Independent Women's Forum - News & Commentary

IWF in the News: Biting the Hand that Bites Unions Back

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:51:00 EST

The Daily Caller

Rigid contracts, uniform pay schedules, and teacher-union dues ultimately protect poor teachers and mediocre performance. When even America's education newspaper of record, Education Week, admits that newer teachers' commitment to the union is "tentative at best" in large part because of these policies, it is clear that union leadership is out of touch with economic and educational reality.

One reason is that the teaching profession has changed. Schools do not have the captive labor pool they once did, one which depended on unions to secure jobs, pay, and good working conditions. Teachers have any number of career options open to them today. In fact, almost twice as many incoming teachers have worked in other careers as their predecessors. Absent union rigidity schools would have more incentive to compete for their talent.

Thus, it is especially galling that the majority of teachers must pay dues for services and political activities they don't want to protect a minority of teachers who are hurting the profession and students. With a national unemployment rate around 10 percent, only about 4 percent of teachers lose their jobs annually, prompting USA Today to quip, "At this time of high unemployment, one group of professionals has no shortage of job security: bad teachers." But this statistic is no joke.

In fiscally tough times if teachers must be laid off, it's better to let go of poor performers, not the latest hired. Students with talented teachers learn 50 percent more than students with ineffective ones, and the impact of effective teachers is 10 to 20 times stronger than class-size variations. Union leaders see things differently.

Former chief legal counsel for the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union, Robert Chanin once called the prospect of getting teachers' permission to use their dues for political activities "a royal pain in the [expletive]." Given this option, called paycheck protection, teachers overwhelmingly opt out. 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.

Labor unions in general are also increasingly out of touch given the economic sector they dominate. Nationwide, government-sector union membership exceeds 43 percent, compared to just 7 percent in the private sector. As of last year-for the first time ever-more than half of American union members worked for the government, so public cash "is a lifeline," as the Economist explains. But this cash isn't created ex nihilo.

A diverse economy generates the wealth that primes the public-sector pump, which in turn keeps unions afloat. Private-sector taxpayers, as well as newer teachers at risk of being laid off because of arcane seniority rules, understand this. Living in the closed- economy world of the public sector, labor unions prefer to raise taxes and oppose common-sense, cost-cutting reforms such as merit-based hiring and firing, performance pay, and outsourcing non-instructional services.

Such opposition is turning public opinion against union leadership-especially given recent revelations that cash-strapped school districts in Los Angeles, New York, and elsewhere are spending tens of millions of dollars annually defending a relative handful of teachers accused of incompetence and criminal activities instead of protecting the jobs of tens of thousands of hard-working, talented teachers.

California unions, for example, failed to block a new law empowering parents with children in select failing schools to pick other public schools for their children, or petition to have new management take over their current schools. The California Federation of Teachers ignited national outrage by equating such parental control with a "lynch mob." Reform-minded school leaders are also fighting back.

Frances Gallo, superintendent in Central Falls, Rhode Island, haggled for months with the local teachers union to fix the town's failing high school. Union representatives objected to a plan requiring teachers, who earn up to $80,000, to work 25 extra minutes a day and eat lunch with students once a week. Dr. Gallo offered $30 extra an hour. When the union demanded $90, she fired the entire staff. Supporters rented a billboard in the middle of town hailing Dr. Gallo, and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan applauded her for "doing the right thing for kids."

Labor unions' alternative to reform is raising taxes. But that won't fix budgets or fund education, and it could backfire on labor unions. Shortfalls in states' public-sector retiree pension and benefits plans, which reached $1 trillion in 2008 according to the Pew Charitable Trusts Center on the States, could bankrupt states absent reform. California's long-term education-related retirement liabilities, for instance, stand at $100 to $135 billion. Meanwhile, more that 3,000 retired teachers and administrators receive annual pensions in excess of $100,000 according to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility. Another 6,100 retired California government workers also receive six-figure pensions.

Private-sector taxpayers struggling to preserve their own retirement cannot bankroll such lavish deals-even as teachers unions try to distract public attention with pleas about "the children" and pink slips. Letting labor-union extravagances bankrupt state coffers is a luxury private-sector taxpayers cannot afford. As long as unions block common-sense budget and education reforms, they will become increasingly irrelevant.

Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow and Women for School Choice Project Director at the Independent Women's Forum in Washington, D.C.

IWF in the News: California Teacher Union Rallies Around Bad Ideas

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:42:00 EST

Human Events

by Vicki E. Murray and Evelyn B. Stacey

The California Teachers Association (CTA), the state's largest teachers union and National Education Association affiliate, organized a statewide rally of teachers and students on March 4 to protest education spending cuts. The CTA's "solution" indicates it is out of touch with economic and educational reality.

CTA President David A. Sanchez says businesses should pay their "fair share" by repealing tax credits worth some $2 billion. Yet California's anti-business climate already ranks among the country's worst, along with its unemployment rate, which just climbed to 12.5 percent. Fixing the state's $20 billion budget deficit will require wholesale reform not wishful thinking fueled by actual or de-facto tax increases. California voters agree.

Last May they defeated a slew of ballot initiatives, including one backed by the CTA, which relied on borrowing and a $16 billion temporary tax increase. The CTA's latest blame-business scheme likely won't pass muster, either, because California voters know cash isn't created ex nihilo.

Voters and the companies they work for generate the wealth that primes the public-sector pump, which in turn keeps unions afloat. Nationwide, government-sector union membership exceeds 43 percent, compared to just 7 percent in the private sector. As of last year, more than half of all American union members worked for the government, so public cash "is a lifeline," as the Economist explains.

Leaders of the CTA and the California School Employees Association demand that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators "keep their promises to California students." But there's growing recognition in California and nationwide that labor-union opposition to common-sense reform is breaking promises-as well as budgets.

Public K-12 schooling represents almost half of most states' general budgets -- about 40 percent of California's $83 billion budget. Leading cost-cutting measures proposed by Gov. Schwarzenegger include reductions in administrative spending and allowing more non-instructional service contracting. Almost one-quarter of California school spending goes to administration, operation and maintenance, transportation, and food service, totaling more than $13.7 billion annually. Outsourcing these services has saved other states up to 40 percent, according to the Reason Foundation's Lisa Snell. The estimated savings in California from reducing school district administration and easing outsourcing restrictions is more than $1.5 billion.

Other cost-cutting measures proposed by the governor would help improve teacher quality, such as hiring and firing teachers based on merit not seniority, streamlining dismissal procedures for ineffective teachers, eliminating salary and benefits for teachers suspended for poor performance or alleged criminal activity, and allowing up to four years, instead of two, before teachers can be tenured.

Opposition to such reforms is turning public opinion against union leadership -- especially given recent revelations that cash-strapped school districts in Los Angeles, New York, and elsewhere are spending tens of millions of dollars annually defending a relative handful of teachers accused of incompetence and criminal activities instead of protecting jobs of thousands of hard-working, talented teachers.

California unions failed to block a new law empowering parents with children in select failing schools to pick other public schools for their children, or petition to have new management take over their current schools. The California Federation of Teachers ignited national outrage by equating such parental control with a "lynch mob." Reform-minded education leaders are also fighting back.

Frances Gallo, superintendent in Central Falls, Rhode Island, haggled for months with the local teachers union to fix the town's failing high school. Union representatives objected to a plan requiring teachers, who earn up to $80,000, to work 25 extra minutes a day and eat lunch with students once a week. Dr. Gallo offered $30 extra an hour. When the union demanded $90, she fired the entire staff. Supporters rented billboard in the middle of town hailing Dr. Gallo, and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan applauded her for "doing the right thing for kids."

Blaming businesses won't fix budgets or fund education, and it could backfire on labor unions in California and elsewhere. Shortfalls in states' public-sector retiree pension and benefits plans, which reached $1 trillion in 2008 according to the Pew Charitable Trusts Center on the States, could bankrupt states absent reform. Official legislative estimates peg California's long-term education-related retirement liabilities at $100 to $135 billion. Meanwhile, more that 3,000 retired teachers and administrators receive annual pensions in excess of $100,000 according to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility. Another 6,100 retired California government workers also receive six-figure-plus pensions.

Private-sector taxpayers struggling to preserve their own retirement cannot bankroll such lavish deals -- even as labor unions like the CTA try to distract public attention with pleas about "the children." The public's patience with taxpayer-subsidized lobbying may soon run out, too. Last year as union leaders denounced teacher layoffs, nearly 100 California school districts spent $3.6 million combined on lobbyists.

As long as unions block common-sense budget and education reforms, they will become increasingly irrelevant. After all, letting labor-union extravagances bankrupt state coffers is a luxury private-sector taxpayers cannot afford.

Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D., is Women for School Choice Project Director at the Independent Women�s Forum in Washington, D.C., and Education Studies Associate Director at the Pacific Research Institute in Sacramento, California. Evelyn B. Stacey is PRI Education Studies Policy Fellow.

IWF in the News: Would You Let the N.Y. Times Teach Your Kids About Global Warming?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:19:00 EST

The Daily Caller

American students lag behind ^[1] many of their peers in other countries. Perhaps one reason is that too many teachers get lesson plans from the New York Times.

In its Learning Network section, the New York Times offers a set of classroom activities ^[2] (recommended for students grades 6-12) for teachers looking to cover that over-looked curriculum essential: global warming. The New York Times instructs teachers to line students up on a piece of masking tape that stretches across the classroom. One end of the tape is marked "strongly agree;" the other, "strongly disagree." Students then shuffle around as the teacher reads statements derived from a recent opinion editorial by former vice president and global warming alarmist extraordinaire, Al Gore. The statements include: "Future generations will look back on ours as having ignored clear warnings about the harmful effects of climate change;" "The unusually heavy snowfalls and cold weather this winter in the Northeast are a sign that global warming is an illusion;" and, "Despite the discovery of at least two mistakes in scientific work published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global warming is happening and is caused by the actions of humans."

