Independent Women's Forum - News & Commentary

Title IX Not the Answer for Scientific Men's Club

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even After Taliban, Violence Against Women Remains

info@iwf.org (Halima Karzai) — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:18:00 EDT

The brutal treatment of Afghan women at the hands of the Taliban became common knowledge in 2001 when the United States removed the brutal regime from power. The Taliban stood out for aggressively and publicly oppressing and abusing women. Yet oppression and violence against Afghan women existed well before the Taliban era and continues to exist today.

After the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, when many internal factions were fighting amongst each other for power, women bore the brunt of sexual, physical, and psychological abuses. The individuals from those factions are today's warlords and in spite of being among the worst human rights violators - they sit in very high level official seats today. They are making decisions that again affect the lives of the poor Afghan grandmothers, mothers, daughters, and sisters who they do not recognize as human beings.

There has been significant progress for Afghan women on many levels since the fall of the Taliban. Yet today over 80 percent of women throughout the country continue to suffer from domestic violence. And the challenge isn't limited to domestic violence, but also societal and state violence.

While laws are in place to protect women, they hardly function in practice. A woman who attempts to escape domestic violence or who is raped often finds herself and her young children sharing a jail cell with food and clothing for only the mother.

Human trafficking is also a problem in Afghanistan. Women and young children are often sold into prostitution or forced labor. Although they have been forcibly trafficked, survivors are often imprisoned for adultery or lewd conduct. If they are children, they are put into orphanages, only to be victimized more. There are no efforts made towards their rehabilitation or reunification with their families.

Unfortunately, this is all too often not the exception but the continuing norm, and constitutes a failure of the justice system in Afghanistan.

There are several national and international laws in place to protect specific rights of Afghan women, but the biggest barrier to the effective implementation of these laws is cultural and tribal traditions that limit women's understanding of and willingness to make use of those laws.

Involving men is an important step to truly empowering Afghan women. Afghanistan is a patriarchal society that will take decades, if not centuries, to change. For the time, due to oppressive social norms, men are often reluctant to allow their wives to leave the home, let alone to explore the possibility of working. However, there are several progressive programs in various provinces run by local civil society organizations that include both women and men. For example, couples can attend literacy classes together. These types of programs help in couples jointly advancing their family and life, and encourage a greater sense of equality.

These civil institutions are the key to long term change. Societal change, as well as a specific commitment to helping Afghan women obtain access to the information, as well as facilities and resources will be necessary to address the problem of domestic violence and other violence against women and to help cultivate a greater respect for women as individuals.

The Afghan government and international community have laid an excellent foundation for the critical work that needs to be done for the advancement of women's socio-political rights, however, much work remains to be done in the recognition and enforcement of human rights laws.

High Costs

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

National Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Obama

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

Townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spare Consumers the High Costs of Bad Government Policy

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

Townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't Use Women To Justify Bad Economic Policy

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

Townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equal Pay Day has lost relevance

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

The Baltimore Examiner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holding the Earth Hostage

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:34:00 EDT

The Washington Times

It's well known that bad news sells more papers and attracts more viewers than good news. Something works even better than bad news: A story about a threat with the potential to harm our families and society.

As Christopher Booker and Richard North detail in "Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares Are Costing Us the Earth," recent decades have witnessed a flurry of scares that have gripped the public. These scares exact high costs: Wrong-headed policies are put in place that make us more vulnerable instead of less; costly measures are taken that disrupt economies and the public needlessly worries and changes their lives to response to the latest media bogeyman.

Mr. Booker and Mr. North identify a dynamic through which a marginal public concern mushrooms into a full-blown scare - from salmonella and mad cow disease to DDT and asbestos, and focus on what may be the greatest, most costly scare of all: Global warming.

Competing factions drive a scare's progress. There are pushers "whose interest is to promote the scare and to talk it up, such as scientists for whom it provides the promising of winning public attention or further funding," and blockers whose interest is to downplay it. The lay reader is unlikely to be surprised at the role that the media and politicians play in sensationalizing a threat.

More jarring is the role that the scientific community plays. As the authors write: "At the heart of every scare we have looked at has been a group of scientists or technical experts making a wrong or exaggerated guess on the basis of what eventually turns out to be inadequate data."

The most compelling example of this dynamic and the misuse of science is global climate change. Mr. Booker and Mr. North caution readers by exploring how the current "consensus" came to be, the political forces that have pushed these conclusions and the competing explanations for the warming trend that have often been suppressed by those vested in human-caused climate change.

Emblematic of the bungled science and politics that has helped fuel the climate change scare is what they call "The Great 'Hockey Stick' Fiasco." A young scientist published a paper with findings that radically diverged from previous estimates of the earth's climate history, generating a graph that was essentially flat with a strong tick up at the end, suggesting unprecedented warming in recent years.

