only individual workers, but numerous small businesses that file tax returns as individuals will see their taxes rise. Small businesses play an important role in our economy, driving growth, creating jobs, and encouraging innovation. These punitive taxes will discourage entrepreneurship and impede America's economic progress.

Chairman Rangel's plan would also discourage investment and risk taking by changing the tax treatment on partnerships. Venture capital funds, real estate investment partnerships, and hedge funds play an important role in the creation of new businesses. Levying higher taxes on these partnerships will discourage entrepreneurship, an engine of economic growth.

"This bill is the wrong direction for American women-we need less taxation, not more. High taxes stifle economic growth, reduce job creation, and leave families with less money to spend as they see fit," said Carrie Lukas, Vice President of Policy and Economics at the Independent Women's Forum.

The United States needs tax reform that makes the tax code less complicated and encourages work and investment. IWF believes Chairman Rangel's tax proposal moves in the wrong direction and urges congress to go back to the drawing board.

For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact Kate Pomeroy
at kate.pomeroy@iwf.org or 202-631-6704.

Baucus-Grassley Tax Increase Could Have a Negative Effect on the Economy...

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT

For Immediate Release:

Baucus-Grassley Tax Increase Could Have a Negative Effect on the Economy...and not just for the rich.

The Independent Women's Forum warns that passage of the proposed Baucus-Grassley tax increase on publicly traded partnerships, which has been introduced before the U. S. Senate (S. 1624), could have a profoundly negative effect on the American economy, and not just for the rich.

Although a tax on equity and hedge funds that go public might appear at first glance to be irrelevant for the vast majority of U.S. taxpayers, this is decidedly not the case. The most immediate impact would be that small fry investors would be denied entry into successful funds when managers refrain from going public to avoid Baucus-Grassley.

Many potentially lucrative IPOs (initial public offerings) which can be sterling investments for retirement simply would not be available for ordinary investors. Thus a tax designed to punish the nation's most successful money managers would affect a far larger segment of the population.

The Baucus-Grassley tax would hinder creativity and stifle the U.S. ability to compete in the global market and ultimately this would have a negative impact in countries around the globe. Only economic expansion keeps unemployment rates low, and this tax would have a dampening effect on economic activity.

Perhaps the most compelling reason to fear this tax, however, is that it is an extremely high tax rate. High tax rates tend to set a precedent and have a trickle down rate effect that could eventually justify higher tax rates on all of us.

Ironically, this tax is not needed. The U.S. tax revenue has set record highs several quarters since the Bush tax cuts have had time to take affect. In addition, the corporate tax base is in no danger of collapsing. It is important, in making any changes in the tax code, to adopt ones that lead to economic expansion, not contraction.

The tax increase proposed by Senators Baucus and Grassley would lead to economic contraction and a slowing of the U.S. economy.

To schedule an interview, please call Kate Pomeroy at 202-349-5889 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.