Yes, this is how the New York Times views global warming skepticism: it all rests on two mistakes in the IPCC report and recent heavy snowfalls in the U.S.

The lesson culminates with students holding "a mock talk show on issues related to the science and politics of global warming." In preparation, students are supposed to do a bit of research. Al Gore's oped is the only must-read, but the New York Times provides links to other sources, including the NOAA National Climate Data Center, National Geographic, and the United States Global Change Research Program (all part of the "consensus" on global warming). Several New York Times articles are also linked, including ones that gloss over those minor "mistakes" in the IPCC report and the "climate-gate" email scandal.

The New York Times notes two sources for those seeking "a more skeptical viewpoint:" Watts Up with That? ^[3] and ClimateAudit.org ^[4]. Those are good sites, but if the New York Times really wants balance and to provide students with new information, they should give the so-called "skeptics'" viewpoint more emphasis.

Research suggests that students already have been fully indoctrinated in global warming alarmism. One study reported ^[5] that: "Nearly 4 in 5 kids saw global warming as "a very serious problem," 3 in 4 saw it as "a threat to all life on the planet" and about 2 in 3 felt global warming is "a threat to my future well-being and safety," and "feel afraid of what might happen."

Instead of adding to this sense of fear, the New York Times might have encouraged students to consider the role that skepticism is supposed to play in the scientific process, and the importance of scientists disclosing their data so that others can assess their logic and consider alternative hypothesis. The New York Times might have included an interview from leading climatologist Phil Jones. While admitting to losing and concealing data from other scientists, Jones acknowledged ^[6] that there has been no significant warming in the past 15 years and that medieval times might have been warmer than today, which would mean that the 20^th century warming trend isn't unprecedented. What do these revelations means for the so-called consensus about man-made global warming?

Many schools already show Al Gore's fictional and deeply flawed movie "An Inconvenient Truth" as part of their curriculum. The New York Times could have recommend teachers balance that perspective by showing "Not Evil, Just Wrong ^[7]," a film which provides a thorough review of the flawed science of global warming, as well as the pure propaganda that has been used to further fear of climate change.

"Not Evil, Just Wrong" also illustrates one aspect of the debate that the New York Times gives very short shrift: the high costs, including major job losses here in the U.S., of proposals to reduce carbon output. The students are supposed to debate policy alternatives, which makes it critical that they actually consider the full consequences of proposals. Students should consider the possibility that even if man is causing the globe to warm, the measures taken to thwart warming might have effects worse than climate change itself. Many students might be surprised to learn that even supporters of cap-and-trade proposals acknowledge that they would do little to slow any man-caused rise in temperature.

American students should be encouraged to consider current political issues, and evaluate and debate policy alternatives. But if teachers want to provide balance, they shouldn't look to the New York Times for guidance.

Carrie L. Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics for the Independent Women's Forum ^[8].

IWF in the News: Washington Is More Likely to Shrink Wallets than Waistlines

info@iwf.org (Julie Gunlock) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:14:00 EST

TownHall

TownHall

Washington continues to focus on health care, but more recently some prominent political figures have narrowed in on the health-care issue of obesity. While it may seem like the topic du jour, obesity has long been a national obsession. Weight-loss reality shows are hit programs on network and cable television. Trashy pop culture rags regularly feature pictures of pin thin actresses on their covers accompanying the hurtful headline "packing on the pounds." Numerous infomercials tout miracle exercise routines and equipment and diet products crowd grocery store shelves, proving that Americans are already plenty concerned about fat. Now Washington is embracing the anti-fat obsession. Unfortunately, the solutions politicians are pushing are no more likely to work than are the diet pills sold on the back pages of magazines. Instead of shrinking waistlines, these efforts are more likely to shrink Americans' wallets and grow government.

If a policy issue could win the lotto, obesity just hit the jackpot. Named as a premier issue for the First Lady, it has risen to near the very top of the President's agenda. Pretty impressive when it's competing against the big boys like oh, you know...war, massive history-making levels of unemployment, wacky dictators with loose nukes, and continuing threats of terrorism. But that's ok. How will we fight the enemy and get back to work if we're all too fat to fit though the door frame? Priorities people...first things first!

And the White House isn't wasting any time. Just last month, the President signed an executive order establishing a task force on childhood obesity. The task force-made up of four cabinet members, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other high-level White House personnel-is charged with providing the President recommendations on the "development of legislative, budgetary, and policy proposals that can improve the health and well-being of children, their families, and communities."

Why is it necessary to designate a special group of people to force this task? Isn't there a really big building in the middle of Washington, DC with something like 64,000 employees and a budget of over $700 billion dedicated to health issues? Yes, there is! And it's called the Department of Health and Human Services. Heck...the word "health" is even in the department's title.

Someone tell the President!

And that's not all. There's another medical official within the federal government dedicated to advising the President on health issues-the Surgeon General, who according to the office's website, "serves as America's Doctor by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury."

Hmmm....seems to me that childhood obesity might fit perfectly under the purview of that office. And you know what? The Surgeon General agrees. In fact, the current Surgeon General, Regina M. Benjamin, lists childhood obesity prominently on her website and offers tips to parents on how to improve a child's health and eating habits.

But fine...ignore these qualified officials. Go ahead and set up a little task force to do what maybe a handful of those 64,000 employees at HHS or the Surgeon General's office could easily do. After all, Washington loves a task force.

So, what exactly will this obesity task force do? What "recommendations" will it dream up and how much will it cost the average family? Drawing from the First Lady's own comments on the issue, the recommendations will likely target a favorite food bogey-man-sugary drinks and unhealthy foods. Hiking the price of these foods, through sin taxes, is a solution the first lady believes might just work.

Sin taxes are a Washington favorite because they raise revenue but are popular with Democrats and forgivable with Republicans. The arguments for using them can be compelling--shouldn't we tax smokers for creating higher health-care costs? Won't taxing sugary drinks and fatty foods encourage people to consume less and become healthier? But the fact is, sin taxes only succeed in one area--driving up the cost of food and other products and hurting the average consumer.

Take for instance taxes on sodas. This year, New York Governor David Paterson proposed a penny-an-ounce tax on soda in his state budget. This would amount to a 12 cent hike in the price of every soda and increase the cost of a 12-pack of soda from $2.99 to $5.87. The proposal also included a $38 tax on large bags of syrup sold to restaurants. For families on a strict budget and restaurants already dealing with a diminished customer base, that's a significant increase. Not to mention, that we can all say a big goodbye to those popular free refills! But Governor Paterson's proposal is relatively low compared to the taxes for which other politicians have called. Just this week, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter proposed a 2 cent per 12-ounce beverage tax, which is just outmatched by Chicago's current sugary drink tax of 3 cents.

Unfortunately, the data suggests that these taxes aren't succeeding in driving down American's weight. Of the top ten fattest states in the Union, three--West Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas-currently tax sodas and sugary drinks.

Some who are concerned about obesity may nod their heads and applaud measures that try to discourage soda consumption. They should ask themselves where the next sin tax will be imposed? Will juice drinks (which in many cases contain more sugar than sodas), energy drinks, coffee, wine or full-fat milk become the next target? What about chips and crackers and cookies and sugar cereals? Who is supposed to determine what is and isn't healthy? How much higher can we drive food costs for families already struggling to make ends meet?

Americans' preoccupation with weight will continue as will Washington's habit of meddling in very personal issues. Because Washington loves to meddle...almost as much as they like a task force.

IWF in the News: Griner's Punch: The Rise of Bad Behavior in Women's Sports?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:12:00 EST

USA Today

Standing 6-foot-8, Baylor University's Brittney Griner gets a lot of attention from opposing players on the basketball court. After Wednesday night's game, she is sure to attract a lot more. The 19-year-old freshman, who is one of only two players to dunk twice in a women's college basketball game, punched Texas Tech University's Jordan Barncastle in the face after the two jostled for position beneath the basket. Following the game Kim Mulkey, Baylor's head coach, announced that she would bench Griner for another game in addition to the National Collegiate Athletic Association's standard one-game suspension for a physical altercation.

A similarly unsavory incident occurred at another women's basketball game, albeit on a much smaller stage, a few weeks earlier. Following a loss to Blinn College, the head coach and a player from Trinity Valley Community College were arrested for assaulting police officers who tried to prevent them accosting the game's referees, who were on their way to the locker room. Coach Bill Damuth and Lesha Dunn, a freshman, are awaiting punishment from the college and the National Junior College Athletic Association.

These two instances of unsportsmanlike behavior have followers of women's sports and gender studies scholars talking. These kinds of outbursts are not new to women's sports, but they often generate a markedly different media response than similar actions by male athletes.

Last year, for instance, a University of New Mexico soccer player was featured on websites across the Internet and sports clips television shows for violently dragging an opposing player to the ground by her ponytail. Though Elizabeth Lambert was not ejected from the conference semifinal game in question, she was later banned indefinitely from competition, following public outcry.

NCAA officials were quick to note that these incidents are not indicative of a trend of increasing violence.

"There is no place in any NCAA sports contests for violent conduct," wrote Joni Comstock, NCAA vice president for championships, in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. "Women's sports have continued to make strides in skill, ability and overall quality of play, and for that we are all pleased. Consider the thousands of intercollegiate athletics events that occur each year, these are isolated cases. However, there is no tolerance for inappropriate and overly aggressive behavior that endangers the well-being of another student-athlete. Good sportsmanship continues to be a pillar of intercollegiate athletics in the NCAA."

Officials from the two-year college world of athletics also denied that there has been any such uptick.

"We track non-violent and violent ejections in the NJCAA and our data does not point to an increase of these types of incidents in women's athletics," wrote Mark Krug, NJCAA spokesman, in an e-mail. "However, any incident of this type is very unfortunate and takes the attention away from those student-athletes that play the game correctly and strive to represent themselves and their schools with sportsmanship and class."