This graph was highlighted prominently by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and in the media, fueling the perception that urgent action was needed to avert this historic danger. Yet analysis of the methodology that produced this graph revealed fundamental flaws. The IPCC quietly excluded this graph from recent publications, but the damage was already done.

In addition to the use of faulty science, competing scientific explanations of climate change (such as changes in the level of solar activity) are shortchanged by the scientific community. At a minimum, these competing theories suggest that the rush toward a "solution" premised on a faith in carbon-based warming is premature at best.

In particular since, as the authors note, even if one accepts the carbon-based warming explanation, the proposed solutions aren't a logical response: "Even if the terms of the Kyoto Protocol were all met to the letter, its most fervent advocates have been unable to deny that its effect on global temperatures would be totally insignificant."

With other scares detailed in the book, there are obvious victims and easily quantified costs: Farmers and shop keepers driven out of business because of hyped food-related scares, families torn apart by overactive social workers in the grips of a scare and taxpayers paying the costs of huge unnecessary government programs enacted to avert the latest threat. Mr. Booker and Mr. North call the implications of the global warming scare "immeasurable."

Their exhaustive account of the development of a scare - from the first news stories and the interplay between various politicians to the misstatements that make their way into the press tipping the incident into a full-fledged scare - has a feel of a forensic analysis. The details, at times overwhelming, become convincing, compelling and at times dramatic. In total, the book is a fascinating analysis of a modern phenomenon that has broad implications for our culture and our public policy. Its overarching message resonates: Be skeptical of those who would scare us to death, or, more accurately, ask us to give up our freedoms in response to a scare.

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

Celebrate International Women's Day!

info@iwf.org (Halima Karzai) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:02:00 EST

On March 5, 2008, Halima Karzai was invited to a luncheon at DePaul University's International Human Rights Law Institute to celebrate International Women's Day. She addressed an audience of 70 students to celebrate women's global achievements and accomplishments, as well as discussing some of the challenges women in the 21^st century still continue to face.

View the video and pictures from IWF event "Securing Afghanistan: The Role of Women."

Remarks of Halima Karzai

Prepared for Delivery

DePaul University's

International Human Rights Law Institute

March 5, 2008

Good afternoon. I am honored to be here with you today and I thank DePaul University's International Human Rights Law Institute and President Cherif Bassiouni for inviting me to celebrate with you International Women's Day, by reflecting on women's global achievements and contributions and also to examine some of the global challenges women continue to face in the 21^st century . While my work at the Independent Women's Forum is focused on international women's issues, where we believe all issues are women's issues and that human rights ARE women's rights, I will explore issues which I speak of regularly and issues that have been of particular concern to IWF.

Historically women have always been an essential to their families, their societies, and to their nations since the beginning of time. However today, now more than ever, women are being recognized on a local and global level for their achievements. Their contributions are invaluable in both the public and private spheres in ways that were unimaginable just a decade ago. Women are and have been contributing from the sciences to the arts, from politics to business, and as mothers and heads of state. They are their nation's reformers. They stand for justice and for the overall empowerment of women and girls, even at the expense of their own personal security. They are the human rights defenders of their nations.

Through my work, travels, and interactions with people of different cultures, faiths, and ethnicities, I have learned how important it is to always listen to different views.

This includes listening to various news outlets, and not only ones that have breaking news is about Britney Spears' latest mental breakdown.

As humans, we may tend to have a view instilled in our mind which will always exclude thoughts contrary to our belief, so when I speak to you about issues today, it's not with the intention to change your mind, but just to have you simply think outside the box and to think creatively about solutions.

A few months ago, an Afghan women from Kandahar province, the most violent province in Afghanistan, was determined to organize a gathering where women took to the streets to hold a prayer for peace. Women not only participated in the peace prayer in Kandahar, but in 6 other provinces in the country. On March 8^th, on International Women's day, let us remember the women of Afghanistan, who will yet again put their lives at risk to stand for peace not only for themselves, but for the men in their lives. They believe only Afghans can stop the violence against other Afghans. They took as their model two ordinary women in Ireland who, in the 1970s, grew angry because Irish were killing Irish. They hope that because their Irish sisters were able to go door to door and convince women to march for peace, their cries for peace can also be heard. Of course we can see this as a significant achievement for Afghan women.

Iraqi women were absent in key decision making roles for over 30 years. In spite of challenges they continue to face, they remain to be more resilient than ever in working for a society that will treat them with equality. Among many other accomplishments, they are making arduous strives to improve their economy, to achieve peace, and towards gaining AND retaining their basic human rights.