Krug noted that during the 2008-9 academic year, there were 101 total ejections in all of NJCAA women's sports and that only 37 of those were considered "violent ejections." That is relatively low, compared to the figures for men: that during the same academic year, Krug said, there were 648 total ejections in men's games, 177 of which were "violent." Numbers for the current seasons are not available yet.

Advocates for women's athletics had varying responses to the recent high-profile incidents. Most noted that too much pressure is being put on all athletes, whether male orfemale.

"It seems that we are moving on a line that equates female athletes with male athletes in the both behavior and performance ... that if they can't dunk or pitch a perfect game or run the perfect race, problems arise," wrote Pam Noakes, executive director of the National Association for Girls and Women in Sport. "NAGWS has long been an advocate of Title IX and gender equity, but that does not mean that female athletes should act like male athletes. It seems that these behavior blips on the sports screen for women (Griner's punch and the soccer ponytail incident) are warning signs for us that we should all be more vocal in setting standards of behavior that are appropriate and enforcing good decision-making in our athletes."

Noakes's colleague, Shawn Ladda, president of NAGWS and a professor of physical education and human performance at Manhattan College, had a similar response. However, as a former women's soccer coach at Columbia University, she said last fall's ponytail incident struck her close to home.

"I saw that clip, and I talked about it a lot with the students in my class and on our soccer team," Ladda said. "It's important that, as a coach, we are role models to teach sportsmanship. When I was a coach, I didn't care who you were, even if you were my best player, you would have been benched for behavior like that."

Still, she noted that social expectations make incidents like this more of a media sensation when they occur between female athletes.

"There is a double standard out there," Ladda said. "When we see incidents occur in men's athletics, we don't think it's a big deal. It's almost expected. But, when it happens in women's athletics, people are somehow alarmed. Honestly, I find it appalling in any athletics. Still, there is less sportsmanlike behavior in women's sports than there used to be, and I think that's from the increasing demands to win."

Carrie L. Lukas, vice president for policy and economics for the Independent Women's Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism, had another take.

"This is part of a broader issue; we shouldn't be encouraging women to act like boys," Lukas said. "If anything, we should encourage men to act in toward the more feminine aesthetic. When we see sportsmanship eroding in girls, it should be a sign. We should say that there is still something of value in it. We should remind women, it's not weak to play fair or even be courteous or sportsmanlike. Young women are supposed to know better."

She also argued that the media likes to sensationalize this type of bad behavior from female athletes.

"This is part of a larger girls-gone-wild appreciation society has for girls doing bad things," Lukas said. "Girls are either a goody-two-shoes or a total bad-ass. We need to give them space to just be girls."

Other critics, particularly those who advocate on behalf of Title IX issues, took a less gendered approach to their analysis.

"Women's sports and women athletes by and large are the gold standard of exemplary conduct and extraordinary role models," wrote Karen Durkin, spokeswoman for the Women's Sports Foundation, a Title IX advocacy group, in an e-mail. "This (recent incident) is both unfortunate and an aberration. ... This speaks first and foremost to sportsmanship and conduct, not to the gender of the athletes involved. Tough physical play and emotions running high in the heat of competition are inherent in sports but in no way excuse athletes from behaving appropriately. While isolated incidents like these may never cease completely, they do reinforce the need to continue to instill in all athletes that exemplary behavior is a key component of what it takes to be a successful athlete."

What's Really Behind Female Inequality in America?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:28:00 EST

The Washington Post

In her Feb. 21 Outlook column, "For women in America, equality is still an illusion," Jessica Valenti claimed that the Independent Women's Forum exists to tell women that equality is actually bad for them" and criticized me for arguing that the wage gap largely reflects women's trade-offs for taking jobs with more flexibility and personal fulfillment.

Ms. Valenti may pretend that sexism is the reason women earn 76 cents on the dollar for doing the same job as a man, but the data say otherwise. Even the liberal American Association of University Women concluded that three-quarters of the wage gap is due to factors such as education, occupational choice and hours worked.

Yes, women face unique challenges in society. But it's hardly empowering to wallow in the false notion that intractable discrimination condemns us to second-class earnings. The fact is, full-time working men spend more time in the office, take less time away from the workforce and accept more risk (men suffer 93 percent of workplace deaths) than full-time working women. These are the primary reasons for the gap.

Instead of encouraging victimhood and thus discouraging those who want to maximize earnings, feminists such as Ms. Valenti would better serve women by realistically describing workplace trade-offs.

Carrie Lukas, Washington

The writer is vice president for policy and economics with the Independent Women's Forum.

IWF in the News: McCain Rips Obama for 'Unsavory Dealmaking'

info@iwf.org (Julie Gunlock) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:57:00 EST

Onenewsnow

A tense exchange during Thursday's healthcare summit in Washington had the feel of a presidential campaign.

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) at yesterday's healthcare summit denounced what he called the "unsavory dealmaking" involved in the process used to create the House and Senate healthcare bills that Democrats passed before Christmas. McCain chided the president for promising to bring "change in Washington," yet breaking a promise he made eight times on the campaign trail to make sure negotiations over the healthcare bill would be open to the public.

In response, President Obama accused the Arizona senator of still being in "campaign" mode and said lawmakers were on hand to "talk about health insurance," not read "talking points."

Julie Gunlock, a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum, says creation of the bill was an "unsavory process," and that McCain was right to point that out.

"You could almost see President Obama's blood pressure rising as Senator McCain was talking and reminding him of his campaign promises -- that was quite a moment," Gunlock notes. "It sort of highlights why the Democrats and why Obama went back on that campaign promise to make sure that there was transparency in the process and cameras throughout the negotiating process. Those backroom deals would never have flown if there had been cameras in the negotiating process."

During yesterday's summit, McCain implored President Obama and congressional Democrats to "remove all the specials for special interests and a favored few."

The cost of reconciliation
So -- now that the seven-and-one-half marathon healthcare summit is over, will Democrats push sweeping reforms though Congress?

Calling the televised summit "political theatre," the CEO of the Christian Medical Association believes President Obama and the Democrats are set to pass sweeping healthcare reform by using controversial Senate budget rules that would disallow filibusters. But Dr. David Stevens says it will not come without a price. (Listen to audio report)

"I think there's probably going to be a tremendous backlash from that across the country because the vast majority of people are opposed to what's being proposed in Washington," he opines.

Stevens sides with many in the GOP in wanting to start over on healthcare reform because, in his opinion, the Democrat's plan is bad for America.

"It just won't work; it's going to make the problem worse," he argues. "So we need to start over because we don't have a place to start from with what we have. And that doesn't mean we delay for three or four years; that means we address it immediately, we get back into it -- it's true bipartisanship, we put ideas on the table. We do need to get on this."

Stevens says healthcare reform needs to be passed in the next year, but not in the next two weeks.

Follow Up Appointment Needed

info@iwf.org (Sabrina Schaeffer) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:36:00 EST

National Review Online

National Review Online

The health-care summit, summarized.

The president and his Democratic colleagues insist on framing the health-care debate in terms of Us vs. Them: The big bad private sector is out to hurt you, and the heroic government wants to save you. But for their continuing effort to sell Obamacare to the American people, the third time won't be the charm.

Us vs. Them isn't working, and what's more, it can't work. Because, contrary to what the Obama administration thinks, public opinion is not endlessly malleable.

Issue-framing strategists like Frank Luntz and George Lakoff often describe a pliant public that can be manipulated by the perfectly phrased message. There is some truth to this: Research shows that citizens do seek out elite guidance in decision-making. But however many ways you frame an issue, the public still has to choose to place greater weight on one consideration or another.

As elite opinion on health-care reform has become more defined and consistent, the public's considerations have become more entrenched. Now, the verdict is in: Americans clearly prefer choice and freedom over government control.

President Obama hoped his summit would be a chance to start anew and reframe the debate, but it's too late. Citizens have been forming their views for months now. The White House might be willing to ignore public opinion, but it's not going to be able to change it.

- Sabrina L. Schaeffer is managing partner of Evolving Strategies and a senior fellow with the Independent Women's Forum.

IWF in the News: Health Insurance for Domestic Violence Victims Doesn't Require Reordering the Entire Health-Care System

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:29:00 EST

The National Review

The most memorable moment of Congresswoman Louise Slaughter's (D-NY) fairly incoherent remarks at the White House health-care summit was surely her description of a constituent who used her dead sister's dentures because she couldn't afford to buy her own. It's a perfect example of an anecdote entirely useless to the current debate about health care: Yes, Congresswoman, we know there are some poor people who don't get all the care they need in the current system. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

While the denture drama can be brushed off, Slaughter brought up another issue that deserves serious attention:

[P]re-existing conditions have to go. It is cruel and capricious and done only to help the bottom line. This was not even anything we talked about 10 or 15 years ago, but I mentioned that all Americans should be treated the same. Let me give you a history.

Eight states have declared that domestic violence is a pre-existing condition on the grounds, I assume, that if you have been unlucky enough to get yourself beaten up once, you might do it again. Forty-eight percent is the higher cost for women to buy their own insurance. Believe you me that is really discrimination.

Is it really discrimination - and I'll take that term to mean bias against women in this context - to consider domestic violence a pre-existing condition? Actuarially speaking, it seems very likely insurance companies are making a rational link that those who have been victims of domestic violence consume more health care than the average person.

People naturally recoil from this. It seems unfair that women who are victims of such violence are penalized again with higher insurance premiums for something that is no fault of their own. Yet this is a common practice in insurance.

If your car gets vandalized, it's not your fault, but your insurance company may suspect you're parking in a neighborhood prone to crime. You thus might see your premium rise upon renewal. The same logic applies to home insurance. Undoubtedly, this can mean that people in lower-income neighborhoods face relatively higher risk premiums than those in posh suburbs. Life insurance applications ask dozens of questions designed to assess how great a risk you pose. This means a missionary who travels to poor countries to help the destitute is likely to be identified as a risk taker and pay a penalty for living a life of good works. It's not existentially fair, perhaps, but it's not discrimination based on malice either.

Let's say, though, that as a polity we decide we're just not comfortable with the idea some might find it more difficult to obtain insurance through no fault of their own. What's the best way then to help them?

The Democrats claim the answer is to create a highly regulated insurance industry and ban the consideration of factors like pre-existing conditions. This means insurance premiums will become more expensive for the average person, which is why policymakers also must create an individual mandate to force everyone to buy the more expensive insurance and to institute price controls over premiums.

Yet we could help those with pre-existing conditions without completely reordering the health care system. As the Galen Institute's Grace-Marie Turner explains: "Access to health insurance could be guaranteed, including for those with pre-existing conditions or high health risks, through a network of programs that engage states, private-public sector partnerships, safety-net programs, and new subsidies and incentives to encourage continuity of coverage."

Remember, our current system heavily favors employer-purchased health insurance over the individual market and therefore creates a lack of portability and discourages continuity of insurance. Reforming this would be an important first step toward reducing the number of uninsured with pre-existing conditions.

As the Cato Institute's John H. Cochrane wrote:

A truly effective insurance policy would combine coverage for this year's expenses with the right to buy insurance in the future at a set price. Today, employer-based group coverage provides the former but, crucially, not the latter. A "guaranteed renewable" individual insurance contract is the simplest way to deliver both. Once you sign up, you can keep insurance for life, and your premiums do not rise if you get sicker. Term life insurance, for example, is fully guaranteed renewable. Individual health insurance is mostly so. And insurers are getting more creative. UnitedHealth now lets you buy the right to future insurance - insurance against developing a pre-existing condition.

For skeptics who believe a more free-market approach would leave too many without coverage, the government could even provide targeted assistance to those with pre-existing conditions to help them purchase insurance in a competitive marketplace. The point is, the government doesn't have to supress the extremely useful tools of health insurance markets and pricing differentials to address the problem of providing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

Rep. Slaughter's anecdotes may evoke sympathies for those failed by the current system, but they say absolutely nothing about the merits of proposed reforms.

- Carrie Lukas is vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum.

IWF in the News:The Big Question: Who Will Win Support at the Health Reform Summit?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:28:00 EST

The Hill

Today's question:

Which party will shine at Thursday's healthcare summit?

Michelle Bernard, President of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Only Failure Will Make This Summit A Success

Neither party will shine during the White House summit, which is more likely to cause viewers to roll their eyes and flip the channel than get excited about health care reform. The only way that this summit will be a success is if it's ineffectiveness finally convinces Congress to give up on its current legislative push and go back to the drawing board in terms of crafting a proposal.

The public has already expressed its disgust for the current proposals in every way it can - in the voting booths, in town hall meetings, and consistently to pollsters. One summit-even one that goes swimmingly from the Democrats' perspective-isn't going to change the consensus among the American people that these health care bills should be canned. The American people have listened to policymakers talk about health care reform; it's time for Washington to start listening to the public and give up on this version of health care reform.

IWF in the News: Sen. Debbie Stabenow Blazed A Trail for Women - in Politics and in Life

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:08:00 EST

GLWoman

Louise Knott Ahern
For GLWoman

Sen. Debbie Stabenow gathered her things at the end of a Senate Finance Committee meeting and followed her colleagues out the door.

She had only taken a few steps when a member of her staff stopped her.

"Senator," the staff member said quietly. "You're on YouTube."

"For what?" Stabenow asked.

Even as a high-ranking member of the U.S. Senate, Michigan's second-term junior senator isn't known for generating the kind of viral-video drama that has become part-and-parcel of modern politics.

But on that day, Sept. 25, 2009, Stabenow leaned into the microphone and whipped out a one-liner that has become what some consider a defining moment in the health care debate.

The finance committee was discussing an amendment by GOP Sen. Jon

Kyl of Arizona. Kyl wanted to remove from the proposed Senate bill a provision that would require insurance companies to cover certain benefits, including maternity care. He argued that such requirements would raise insurance costs for everyone.

"I don't need maternity care," Kyl said in defense of his amendment.

Stabenow and her trademark smile quickly interjected.

"I think your mom probably did."

Within 24 hours, the video had been viewed more than 100,000 times, and the exchange had been covered by the New York Times, Salon, Huffington Post and countless blogs.

"I was offended as a woman," Stabenow explained in a recent interview with GLWoman. "That was just the first thing that popped into my head."

Stabenow's quip instantly earned her a hero status among women's groups and health care reform advocates - even as it inflamed those on the opposite side of the debate.

"Democrats have been trying to justify their grand health care plans by pushing the 'woman's angle,' " wrote Carrie Lukas, vice president of the conservative Independent Women's Forum, shortly after the debate. "It effectively plays on sympathies and can make the opposition look like a bunch of jerks."

Political ploy or not, Kyl's amendment was eventually voted down 14 to 9.

The incident has now largely faded from public discourse. But observers who have followed Stabenow's political career say it will remain a pivotal moment - not only in her own history, but in a larger legacy of blazing new trails for women in politics and giving a voice to women's issues.

We may take it for granted in 2010 that a woman can hold a prominent seat on a panel as powerful as the Senate Finance Committee. But when Stabenow first ran for public office in 1974, such an achievement was unheard of.

"Debbie has opened doors for us that would not otherwise have been opened," said state Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat from East Lansing who holds the state Senate seat once held by Stabenow. "Three out of the four people representing Lansing are now women."

Desire to help people

Stabenow was born in 1950 and raised in Clare, where her grandfather and father ran an Oldsmobile and Cadillac dealership. She credits her mother, a registered nurse, with sparking her desire to seek a career helping people in some capacity.

"She gave me the right values of faith and putting family first," Stabenow said. "As a nurse for 42 years, she showed me how to balance my professional interests with my family."

As a student at Michigan State University, Stabenow initially envisioned a career in social work. But while still in graduate school, she interned in a program for troubled youth at Lansing's Cristo Rey Community Center and met a man who would eventually encourage her to turn her passions to public office.

Her supervisor at Cristo Rey was David Hollister, a teacher and member of the Ingham County Board of Commissioners. (He would later serve in the state House and as Lansing's mayor.)

"There were 19 Republicans and two Democrats on the commission then, and I was recruiting young progressives to run," said Hollister, who is now president of Prima Civitas, a Michigan economic development organization. "Her husband at the time ran and lost."

When a local nursing home faced possible closure, Stabenow was angry enough to put her own name on the ballot in the next election.

She won.

Three years later, she was named chair of the commission, the youngest person ever to hold the position. And the first woman.

Setting examples

It was the beginning of a long line of political firsts. First woman to preside over the state House. Author of some of the nation's first laws on tougher domestic violence policies and child car safety. First and only woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate from Michigan.

Another first that is perhaps most notable to other political moms: She was the first woman to give birth to children while serving in the Michigan Legislature.

Whitmer of East Lansing said that achievement alone has paved the way for so many other women.

"I've had two children since serving in the Legislature," said Whitmer, whose daughters are now 7 and 6. "There were only two other women who had done that before and Debbie was the first. There is no longer a question of whether you can do it. She proved that you can carry a child and still cast votes."

That's not to say that Stabenow erased all challenges.

Political strategist and former state House Speaker Dianne Byrum, a longtime friend and political ally of Stabenow's, remembers a campaign incident that still upsets her today.

"I was going door to door when I was running for the House, and a woman at one house - a woman - told me that I needed to be home with my children," said Byrum, whose children were then 9 and 12.

One of those children, Barb Byrum, is now following in her mother's footsteps. She's the 67th district representative to the state House and recently gave birth to her second child.

"Barb takes that baby right onto the House floor with her," said Dianne Byrum, the lilt of a proud mom in her voice. "Debbie showed that it could be done, and she excelled at it."

'Don't wait to be asked'

The world looks different now for Stabenow. She looks around and sees Jennifer Granholm, the first woman to serve as governor of Michigan. She sees a world where women like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have made significant cracks in the glass ceiling to the White House.

When Stabenow first entered the state Legislature, she and the few other women there were automatically shuffled onto a handful of low-key committees.

"I refused," she said. "I had led the county commission and helped to get a new jail built. I ended up on taxation and judiciary. You fast forward to today, and we have a woman chairing the Senate Intelligence Committee."

Yet she acknowledges that challenges remain.

"There are times when I feel that if I don't raise an issue on behalf of women, it won't get raised," she said.

And when she reflects on the 2008 presidential campaign, she feels Clinton and Palin were sometimes treated differently because they were women. For example, reports of Palin's clothing expenses on the campaign trail dominated news coverage for days.

"I think there are different standards," she said. "I felt that the way Clinton was criticized or characterized sometimes would not have been said about a man. I don't think the media has really figured out how to treat women in power."

Which is one reason why women need to continue to push the political boundaries, she said.

"The experiences women have and the values we bring to office are critical to decisions being made that make sense," she said. "Just believe in yourself. Don't wait to be asked to run. Just step out and do it. Understand that your life experiences are important to the political process."

Backlash Against What?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:32:00 EST

National Review Online

National Review Online

The February 18th Los Angeles Times reports that U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer is seeking re-election. Under the bland title "U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer files papers to run for reelection," Seema Mehta explains, "The Democrat faces a tough battle amid an anti-incumbent backlash."

Is what Sen. Boxer really faces an "anti-incumbent" backlash? Hardly. The Politico describes the current political terrain as seen by the famed (and non-partisan) Charlie Cook. The Politico reports:

"Highlighting the GOP's continued momentum, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report made ratings changes in 25 House races Thursday, all of which favor Republican candidates....