Iranian women will again take to the streets on International Women's Day, to peacefully protest the degrading treatment they have been subject to by the Iranian regime. And as they did last year, they will put themselves at the risk of being arrested and brutally beaten to have their voices heard. The regime, who is prosecuting those campaigning for women's rights claims in no other country are women treated better than in Iran. I'm sure this claim falls in line with the fact that there are no homosexuals in Iran. In spite of the threats and backlash Iranian women are facing, they are still advocating to end discriminatory practices against women in Iran.

Although it may be true that we don't hear as much about women's international achievements as we should, I stand before you today to say, we certainly don't hear about the challenges they are silently and continuously facing.

"In this century where man has reached Mars, Afghan women are still striving to establish ourselves as human beings." These are words from a young human rights activist living in Afghanistan, yearning for the international community to hear her pleas not to abandon the women of Afghanistan.

How often do we hear similar pleas from women of other developing nations? Unless they are for politicized reasons, how often do we read or hear about the unnecessary ordeals and hardships women face? Although I can't go into detail about all these challenges, because they are so egregious I will summarize some of the most daunting atrocities women and girls face in the world today.

Women and children are used as weapons to murder themselves and innocent civilians because they are told this is what's right and a path to freedom without even asking "freedom for whom?". In many cases, for example in Afghanistan, handicapped or mentally incapacitated men, women, and children are used as suicide bombers.

In the developing world, domestic violence harms and kills more people than cancer or car accidents. A recent study reported that violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or even war.

Women in developing countries who are involved in peace processes continue to face obstacles and challenges as a result of violence against women, poverty, limited access to education, devastated economies, lack of social structures, and other various forms of discrimination and injustices. Just recently, we were witness to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former Pakistani Prime Minister, whose calls for democracy and change were violently silenced.

Over 130 million women and girls have had their genitalia mutilated. They are convinced it is part of their culture and religion. Female genital mutilation, also called female circumcision is a practice commonly carried out in African countries and parts of Asia and the Middle East. The highest maternal and infant mortality rates are in areas practicing the procedure. In areas where antibiotics are not available, for example in Sudan, 1/3 of the girls undergoing the practice will die. FGM is continued on the basis that it is a "good tradition", a religious requirement, and a necessary rite of passage to womanhood. We have yet to gain knowledge about what our sisters across the world are facing.

Because of poverty, and in many cases tradition and family pressure, children are being married off to men 30 to 40 years their senior. Children are shifted from one life of misery to another and in some countries, half of all girls are married by the age of 18.

If young girls are even given the opportunity to attend school, they tend to be pulled out to soon enter a life of matrimony. They are deprived of their basic rights to education, and because they are so young and married, they face premature pregnancy and run the risk numerous complications, including death. In many developing countries, pregnancy is the leading cause of death for adolescent girls. And those who are fortunate to survive are still vulnerable to HIV, sexual violence and physical exploitation.

In Nicaragua, 16% of girls are married by age 15, and 50% by 18. In the autonomous North Atlantic region, 67% are married by 18. In the Dominican Republic, 11% are married by 15 and 38% by 18.

Such cultural norms lead to a lack of full economic opportunities for women, because they are seen as an unworthy investment and they are devalued.

A 12 year old child bride in Afghanistan, Lila, poured petrol over herself and set herself on fire five months after being married. Luckily she survived. From her hospital bed she whispered that she wanted to kill herself because her 17-year-old husband had constantly beat her.

Self immolation often stems from forced marriages, abusive husbands or in-laws, poverty, shame, ignorance, and little education. Women and girls who immolate themselves are not aware of their rights and feel the only way out of the torture, abuse and unhappiness is through committing suicide through actions like setting fire to themselves or by digesting poison.

According to Medica Mondiale, an international women's rights group, about 85 percent of women who die as a result of their burns perish because they either are not taken to the hospital, or have not been taken fast enough, out of shame. Those who do survive face social exclusion by their communities.

Can you imagine anything worse happening to a woman after she has been subjected to the torture of having her genitalia removed, becoming a bride who hasn't even hit the age of puberty, and then because she is so mentally and physically underdeveloped, she sets herself on fire only to be a disfigured member of a judgmental and unsupportive society who sees her as nothing but an outcast that has brought shame to her family?

Well many women and girls cannot only imagine, but actually become a victim once again -to something worse- this time to an honor killing. Honor killings take place because people think the woman has brought shame to her family by actions she may or may not have taken.

They are called honor killings, but it is no different from a dowry death or a crime of passion all of which have the same dynamic where the woman is killed by a male relative. This crime is carried out by people of all different cultures and religions.

Sadly, it is females in the family-mothers, mothers-in-law, sisters, and cousins- who commonly support the attacks.

Even when laws are created, like for instance in Turkey where honor killings are outlawed, the crime still continues to be carried out. These cultural traditions are deeply imbedded in societies where it will take time and a lot of grassroots work to transform the mentality that it is okay to murder to preserve your honor.