The respected political publication now rates 54 Democratic-held seats in the most highly competitive category - with 26 of them either pure tossups or favoring the Republican candidate. The publication rates 95 Democratic seats in total as potentially vulnerable - over one-third of the entire caucus. ...

Republican members who began the election cycle in a highly vulnerable position appear to be in better shape. ...And the list of Democratic targets continues to expand..."

So the Cook Report sees a growing number of vulnerable, incumbent Democrats and a shrinking number of vulnerable, incumbent Republicans. It's clear that it's not the "incumbent" label that voters are lashing against, but one party label: Democrat.

Not surprisingly, a Nexis search of the L.A. Times found no use of the term "anti-incumbent backlash" in 2006, the year the Democrats took over control of Congress. "Anti-Republican" or "Anti-GOP" showed up 13 times.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Will Dems See a Backlash Over Reconciliation?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:17:00 EST

The Hill

Today's question:

Will there be a backlash from voters if Democrats pass healthcare reform through reconciliation?

Michelle D. Bernard, President and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

HEALTHCARE REFORM THROUGH RECONCILATION NOW WILL BE RECONCILED BY WOMEN AND INDEPENDENTS IN NOVEMBER

Absolutely. Poll after poll shows voters reject the Democrats healthcare proposals. The latest Rasmussen poll confirmed those findings once again: "41% of voters favor the proposed healthcare plan, while 56% oppose it. Those figures include 45% who strongly oppose the plan and just 23% who strongly favor it." Yes, nearly half of the country "strongly" opposes the healthcare legislation that the Democrats are now seeking to advance using reconciliation - a procedure that was meant for use only for budget matters, not for legislation that would fundamentally reorder one-sixth of the economy. This surely will infuriate not only those ideologically opposed to this healthcare reform proposal, but political independents who want a more civil, bipartisan Washington.

A poll conducted by Independent Women's Voice after the Massachusetts special election found that twice as many Massachusetts voters thought Congress should "start over" in healthcare negotiations as thought that Congress should "keep going as is." Undoubtedly, these voters, like most Americans, will be even more disgusted by those who would seek to advance this most unpopular legislation by thwarting the regular legislative process, and they'll be ready to show their anger in the voting booths in November.

Green Jobs Obsession Distracts from Real Economy Recovery

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:14:00 EST

Townhall.com

The American public has become familiar with many new political phrases since the start of the Obama administration: Jobs saved or created. Bending the cost curve. And, of course, green jobs. As with all political catch-phrase, Americans should be warned: what they think the term means and the actual policies advanced in its name are often very different things.

President Obama has made the creation of green jobs a centerpiece of his economic agenda. Becoming the "world leader in developing the clean energy technologies that will lead to the industries and jobs of tomorrow" is described by the Administration as "critical to the future of our country." They are investing billions in pursuit of this goal. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_key_clean_energy/

The 2009 stimulus bill made a massive investment in "green" enterprises: a $6 billion loan guarantee program targeted to green industry, $5 billion for weatherization assistance, $11 billion for "smart grid" technology and modernized high-tech transmission lines, and $500 million to help train workers for green-related careers. The new budget doubles down with similar "green" investments: hundreds of millions for the research and development of new energy technologies, billions of tax breaks for companies investing in clean energy projects, and $74 million for initiatives to "inspire tens of thousands of young Americans to pursue a career in clean energy."

Just what are American taxpayers getting for this investment? The Administration has struggled to quantify how many jobs were created by last summer's stimulus; identifying government-created "green jobs" is an even more difficult task. Part of the problem is defining exactly what counts as a "green job." Employment produced by some initiatives--weatherization support and improving buildings' energy-efficiency--are almost indistinguishable from regular construction jobs. Even the money focused on producing "green" energy products, like solar panels and wind turbines, has effects that trickle far outside "green" sectors since the production process requires raw materials and transportation, which cut across the general economy.

Taxpayers should also be warned that creating a "green job" can be expensive. One report examining state and local efforts to encourage the creation of "green jobs" found that the subsidies sometimes exceed $100,000 per job created. Other analysts have pointed out that much of money targeted for "green job" creation is being sent overseas. ABC News reported that nearly 80 percent of the close to $2 billion in the stimulus bill dedicated to wind power went to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/wind-power-equal-job-power/story?id=9759949

Yet the bigger question is whether it is sensible for the government to invest so heavily in wind power at all. A report by the minority of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy, entitled "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," http://bond.senate.gov/public/_files/BondGreenJobsReport.pdf revealed that alternative energy sources remain much more costly than traditional power. The report details:

"Comparisons of wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas, and coal sources of power coming on line by 2015 show that solar power will be 173% more expensive per unit of energy delivered that traditional coal power, 140% more than nuclear power and natural gas and 92% more expensive than wind power. Wind power is 42% more expensive than coal and 25% more expensive than nuclear and natural gas power."

The report further explains that even this comparison overstates the total efficiency of wind and solar since they operate at full optimization only a fraction of the time, and require traditional sources of energy as backup when the sun or wind disappears.

American families used to hearing stories about dubious bank bailouts, wasteful earmarks, and new spending bills with hundred billion dollar price tags may shrug their shoulders. Yet these "green" efforts aren't just more inefficient, ineffective uses of federal money which require a few more bucks out of our paychecks. Government's meddling in the energy sector distorts the market process, rewarding some less promising technologies, while discouraging the creation of others that could truly revolutionize how we power the economy. Government has a habit of rewarding today's favored technology--at one time, corn-based ethanol; today, wind and solar. This discourages outside-of-the-box innovators since they know they won't be competing on a level playing field, but instead one that's stacked in favor of the politically connected.

Even more worrisome, policymakers know that direct government spending alone won't usher in a new "clean" economy, so they are also pursuing a more surefire path to "green" job creation-- driving up the costs of traditional energy sources either through regulation or a costly cap-and-trade system that acts as a carbon tax. Average American families will find that these policies cost them thousands of dollars as the price of everything from food to fuel rise. And while it may create additional "green" jobs, it will strangle many more traditional jobs, as businesses have to invest more on their energy costs and have less to spend on expansion and job creation.

The term "green jobs" must poll well, but in reality these costly initiatives steer money toward inefficient technologies, thwarted the market process, and ultimately act as a drag on economic growth. Instead of "green jobs," the Administration should focus on facilitating private sector job creation by reducing how much the government meddles in the market.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Will Obama's New Plan Give Health Reform a Boost?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:42:00 EST

The Hill

Today's question:

Will President Barack Obama's new health reform plan generate momentum for the stalled legislation?

Michelle D. Bernard, President & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

The American people have soundly rejected the fundamental reform proposal that's being advanced by Congress and the White House. The tweaked bill that's being offered by the White House isn't going to change the consensus among Americans that a trillion-dollar government effort to micromanage the health care insurance of all Americans is the wrong direction.

Yet the White House and Congress don't seem concerned about the American people's attitudes per se. Their only priority is insuring they can convince enough House Members that something has changed and that there will be political benefits to passing health care once and for all so they can sneak the legislation through via reconciliation. It seems like it will be an uphill battle to convince vulnerable Democrats that somehow supporting this wildly unpopular initiative is in their political interest.

The White House would better serve the American people by going back to the drawing board and considering reforms that really could improve the system. They could start by thinking about some of the challenges that women face:

Today, health insurance is tied to employment, which means that women (who frequently take time out of the workforce and work in part-time positions that don't include health benefits) often face disruptions in their coverage. Buying health insurance on the individual market (instead of through an employer) can often be costly and difficult. Why is this such a problem? It's largely the product of ill-conceived government policy. In particular, employers purchasing health insurance receive tax breaks while those purchasing in the individual market don't. They could start addressing that problem by reforming the tax treatment to put employer-provided and individually-purchased insurance on a level playing field. You can check out more ideas for how to improve the system here: http://www.iwf.org/files/228e1cb798b2957ae19a5ca4a78bb1f9.pdf.

The President may be able to gin up a little momentum among those in his party to pass his health care reform. But that won't make the bill any better or more popular.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: How Can the Deficit Panel Make Their Work Count?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:25:00 EST

The Hill

Today's question:

What could President Barack Obama's deficit commission do to have a strong effect on policy-makers?

Michelle D. Bernard, president & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Nothing. There is absolutely nothing that any deficit commission can do to encourage the spending-addicted Congress to do their jobs and actually reduce outlays to bring the budget into balance. The soon to-be-retired because nothing works in Congress Evan Bayh and Senator John McCain were on the right path in proposing The Fiscal Freeze Act of 2010 which would include a spending freeze and earmark moratorium until the federal budget is balanced; make the President's proposed freeze on non-security discretionary funding law, create a line item veto that passes constitutional muster so that the President can "weed out wasteful spending items", and give the annual Congressional budget resolution the force of law." http://senatus.wordpress.com/?s=fiscal+freeze+act+of+2010 . Only Congress can do this, not a powerless, unelected deficit commission. In the short-term, it is going to be up to the President to show that it's time to get serious about spending and veto bills that include unnecessary spending and waste.

Ultimately, only voters will be able to force their elected representatives to radically alter the government's spending habits to bring down long-term deficits. We have seen it happen in NJ, where Gov. Christie campaigned on the need to slash state spending; voters elected him and now he is making good on his promise with a spending freeze and by offering major cuts that would fundamentally change the state. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/nj_gov_chris_christies_spendin.html If the public wants responsible budgets, they'll have to make it the number one issue in the next election and vote only for who are truly committed to reducing the size of government.

The Democrats' Woman Problem

info@iwf.org (Sabrina Schaeffer) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:25:00 EST

The Daily Caller

Democrats have a woman problem.

Yes, the White House signed the Lilly Ledbetter legislation aimed at improving equality in the workplace. Yes, during a period of financial belt-tightening, the president recommended increasing spending on a series of "women's" issues such as programs to help victims of domestic violence. And, yes, the White House just gave female military personnel serving overseas access to the morning-after pill.