Respected guests, we may feel that these challenges women are facing are far from home, but we are mistaken. The fact of the matter is we may be witness to these crimes against humanity and not even be aware of it. Today, there are more slaves in the world than during any other time in history. Human trafficking, also known as modern day slavery, affects every region of the world. Today, there are over 27 million slaves globally.

I want to share with you a couple of a stories outlined by a student organization at Georgetown University called Students Stopping the Trafficking of People. These stories highlight the extent to which human trafficking occurs, from forced prostitution to forced labor, and to children overpowered to become soldiers.

Sex Trafficking
"Neary grew up in rural Cambodia. Her parents died when she was a child. In an effort to give her a better life, her sister married her off when she was 17. Three months later, her and her husband went to visit a fishing village. Her husband rented a room in what Neary thought was a guest house. But when she woke the next morning, her husband was gone. The owner of the house told her she had been sold by her husband for $300 and that she was in a brothel. For five years, Neary was raped by five to seven men every day. In addition to brutal physical abuse, Neary was infected with HIV and contracted AIDS. The brothel threw her out when she became sick, and she eventually found her way to a local shelter. She died of HIV/AIDS at the age of 23."

Forced Labor
"Serena arrived from the Philippines to work as a housemaid in Saudi Arabia. Upon her arrival, her employer confiscated her passport and, with his wife, began to beat and verbally abuse her. On one occasion, her female employer pushed her down the stairs; another time, her male employer choked her until she passed out. She was not allowed to leave the house. As her passport had been confiscated, she could not flee. Serena was driven to attempt suicide. Once at the hospital, she was able to escape from her captors. She has sought redress through the Saudi court system and is waiting for justice in a shelter."

Child Soldiers
"Michael was 15 when he was kidnapped by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) to serve as a combatant in the Ugandan insurgent force. During his forced service in the LRA, he was made to kill a boy who had tried to escape. He also watched another boy being hacked to death because he did not alert the guards when his friend successfully escaped"

Although human trafficking is not something we hear of often, victims are trafficked right here - to the United States. I would like to echo a powerful story Laura Leederer from the State Department once shared with Massachusetts legislatures, in an effort to pass a state law to end this form of modern day slavery.

So this is the story of Rosa, who was trafficked from Mexico to the United States. She was 13 and waiting tables in a restaurant in a small village near Vera Cruz, Mexico. She was approached by an acquaintance of her family who told her, "You know you can make ten times more money in the U.S. doing what you're doing here. I know someone who can find you a job in Texas-you can send money home to your family, you can have your own life. If you don't like the job we'll get you a new one. If you're homesick, we'll bring you back across the border. You can't lose."

Rosa was young and hopeful. She asked her parents if she could go but they forbid her. But she wanted a better life than what she had, and so, against her parents and friends' warnings, she accepted the offer. She was told to go to the main hotel in town on Friday evening.

When she got there, a car was waiting, with several other young girls in it from other neighboring villages. They drove into the desert as far as they could toward the U.S. border. There, they met up dozens more young women and girls from other towns in Mexico.

On the ground were backpacks and water bottles. They were told to put the backpacks on their backs, and then they began to walk. They walked four days and four nights - through the desert, across the Rio Grande, and into Brownsville, Texas, where they were picked up by a white van and driven across Texas, across Louisiana, and into rural Florida. They were dropped off in a rural town, in front a series of trailers. They were ordered out and the van drove away.

A big, burly looking man came out and told them, "I've just purchased you. Now you work for me." A little later an older woman took them to one of the trailers. She told Rosa that she was in a brothel and that she would have to buy her freedom by sexually servicing men.

Rosa was young. She was a virgin. She was Catholic. She knew what the woman was telling her was bad-a sin. She began to cry and begged to be taken to a restaurant to work. But she was told, "There are no restaurant jobs-only this." When she refused to do what they said, the burly man brought out three other men who took her into one of the trailers and gang-raped her to induct her into the "business." Then they locked her in the trailer without food and water until she succumbed.

For the next six months she was a prisoner. She was forced to service 10 or more men a day. On the weekends it was as many as 20-30 men. The men bought a ticket, which was a condom, for $20. But they often didn't use it.

Twice Rosa was impregnated and twice forced to have an abortion. And twice forced back into the brothel the next day. She was beaten if she refused a customer's demands. She was guarded twenty-four hours a day, even when she went to the bathroom. She was passed around at private parties that the trafficking ring held in the evenings and on weekends.

Once she and several others tried to escape. They were caught and pistol-whipped around the head and face in front of the other girls-to deter them all from trying that. Shortly after the second abortion and this beating, Rosa became sick and felt crazy. In order to keep her functioning in the brothel, the traffickers gave her drugs and alcohol to numb her pain.