Feminist groups promise politicians this is a surefire path to women's hearts. Yet despite all this, support for the president among women is slipping. At this time last year, 66 percent of women approved of the president's performance in Gallup's weekly tracking polls. Today that number is 56 percent.

Of course, all this attention to identity-politics might just be the reason Democrats are in trouble. While the administration has been dutifully taking their cues from national women's organizations on the left, groups like NOW no longer represent mainstream American women.

Political analysts have argued for years about what makes women tick-or, more specifically in politics, what makes them vote. On one hand, researchers claim terrorism and moral values moved women to the polls for Republicans in recent elections. But others suggest "soft issues" like education and health care are most important to women and have more recently moved them to support Democrats. Clearly women are not a monolithic voting bloc; yet, Democrats continue to treat them as such, appealing to them through traditional "women's" policies.

But you don't have to look farther than three of the highest-profile 2010 mid-term elections to know what is motivating women today: Meg Whitman's gubernatorial run in California, Carly Fiorina's Senate campaign in California, and Linda McMahon's Senatorial bid in Connecticut. Each of these former business honchos (or honchas, as the case here may be) is running on the economy-and specifically on Laffer curve-infused policies aimed at reducing regulations, bringing down taxes, and cutting state spending.

The fact is, Americans-and especially women-have grown increasingly skeptical of government, seeing it as wasteful and inefficient. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll found that "two-thirds of Americans are ‘dissatisfied' or downright ‘angry' about the way the federal government is working," adding that "on average, the public estimates that 53 cents of every tax dollar they send to Washington is ‘wasted."

And women feel even more strongly about this incompetence. According to the results of a recent survey of women voters in Massachusetts commissioned by the Independent Women's Voice, "77 percent of women claim government spends money in a most inefficient way."

Nevertheless, President Obama and Democrats in Congress continue to see gender politics-and issues like reproductive rights and nanny-state policies-as the key to the woman's vote. They would be wise to reconsider: research reveals that women are not overwhelmingly concerned with abortion, for instance. According to a survey administered this fall by the Pew Research Center, overall concern about the issue has dropped. "Only a small minority of Americans (15 percent)," the survey found, "say abortion is a critical issue facing the country today, down from 28 percent who said this in 2006." And concern about abortion among liberal Democrats -the predominant demographic of NOW-is only 8 percent.

While it's true women care about health care-in large part because they are caretakers for children and the elderly-they don't support massive government-run reform as many Democrats would have you believe. Results from the IWV survey found that only 16 percent of respondents believe "healthcare should be a top issue for Congress." And large numbers of women (45 percent) think the $829 billion legislation was too much to spend on reforming our current system.

No doubt the Bush administration primed voters for dissatisfaction with profligacy. But the outrageous spending and the top-down, Keynesian economic policies of the current administration have led to a more general distrust of government, especially among women.

Today, a growing number of women out-earn their spouses. A 2007 Pew study found nearly a quarter of men surveyed made less than their wives, compared with only 4 percent in 1970. Women earn a majority of bachelor degrees, as well as master's degrees. And as women's earnings have increased, so has their purchasing power. As Katty Kay and Claire Shipman note in their recent book Womenomics, in 2007 "women broke the automobile halfway mark and bought 53 percent of all cars in the United States."

It's no wonder then, that women today are focused on the economic crisis. Even in 2004, when terrorism and national security trumped all, political scientists Ronnee Schreiber and Susan Carroll, found that jobs and the economy were still of serious concern to both Republican (12.5 percent) and Democratic women (36.1 percent).

Today, Pew research tells us 83 percent of the country believes the economy is our top priority, and women clearly still agree. Seventy-nine percent of women in Massachusetts reported to IWV that "jobs and the economy" were the top or one of the top three issues for them. And, perhaps even more important, these women view less government and fewer taxes (78 percent) as the best way to speed up the country's economic recovery.

Candidate Obama may have won the majority of the women's vote, but President Obama's losing their support fast. And if he wants to win it back, he ought to stop trying to appease women through soft issues and start focusing on the very hard economic challenges affecting women everyday.

Sabrina L. Schaeffer is a senior fellow with the Independent Women's Forum and managing partner of Evolving Strategies.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: What Does Bayh's Decision Mean for His Party?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:33:00 EST

The Hill's Congress Blog

Today's question:

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh said pointed partisanship caused his retirement. What does Bayh's retirement mean for other centrist Democrats? Will Democrats be able to keep their Senate majority?

Michelle Bernard, President of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Sen. Bayh voiced his frustrations with Washington and Congress when explaining why he didn't plan to seek a 3rd term. Yet surely part of his frustration lies with this past year when hopes were so high that President Obama would change the tone of politics, govern from the center, make the legislative process more open and deliberative and enact positive reforms for the country. Many Americans-in particular political independents-now tell pollsters they are more frustrated than ever with Washington. Sen. Bayh must share their frustration, and maybe he also worries that voters might take their frustrations out on him. If Sen. Bayh is really so disheartened by the political process, you would think he might want to stay and focus on working from within to change the process. Perhaps he thinks Washington is truly irredeemable.

Centrist Democrats, particularly those in states or districts that traditionally lean Republican, didn't need the retirement of Bayh to get a sense of just how tough the upcoming election season will be for them. The Democratic loss of the Massachusetts' Senate seat told the whole story. And no one should forget Virginia and New Jersey. Bayh's retirement may encourage a few more to make an early exit. Even a few months ago it seemed almost impossible to imagine that Democrats could lose control of the Senate. But unless something changes soon, I'd put Republican chances of a takeover at more than fifty percent.

Fighting Childhood Obesity: Look to Parents, Not Big Brother

info@iwf.org (Julie Gunlock) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:22:00 EST

National Review Online: The Corner

First Lady Michelle Obama appeared last evening on PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer to discuss the official launch of her anti-obesity campaign (which I wrote about here).

Lehrer served up your typical softball questions (my personal favorite: "What about this word ‘obesity' . . . It's not a comforting word at all." Thanks, Jim, excellent analysis). But to be fair, I suppose no one's expecting hard-hitting journalism on the First Lady's crusade against fat. That said, it would have been nice to see Lehrer more fully flesh out the First Lady's policy proposal to solve this childhood health issue.

As for Ms. Obama, she started the interview off on a sour note - yet again bringing up her own daughters' weight issues. I love how the liberals jumped all over Sen. Scott Brown for discussing his daughters' "availability," but have largely remained silent on what some would consider the much bigger parenting no-no of discussing a child's weight on national television.

Nonetheless, Obama clearly is passionate about her new cause and she does actually provide some good advice to parents facing this issue - get involved in your children's food choices. Her guiding hand, she explains, was the critical element in successfully improving Sasha and Malia's weight. Discussing her pediatrician's reaction to her involvement, the First Lady tells Lehrer that (emphasis mine)

he was pretty floored by how quickly you could turn the tide on this issue with - by just removing juices from lunchboxes and cooking a little bit more, maybe one or two more meals, turning the TV off a little bit more, limiting desserts to the weekends. I mean these were really not major lifestyle overhauls. So when I came here, I thought, if it can be that simple, it's all about lack of information and lack of focus on the issue. So I wanted to use the first lady spotlight to shine the light on this issue for many families that are struggling with this issue.

So, why not a simple solution for the American public? Why the call for government intervention when it's clear that parental supervision is the key to solving this problem?

And it looks like the science might agree with a simpler solution. Just this month, Ohio State University released a major study on childhood obesity that found that children are likely to have a lower risk for obesity if they eat dinner with their family, get adequate sleep, and watch less television. The study, set to be published in the March issue of journal Pediatrics, is the first study to review the impact of all three activities on children in a national sample of preschoolers.

Unfortunately, the First Lady's solution is a bit more complicated. It now involves an executive order signed by the president, a presidential taskforce made up of four Cabinet-level secretaries as well as the director of the OMB and several senior White House policy staffers, and a report due to the president in 90 days with recommendations on how to solve the obesity issue.

No doubt, this taskforce will come up with some pretty predictable recommendations - more federal money provided to schools for healthy lunches and additional physical-education programs. There will certainly be recommendations to increase regulations on foods aimed at children and new rules designed to rid schools of evil sugary drinks and high-fat snack foods all provided by those terrible vending machines.

Whatever the recommendations of the task force, the First Lady's advice to parents to take a more active role in their children's lives generally and food choices specifically will undoubtedly be more effective . . . and a lot less expensive.

- Julie Gunlock is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum.

Busted Budgeting

info@iwf.org (Nicole Kurokawa) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:06:00 EST

Townhall.com

With the economy in shambles, recession chic is in. People are cutting back, tightening belts, cooking at home more. The Target Corporation's ad campaign highlighting the many ways its store can save consumers money has been a runaway success, with net retail sales in January 2010 up 3.6 percent over the prior year. Unnecessary spending is so last year, and "fiscal responsibility" is the phrase du jour in Washington and the rest of the country.

Small wonder, then, that the Administration has adopted a similar narrative - after all, they're nothing if not image-conscious! Accordingly, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer blogged last week that "American families are forced to make tough choices about what they can spend money on and what they need to cut from their household budgets. Through the course of the budget process we did the same thing."

Alas, the newly-released 2011 federal budget is a poor knock off of real fiscal responsibility. Coming in at a staggering $3.8 trillion, it seems like there's very little the government has cut back on - and a lot more planned for a taxpayer-financed spending spree. For politicians, it seems that cutting back is well and good in theory, but in reality, it means there's a whole lot less money to buy votes with - and that's not very politically expedient, is it? In fact, a number of programs will receive even more money in 2011 that it will in budget-busting 2010. Public K-12 education and energy research will receive 6 percent more than the prior year, and the National Science Foundation will receive an additional 8 percent.