She was only "rescued" when one of the young women jumped out of a second story window at one of the private parties and ran to a neighbor's house. The neighbor called the local police. The police called the INS and FBI, and a sting operation was set up. Over 40 young women and girls were rescued and 14 traffickers were arrested.

A medical doctor examined Rosa. She had several STDs; she had broken bones that hadn't healed properly from the beatings; she had pelvic inflammatory disease and scar tissue from the forced abortions. She was addicted to drugs and alcohol, was suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, including nightmares, flashbacks, depression, and suicidal tendencies. In short, she was physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually broken.

To make matters worse, when Rosa was discovered, the U.S. didn't have a trafficking law. Instead of really rescuing Rosa, the police arrested her and the other young women and children, and locked them up in jail along with the traffickers. We simply didn't have a victim-centered approach to trafficking and did not know how to handle the case.

Later Rosa and the other victims were taken from jail to a battered wives shelter. There they were told not to talk about what had really happened to them, but to pretend they were victims of spousal abuse because that was the shelter's mandate. To make matters worse, Rosa wanted to see a priest, but was instead taken to a psychiatrist because that was the medical model this shelter had for addressing violence against women.

80% of those victims are women and girls who are mostly forced into a sex trade. I can go on and give you hundreds of more stories similar to that of Rosa, Neary, Serena, and Michael. There are stories of everyday all American teenagers who fall victim to trafficking by solicitors in the mall who claim they want to recruit the girls for modeling.

According to a report published by the C.I.A., 45,000-50,000 women and children are brought to the United States as slaves every year and the majority of these victims come from Latin American and Southeast Asia. Keep in mind that these are numbers for those who are accounted for. It's still undetermined how many are trafficked WITHIN national borders annually.

Child predators from the U.S. and around the world can travel to Cambodia and easily have arranged for them a night or even a few days with girls as young as 4 and 5.

So what can we do? If we don't have the means to be on the grounds to help I believe the very least we can do is help in raising awareness about these issues. Write about them, speak about them, and involve your communities so that they can care about them. Everyone would love to live in a world where they don't want to think about the horrible things that go on but what makes us better than those who commit the crimes? If we've got the means to think, learn, listen, teach, and take action, we are just as responsible and should feel compassion to at MINIMUM raise awareness about the challenges women continue to face and to look for solutions.

But women shouldn't be the only ones who feel obligated to help their sisters in desperation. The role of men is also very critical as it is men in most of these cases who subject women to the atrocities they face. They often are just as oblivious on the rights of women as women themselves are.

Some of us may take literacy for granted in a world where 800 million illiterate adults exist. Two thirds of them are women because girls are not seen as worthy to have an education, or have no other way of life other than doing domestic chores. And although women produce half of the world's food, they happen to be 70% of the world's poorest people.

In some of these trials women are facing - it's because they are told this is what their religion mandates. But here is where we must think outside of the box. Is it really what their religion says or are these cruel actions being justified by uncivil as well as civil society, particularly the media, as being a religious practice?

The journey towards obtaining equal rights and equal opportunity has never been an easy one, neither for men or women. But because these challenges continue to exist for the majority of women around the world, we must educate ourselves, raise awareness, and take concrete action to change lives for the better.

We must be aware that women and girls are not suffering from a religion of violence, but a CULTURE of violence.

Even then, what can victims do with laws they don't even know exist, or are not enforced?

Many of you will become attorneys, business executives, politicians, leaders of a non-profit organizations, and members of the media. In an ideal world where rule of law has the potential to positively ensure the human rights of its citizenry, including half of its population - women, you must ensure that these laws not only exist on paper, but they are put into practice. What will your role be to hold those who are accountable for human rights violations and how can you make a difference to the women and girls most in need?

We must not only create solutions to empower women, but we must hold human rights violators accountable, whether they be the village elder who performs a female circumcision, a husband who orders the death of his wife for wanting a divorce, the woman who is selling sex slaves in her home, or the parliamentarian who creates amnesty for war criminals.

How can we expect victims to stand for their rights when their perpetrators roam freely and with impunity?

Enforcing human rights law and putting them into practice is an enormous challenge. However, on a day when there is much information and so many resources at our fingertips, and people like yourselves to fight for such causes, there is no excuse for allowing human rights violations against women and girls to continue as they have on this level. Please remember how hard women themselves all over the world have fought and even died for their rights. Please join them in celebrating their victories.

I hope my being here with you today was successful in helping you to think outside of the box and that you are able to understand how to change rhetoric into action. Thank you.