Sure, there was high talk about cutting back on duplicative programs. And it's a good thing to finally eliminate programs that for years have been recognized as a complete wasteful (why, indeed, has the government been spending money to clean up coal mines that were cleaned up years ago, for instance?) Yet truly courageous cuts - cutting among the many multi-billion dollar programs that dominate the budget and aren't expressly authorized in the Constitution - are not even on the table. If American families have cut out excesses from their lives - the daily cup of coffee from Starbucks, or trips to the movies on Saturday night - it is an insult for the government to not even make a token effort to do the same. Indeed, as the government expands its purview even further, it makes one wonder how in touch with reality our elected officials are at all.

The President spoke about that "spending freeze" in the State of the Union. As it turns out, the "freeze" is blink-and-you'll-miss-it small, as it only applies to the non-defense, discretionary part of the budget. That's a mere one-sixth of the total budget - and, coincidentally, the part that grew 19.5 percent in the last year. In effect, we're "freezing" something at an artificially high level. Imagine going to Las Vegas for a long, boozy weekend, and then going to work on Monday swearing "I'll only ever drink as much going forward as I did in Vegas." Not much of a commitment there, eh?

The problem with these large increases, which are not offset by these tiny, token cuts and "freezes," however, is that the nation cannot pay for them. Nor, for that matter, can it pay for its programs as they currently stand. Under the President's plan, the national debt - which currently stands at $9.3 trillion, or 64 percent of our Gross Domestic Product - will hit $15.1 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2011, and more than double in five years. GDP is only forecast to be $15.3 trillion in 2011 - so the nation is coming dangerously close to being underwater on its mortgage. Interest payments alone on the debt will total $250 billion in 2011!

Rather than truly making "tough choices," as we have heard, the government plans to take more money out of the pockets of hardworking American families. House Republicans estimate that the Administration will raise taxes by over $2 trillion through 2020 - further burdening individuals and small businesses and slowing an economic recovery. Individual families will not only ultimately have more taxes taken out of their own paychecks, but they will pay the cost of this overspending as business pass the costs of new taxes down to consumers and further slash jobs to pay rising tax bills, and capital becomes more expensive making it harder to take out a loan to buy a house or start a business.

As far as "fiscal responsibility" is concerned, the 2011 budget shows that the Administration is anything but. Should our elected officials truly be interested in getting the country back on track, they will re-submit a budget that makes tough cuts. The American people have done so - and now it's time our elected officials did the same.

Federalizing Fat

info@iwf.org (Julie Gunlock) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:59:00 EST

National Review Online

Michelle Obama has recently taken up childhood obesity as one of her major policy priorities. Interviewed about this "epidemic," the first lady discussed in some detail her own children's supposed weight problems as an illustration of her personal experience with her new signature issue.

Mrs. Obama revealed that her daughters' pediatrician had "warned that he was concerned that something was getting off balance." She then decided that she needed to take a greater role in her children's nutrition: "Even though I wasn't exactly sure at that time what I was supposed to do with this information about my children's BMI [body mass index], I knew that I had to do something."

After first getting over my complete mortification on behalf of the tween Obama girls, ages eight and eleven, at seeing their weight issues discussed in a national forum, I started to think about their home situation. They are obviously loved, indeed doted on, by their parents and grandmother. The family employs a personal chef, who is himself a leader in the healthy-food and locavore movements, and who often brags about preparing healthy meals for the first family. A look at the weekly lunch menu served at the girls' school reveals such items as grilled veggie wraps, local squash gratin, natural local rosemary chicken, and local vegetable risotto. And, of course, the Obamas have within the White House a gym, a bowling alley, a basketball court, and an outdoor pool.

Despite all this, the Obama girls' weight went "off balance." The first lady took action immediately, making small but significant changes to her daughters' diets and habits: less television, more colorful vegetables at dinner, more water and low-fat milk. In other words, Mrs. Obama promptly took a greater role in her children's food decisions. Now, according to her, the girls' weight is back "on track."

Good for Mrs. Obama for taking responsibility for her children's health. Her personal attention to the matter clearly made a difference.

Her decision to embarrass her children by talking about the rather delicate issue of their weight in a national interview was presumably intended to inspire other parents to take a more active role in their children's food choices. She had presumably learned from her own family's experience that responsible parenting is the best way to combat childhood obesity.

But apparently the first family's own success has had no impact on Mrs. Obama's policy prescriptions. Her solution for the rest of America is more government intervention.

Speaking about the issue during a meeting with cabinet members and congressional leaders, the first lady said: "It's going to require us working together - not just the administration, but Congress, governors, mayors, parents, teachers. Anyone who has access to children in their lives is going to have to work together. And one of the things that's also very clear is that this problem won't be solved by any single federal solution. This is going to require national action."

Mrs. Obama is certainly correct about one thing: The problem won't be solved by a federal solution - not even the one she went on to propose.

Although she was murky on the details, the first lady's new plan involves four basic initiatives. She wants to increase the number of "healthy" schools, and she also wants to increase the number of physical-activity programs made available by them. She hopes to improve the "accessibility and affordability" of food for all Americans. (Apparently, Mrs. Obama is unaware that Americans pay far less for their food than citizens of other nations do, spending only 7 percent of annual income on it, according to a 2009 Department of Labor study.) Lastly, she wants to "empower" consumers to make better food choices - whatever that means.

The first lady made no mention of how much this new initiative will cost, but, according to a 2009 Congressional Research Report, federally funded child-nutrition programs, along with the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program, cost American taxpayers $19 billion in 2007. How much more will Mrs. Obama propose we spend to overhaul these programs, especially at a time when her husband is calling for a government-wide spending freeze?

Most children are smart enough to make good decisions for themselves when given guidance and attention from their parents. Considering the vast number of resources available to the Obama girls even before their move to the White House, it's clear that nothing had a greater impact on these young ladies' health than their mother's involvement. When Michelle Obama was advised by the doctor to pay attention to her children's food decisions, her reaction was that of a concerned parent ready to take responsibility, not a parent looking for a government program to step in.

By all means, let the first lady urge American parents to follow her example and take the lead in making better food choices for their children. Just as parents need to ensure that their children get enough sleep, do their homework, and avoid dangerous activities, they need to teach their children proper eating habits. Parental involvement, not the federal government, is the only long-term cure for childhood obesity - as Mrs. Obama has shown by her example, if not by her policy proposals.

- Julie Gunlock is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum.

Dr. King's Dream Will Be Realized

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:08:00 EST

thegrio.com

This Black History Month, we have much to celebrate. Not that racism has disappeared or barriers to minority achievement have disappeared, but after the election of Barack Obama as president, we can imagine a time when Dr. Martin Luther King's dream will truly be realized and all men and women will be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

In his most famous speech, delivered in August 1963, Dr. King observed that one hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation: "The life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land."

No longer, however.

Reverend King said at the time that he had a dream, that "one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'."

America still falls short of its high ideals, but today far more Americans believe that all men are created equal and--just as important--act on that belief. Some Americans still fixate on someone's color (or country of origin, sex, religion, or other extraneous factor), but today, most care far more about a person's character.

Could Dr. King have imagined that less than a half century after that August day an African-American would sit in the Oval Office as president of the United States? That a black man would be America's face to the world and the world's most powerful person? Obviously, symbolism goes only so far. Minorities know far too well that we remain especially vulnerable to many economic and social ills. After the emotional high of the evening of the first Tuesday of November in 2008, African-Americans had to go to work--or go look for work--on Wednesday morning.

Nevertheless, we recognize how far we have come. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center finds a far more confident and hopeful black community. According to the Pew Center, "Despite the bad economy, blacks' assessments about the state of black progress in America have improved more dramatically during the past two years than at any time in the past quarter century."

The point is not that African-Americans have become incurable Pollyannas. More blacks than whites are dissatisfied with their lives and communities, and more than 80 percent doubt America's basic racial fairness. Nevertheless, reports Pew: "nearly twice as many blacks now (39%) as in 2007 (20%) say that the 'situation of black people in this country' is better than it was five years earlier, and this more positive view is apparent among blacks of all age groups and income levels. Looking ahead, blacks are even more upbeat. More than half (53%) say that life for blacks in the future will be better than it is now, while just 10% say it will be worse," also a significant improvement from 2007.

Although expectations of the impact of President Obama's election have dimmed over the last year, a majority of African-Americans still believe that his victory improved race relations. (A third of whites say the same, with most opining that it made no difference.)

Black History Month should lead us to simultaneously celebrate how far America has come and rededicate ourselves to completing the fight against injustice. There is much work to do: we need to focus on improving our economy, so that jobs are available and families can focus on pursuing the American dream. We need to improve our public schools, which particularly in low-income, minority communities fail to give our children the tools they need to succeed in life.

Yet the good news is that we can finally foresee the fulfillment of Reverend King's dream. Barack Obama's success demonstrates that Americans increasingly do judge their fellow citizens by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, and that there are no limits to the success that black Americans can achieve.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum (IWF) and an MSNBC political analyst. Bernard is a regular panelist with MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and The McLaughlin Group, and a political commentator for The Hill's Congress blog.

IWF in the News: Surprise: Forcing Corporate Boards to Have More Women Isn't Good for Business ... or Even for Most Women

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:25:00 EST

The National Review

Norway is on the cutting edge of the gender-equity movement. In 2002, the Norwegian parliament passed a law requiring that women must comprise 40 percent of all companies' corporate boards. Since then, women have gone from holding about 7 percent of corporate-board seats to just more than the legally required 40 percent today.

Feminists promised that forcing companies to put more women in positions of power would usher in big rewards, both for society and for the companies themselves. Yet as this report from the International Herald Tribune details, there's little evidence of an economic boom, and some to suggest that the affirmative-action program is hurting companies' bottom line. Nicola Clark of the International Herald Tribune reports:

Researchers are grappling with some frustrating facts: Bringing large numbers of women into Norway's boardrooms has done little - yet - to improve either the professional caliber of the boards or to enhance corporate performance. In fact, early evidence from a little-noticed study by the University of Michigan suggests that the immediate effect has been negative on both counts. And the sixfold increase in women as directors has not yet brought any real rise in the number of women as chief executives.