Holding Her Head High

info@iwf.org (Princella Smith) — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:59:00 EST

A fabulous new book by Janine Turner (of Northern Exposure, Strong Medicine, and Cliffhanger fame) tackles an issue close to many women: single motherhood. Turner, herself a single mother, bases her book, Holding Her Head High: 12 Single Mothers Who Championed Their Children and Changed History, on the stories of 12 extraordinary women in history who were single mothers at a time when it wasn't so common to see a woman raising a child by herself. There were not support groups or government aid to help these women along the way. Turner's extensive historical research reveals the struggles of women whose stories are buried in history textbooks.

Many single women will see elements of their own experience when they read about the lives of Queen Blanche of Castile, Christine de Pazan, Abigail Adams, Belva Ann Lockwood, Harriet Jacobs, and others. Turner draws lessons from each woman's life, and intersperses their stories with personal observations from her own life as a single mother.

Before reading Holding Her Head High, I had limited understanding about the extent of influence that Queen Blanche had on her son, the renowned St. Louis IX and how both her warlike preparations and skilled diplomacy awed the nobles of her kingdom. I was unaware of Christine de Pizan's bold criticism of misogynist male writers of the 14^th and 15^th centuries and the bravery of her revolutionary writing. I knew little more about Abigail Adams than that she was the wife of the second President of the United States; I didn't appreciate her full impact as her husband's counselor. Coined "Mrs. President" by many, she managed a household with five children and managed to raise a future president in second oldest son, John Quincy Adams. Turner also highlights Belva Ann Lockwood, who was one of the first female lawyers in the United States. Lockwood lobbied Congress for an anti-discrimination bill after being banned from practice in the U.S. Supreme Court. Of personal interest to me as an African-American was the story of Harriet Jacobs. She was born a slave and escaped the sexual brutality of her slave master to become a free woman and impressive author who wrote in vivid details of her longing to free the slave children she left behind.

Whether a woman is forced into single motherhood through the situation of a spouse's death, a spouse's overwhelming job, or the spouse's decision to choose another partner, this book underscores situations every single mother can relate to and through which every person can become inspired. Janine Turner deserves praise for the work, research, and the heart that she displayed while encouraging women of all backgrounds to hold their heads high.

Princella Smith is a Visiting Fellow for the Independent Women's Forum.

Measurable Progress

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:53:00 EST

Washington Times

In the mid-1960s, inner cities around the country exploded in violence. Americans were shocked and scared. In 1968, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders issued the Kerner Commission Report, which ominously warned that America was "moving toward two societies, one black, one white - separate and unequal." We have come far since then, but still have far to go. Our goal must remain to be one nation with equal opportunity for all. That objective is achievable, but requires more hard work by all of us.

Forty years ago, the civil-rights movement was struggling against institutionalized discrimination throughout the South. Lynchings, white-only restrooms, segregated schools and lunch counters were a plague upon the nation. Crime, drug abuse, illegitimacy and dependency were spreading throughout black neighborhoods. Poverty was the inner-city norm, with declining hope for the future.

Since that time, in some areas we have come far. In others, our progress has been disappointing. We have learned to live and work together. As the recent Iowa Democratic caucus demonstrated, Americans increasingly look past color. Racism still exists, but no longer can be considered the primary cause of many serious problems facing the African-American community.

Black Americans are making important economic gains. A vibrant professional and entrepreneurial class helps lead all of the cities that once suffered urban unrest. Middle- and upper-income African-Americans have moved out of the inner-city into suburbs across the nation. Blacks have taken an even greater leadership role in politics. Forty years ago African-Americans had to fight to exercise the right to vote. Today, the Democratic frontrunner for president is a black man. America's 65th secretary of state was an African American man, and the 66th secretary of state is an African American woman. Blacks now routinely serve in Congress and the cabinet, on the U.S. Supreme Court and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and as governors and mayors across the country. While we once would have been surprised to see a black face at an important political gathering, we now are surprised if there isn't one.

We should be proud of our progress. As columnist Eugene Robinson observed: "This successful black America gets very little coverage, for the obvious reason that good news isn't really news in the traditional sense."

Nevertheless, there is much more to do. Residential segregation remains distressingly common. In many areas it still looks like there are two Americas. Moreover, the dramatic economic improvement for many blacks cannot hide the persistence of poverty in what we once called "the ghetto." Illegitimacy rates for young girls and incarceration rates for young men have hit staggering levels. Our public education system continues to fail children throughout the nation. Too many African American kids determined to succeed find themselves ill-prepared for the competition in top universities and an increasingly globalized workplace.

There's no simple answer.

The Kerner Commission recommended new welfare programs, and the federal government has spent more to fight poverty than it spent to win World War II. Unfortunately, bigger social programs backfired, encouraging family and community break-up, discouraging education and employment, and creating pervasive dependency. We know more government social engineering will not work.