The report explains that the women board members are younger and a lot less experienced than the average male director. As the boards grew younger and less experienced, "performance declined" . . . and by a lot: "The study found that companies in Norway actually performed an average of 20 percent worse the year after adopting the quotas, with those companies that were required to make the most drastic changes to their boards suffering the largest negative impact."

And while certainly some Norwegian women gained power as the result of the new mandate, most of the benefits were enjoyed by a small, elite group. Reportedly, 70 women hold more than 300 board seats. That might also help explain why these companies have suffered in the aftermath of the new quota system - with many corporate-board members serving on multiple boards, they are less focused on improving the performance of any one company.

Does this mean that women are somehow bad for business? Of course not. And the article cites another study by McKinsey that found that European companies with three women or more on their executive board outperformed companies with less female representation.

These results aren't inconsistent. It seems perfectly sensible to assume that many companies would benefit from having more women involved at the top: After all, women frequently serve as the family shoppers and financial decision-makers, and women may have unique insights for how to sell to other women. (This gets into uncomfortable terrain, suggesting that women somehow think differently than men do . . . feminists can get away with suggesting such things. If a man did, he'd be labeled a sexist.) Surely profit-hungry businesses are realizing this on their own, which is why women are gaining power through much of the economy.

Yet there's a real danger in forced gender equity, like what's happening in Norway. Many Norwegian companies are finding there aren't enough qualified women available for their boards, and the most highly qualified women are being stretched thin. Ironically, the government helps contribute to there being a smaller pool of experienced women by offering incredibly generous state-provided maternity benefits (46 weeks of paid leave), which encourage many women to stay out of the workforce longer than they would otherwise.

Here's an idea. Why not try true gender equity? Get the state out of micromanaging the makeup of corporate boards. Stop paying women to drop out of the workforce. Trust the marketplace. A truly competitive market will reward businesses that hire the best people, which will surely include a whole lot of women.

Mika's Choice

info@iwf.org (Sabrina Schaeffer) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:52:00 EST

The Weekly Standard

Nearly 50 years after The Feminine Mystique, the consensus appears to be that women have achieved parity with men in nearly all aspects of their professional lives. The larger question still looming in many women's minds is not about shattering glass ceilings but enjoying this equality. The recent Shriver Report, which discussed how government and communities can support a nation in which half the workforce is made up of women, was simply the most recent and well-publicized work in a line of research devoted to the new gender landscape.

Overwhelmingly, the common theme is not how to achieve equality in the workplace but how to enable women to "have it all." Is it possible for women to pursue careers while fulfilling their traditional roles as wives and mothers? What does it mean to succeed? And when will women finally be happy? All Things at Once is an attempt to understand this new gender equality and what it means for women and their families. The cohost of a popular cable television program, "Morning Joe," Mika Brzezinski offers a tell-all of her climb up the competitive ladder of television journalism and her effort to do "all things at once."

Her chronicle makes a running start, offering readers-especially young women-sound advice. At a time when women are encouraged to pursue a career, almost to the exclusion of marrying and having a family, Brzezinski is forthright in her criticism: "There's nothing wrong," she writes, "with putting both family and work at the top of your list of priorities, giving each equal value and care, right from the start." In fact, she goes right to the edge of claiming that the modern feminist movement failed women altogether: "For the life of me," she says, "I can't understand why so many women wait until the age of thirty to even think about children. And that's just the start of the conversation for them."

Despite her firm hand, Brzezinski isn't calling for the return of Betty Draper. In fact, she makes it clear that there will be times when a spouse and children "needn't be front and center." But as it turns out, in Brzezinski's case, these "times" were most of the time, and the focal point is a terrifying near-tragedy in which Brzezinski describes being so fatigued-presumably from trying to uphold an impossible work/life balancing act-that she tumbles down a flight of stairs while holding her four-month-old daughter.

At first blush, she seems to be painting an honest picture of what gender parity means for a lot of career women-juggling, stumbling, and sometimes falling.

And while she claims it was a huge "wake-up call," an incident that led her to "take a step back," that wasn't quite the case. The fact is that Brzezinski chose a very demanding career-at times to the detriment of her family, as she freely admits-and her fall was a function of anchoring an overnight newscast, not a result of running frantically back and forth from the boardroom to the bake sale.

If, by no longer doing "all things at once," Brzezinski means she moved up the ladder and found a job with slightly less brutal hours, then that's a different story than the one she pretends to tell. Yes, she tried to have it all-professional success, family, even personal time-but in the end she describes her priorities clearly: She "relished the positive attention" that came from her television work, and when she was fired from CBS and returned home, "the role of wife and mother didn't even come close to defining me."

Every woman's work/life preferences are different, but Brzezinski opens herself up to judgment. She is frank about her absence from her two daughters' lives, telling readers that, even after the 9/11 attacks, she didn't make it home to see her children for three weeks. And even during noncritical times (such as writing this book) she misses her older daughter's school graduation.

Readers are likely to feel embarrassed for her as she opens up about her choices-and I suspect many would be repulsed by her glibness. But her decision to pursue a career, often at the expense of her family, is not the problem of this memoir; the drawback is that she tries to engage in an important conversation in a dishonest manner.

In one of many feigned moments of honesty she writes, "I tried double-hard to be everything to everybody and got quite far." Well, sort of. As she describes it, she tried her best to be everything at work. But the same cannot be said of her efforts at home.

Brzezinski had an opportunity to offer something original to this ongoing conversation, something that might even offend both men and women: Sometimes women are going to place their careers way above their families, and in the end, they're going to be satisfied with their decision. Readers might have chastised her selfishness and called her nasty names, but she would have shown honestly that the work/life scale doesn't always balance out.

Sabrina L. Schaeffer is managing partner of Evolving Strategies and a visiting fellow with the Independent Women's Forum.

The President Needs to Learn More About the Real Meaning of the Massachusetts Senate Election

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:14:00 EST

Townhall.com

Elections matter. The 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama was historic. The 2010 Senate election of Scott Brown was less symbolic, but perhaps more substantive. President Obama should learn from last week's result. Massachusetts voters spoke loudly, and what they said bodes ill for the President's agenda of expanded government.

President Obama took office at a time of economic crisis. Americans wanted change, and a majority gave their votes to Barack Obama. But events haven't worked out as people expected: Americans haven't seen the change that they desired. That's why Scott Brown was elected to the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy: Massachusetts citizens overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in November 2008; they voted for Brown in January 2010.

The President's State of the Union showed that he had gotten this message-in part. He knows that turning around the economy is paramount, and that voters are disgusted with Washington. Yet he needs to dig deeper to understand more. He might start by looking closely at the results of a poll conducted by our sister organization, the Independent Women's Voice, of Massachusetts voters. The results show that it will take more than new rhetoric to win back voters: voters are focused on issues and want real change in Washington.

The poll showed that health care was voters' most important concern. Nearly one-third of those polled put the current health care debate as their top priority. Another 57 percent ranked it in the top three. And even in liberal Massachusetts, voters don't back a government medical takeover. Of those who ranked health care as their number one concern, 51 percent opposed the leading congressional proposals.

The preferences of self-identified political independents are most telling: Independent men rejected the measure by a 57 percent to 35 percent margin. Independent women were opposed by a similar margin: 55 percent to 33 percent.

Voters want a fresh start on health care. Only 16 percent of respondents believed that health care negotiations should "keep going as it is," and nearly half thought it would be important to open the legislative process to the public.

In the State of the Union, President Obama said he was open to new ideas about how to fix health care. So are Massachusetts voters. And many of those polled back market-oriented reforms: allowing small businesses to band together to buy insurance (57 percent supported), helping individuals to buy insurance (50 percent), implementing malpractice reform (46 percent), and permitting insurance sales across state lines (36 percent).

Of course, health care wasn't voters' only concern. Nearly one-in-five said economic recovery was the most important issue; another 62 percent ranked it within the top three. And once again, Massachusetts voters rejected Obama administration policies. Forty-six percent of voters believed that increased government spending-the Obama Administration's preferred tactic during year one-is more likely to deter the economic recovery, while less than a third believed spending would speed it up. Four out of five said they believed small business tax credits would stimulate economic growth. A majority of voters also want the Bush income tax cuts to be reauthorized, and cuts in government expenditures to reduce government debt.

The Christmas Day attempted terrorist attack also put national security on people's minds. Nearly two-thirds of Massachusetts citizens said that it was "very" or "somewhat" important to their vote when Brown said: "In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."

Brown's victory obviously was good news for the Republican Party. It shows that they can win elections even in the most liberal territory. Yet this election was not a vote for the Republican Party, which continues to lag behind the Democrats in public support among Massachusetts voters. Voters saw the election as a referendum on the Democratic policy agenda. They found the agenda wanting, so elected Scott Brown to send a message to Washington.

The message is clear: Massachusetts voters believe health care reform is important, but they want it done right. They don't like the Democratic plan, and they especially don't like the Democrats' attempt to railroad a bad plan into law. Instead, the people want real, bipartisan solutions. Voters believe the economy requires immediate attention. Yet even in liberal Massachusetts, voters want traditionally conservative solutions: spending cuts, tax reductions and less regulation.

Finally, Massachusetts voters emphasize the importance of protecting Americans from terrorism. That doesn't mean giving up the liberties which have made America great. But it does mean treating foreign terrorists different than domestic criminals.

Last year when Sen. Ted Kennedy died, no one imagined that the Massachusetts Senate election would turn out to be so important. But voters wanted to send Washington a message. If the President and Congress don't listen, they are likely to find that the voter revolution won't stop with one state.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum (IWF) and an MSNBC political analyst. Bernard is a regular panelist with MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and The McLaughlin Group, and a political commentator for The Hill's Congress blog.