The 1996 welfare reform, agreed to by a Republican Congress and Democratic president, freed many of the nation's poor from the fetters of dependency and encourages self-sufficiency. Today, we must improve education and generate economic opportunity for those still stuck in poverty. To do so we must empower people rather than bureaucracies. For instance, pouring more money into failing public schools won't improve student achievement. Giving parents improved options and forcing public institutions to compete will help kids learn. Poor people are poor, not stupid, which is why so many black Baptists work so hard to place their children in parochial schools.

Similarly, policies like the minimum wage may sound "progressive," but actually destroy jobs. We need to clear away regulations that make it hard to start a small business and enter a profession. Entrepreneurs, not politicians, create real jobs with the potential for advancement.

Although people are focused on the subprime lending crisis, and its negative impact on minority homeownership, building codes, rent controls and zoning restrictions do far more to limit good housing. Better policing is also necessary to provide safe neighborhoods for poor as well as rich.

Forty years ago the Kerner Commission provided us with an important warning. However, unlike the conventional wisdom of the 1960s, what we know today is that blacks haven't been so crippled by past discrimination that we cannot compete with whites. We can, and will continue to do so, if government will let us.

Michelle D. Bernard is president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of "Women's Progress: How Women and Are Wealthier, Healthier and More Independent Than Ever Before."

William F. Buckley, Jr. 1925-2008

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:26:00 EST

The Independent Women's Forum is saddened to learn of the loss of William F. Buckley Jr., founder of National Review and a leader of the conservative movement. Mr. Buckley had a profound impact on America and will be lived on by the numerous publications, scholars, and nonprofit organizations that have joined the battle of ideas as a result of his leadership. Our sympathies are with his family and many friends.
—Michelle D. Bernard, President and CEO

Squeezing the Middle Class

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:12:00 EST

Townhall.com

With all the gloomy economic news, politicians from the left and the right want to project concern for middle-class economic anxieties. This led to a rare burst of bipartisanship and the cobbling together of so-called "stimulus" packages. The centerpieces is a tax rebate-which is really indistinguishable from plain old government handouts, since checks will be sent based on income and family size, without any real relationship to tax liability. Yet for all the talk about easing the financial pressures faced by the middle class, the government is still embracing policies that raise the cost of living and make it harder to pay the bills.

Consider the rising cost of food. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, the cost of "food at home," or food purchased at grocery stores, rose by 5.6 percent between December 2006 and December 2007. This included big increases in some family staples: the cost of milk increased nearly 20 percent, cheese by 13 percent, and bread by more than 10 percent. Why are families seeing their food bills climb?

The government's energy policy shares the blame. Mandates that we use more ethanol have encouraged farmers to grow more corn, which can be used to create ethanol, and as a result farmers dedicated more of their farmland to this one crop. In 2007, twenty percent more acres were used for corn production than in 2006. The greater demand for corn made the price of corn-and products that depend on corn, such as poultry and beef-jump. But since the focus on corn left less land for raising other agricultural products, the price of commodities such as soybeans and wheat also rose to historic highs. If Congress continues to subsidize the production and mandate the use of ethanol, consumer food prices will continue to rise higher.

Heating and gas bills also increased last year. While Congress may provide additional short-term assistance for heating bills to those with the lowest income, policymakers are doing little to encourage an increase in our domestic energy supply. Policymakers still limit domestic exploration for oil and discourage the development of more refining capacity, even though these measures are among the most promising for bringing down energy prices over the long term.

In recent years, American families have been able to cut down on costs by taking advantage of the goods imported from overseas. Liberal elites may sneer at Wal-Mart, but there is a reason why so many families buy their everyday supplies from this retail giant: it saves them money. Wal-Mart leverages the global marketplace to bring in high quality goods at the lowest prices, which are then passed on to the consumer. As a result, the average American family saves an estimated $2,500 per year by shopping at Wal-Mart. Unfortunately, our progress in liberalizing trade has largely stalled, and, given the rhetoric of many presidential aspirants, may reverse in the next Administration. That's the wrong direction for American families. If policymakers want to raise living standards for the middle class, they need to maintain a commitment to trade liberalization.

A rebate of a few hundred dollars will certainly be welcome by families across the country, but it has no impact on their future financial prospects and therefore won't alleviate any feelings of economic insecurity. Workers want a growing, dynamic economy and a tax code that rewards work. Lowering marginal tax rates is the key to rewarding productive activity. For starters, Congress should make the existing tax cuts permanent so that workers will know that a big government-imposed pay cut isn't in their future. While Senate Democrats push to extend unemployment benefits as a part of the "stimulus," American families know that those out of work want jobs, not handouts. It may not sound like good progressive politics, but reforming our corporate tax code and lowering the corporate tax rate, which is among the highest in the developed world, would be among the best ways to encourage economic growth and job creation.

This stimulus package is a missed opportunity. Government can't spend its way into economic prosperity, but policymakers can reverse damaging policies that hinder growth and make life more expensive for American families.

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

Women Who Make the World Better: Wendy Shalit

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:19:00 EST

Wendy Shalit is IWF's latest member of that courageous band of women we call Women Who Make the World Better. Ms. Shalit had the courage to stand up and say some important things about the effects of the sexual revolution on young women. She knew a lot of people would think this wasn't cool. But she did it anyway. Her bestselling new book, Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect and Find It's Not Bad to Be Good, has been as controversial as her first, A Return to Modesty. As a result of being fearless, Wendy is one of the coolest Women Who Makes the World Better we've ever met. She sat down with IWF at the Caribou Coffee near our office and talked about her new book, her website (ModestlyYours.net) and what inspired her, before flying home to Canada, where she now lives. We thank her for her public advocacy of a more humane attitude towards sexual behavior on campus.

IWF: Our culture seems to encourage girls to be sexually active, whether they really want to or not. What has changed in our culture that makes it the norm for girls to behave in a fashion that once would have been considered "bad"?

SHALIT:Well, you know, in the '60s it was rebellious to be bad. There were always those who were "bad," and it was kind of counter-cultural. But now, these rebels of the '60s are in positions of authority, so the "badness" has become institutionalized, and it's coming from a lot of different places. It's coming from the college administrators, it's coming from the media, and it's coming, often, from parents who mean very well, but they associate happiness and maturity with racking up sexual experience and unfortunately, that's not usually the case.

IWF: In your new book, you talk about cuddle parties. What are they? Are they good for young women?

SHALIT: The cuddle party was one of the more interesting investigative things I did for the book. A cuddle party is a non-sexual environment where people can supposedly form bonds with others in a non-sexual way, and people pay admission to cuddle with strangers. And I was very suspicious that it was a non-sexual environment, but it really is not. I was expecting everyone to be very weird, to be honest, so what shocked me was how completely normal everyone was-with the exception of one guy I call "creepy married guy." Creepy married guy was just trying to cuddle everyone in ways that were perhaps more than friendly.

But all the people there seemed like nice people who just were not finding emotional connection in their own life; they were not finding real friendship, and I found that tremendously sad. We formed a circle at the end where we were told that emotions might surface after this event. Well, we're never going to see any of these people again, so to hug them and then leave-I experienced it as a very alienating and my friend who came with me said the same thing.

But to me the cuddle party represented something larger. On the one hand, casual sexual relationships are the popular thing and it's fashionable to pretend we don't have feelings, but clearly, we still do and we've got to deal with them. What I propose in my book is instead of advocating the bitch as the ideal and this pose of "being mean to other women is cool" and "committing adultery is a feminist act because we're not oppressed by these rules anymore," instead of advocating all of this nonsense which alienates women from one another, let's bring back female solidarity. Let's bring back the idea that, out of respect for you, I'm not going to flirt with your boyfriend or with your husband because he's taken.

I just got an email from someone whose marriage of many years has been shattered because her best friend is now sleeping with her husband. And it happens, unfortunately, a lot. This is not a feminist thing, this is a tragedy. So we've taken off the scarlet A and put up the scarlet M for modesty, and the girls who have more traditional values are now stigmatized. But it has not helped us, it's caused tremendous pain. I'm not advocating going back to the scarlet A, but certainly, let's end the scarlet M and the stigma against reticence. It makes a lot of sense to wait until you get to know someone before jumping into bed with him-and thinking twice before committing adultery for that matter.

IWF: Let's talk about repression. If you never repress anything sexually, don't you end up having to repress your emotions?

SHALIT: Absolutely. That's a whole chapter in my book because I'm extremely concerned. We talk about sexual repression, but no one talks about emotional repression, and that's what's being advocated by a lot of these "positive sexuality" organizations. If you look at their literature, they often observe that if you don't care in the first place, then you can never be disappointed. This is certainly true, and yet it's not a way to live life it seems to me-because it takes us away from our purpose as human beings. What they're advocating ends up becoming a jadedness contest, and for example they say that teens are "not ready" for sex until they've detached their emotions from sexuality.

You know, I've gotten a lot of flak for speaking out about it because these people are very organized, and of course the pornography industry is right there behind them. And there's no organization backing me; I'm just a lone voice. But I think it's really important to speak out because this advice is extremely damaging and girls should not take this advice. Actually, no one should: emotions are a wonderful part of us, that's what makes sex passionate-that you care-and emotionless sex is not good.

In fact, even the sex therapists are speaking out about this and they're admitting that if somebody doesn't give a hoot about you, they're not going to be giving you much attention in private either. Think about it, and it makes sense that casual sex should be so bad. That's why there's so much alcohol involved, because people are numbing their feelings. Show me a girl who says she's very happy with the hook-up scene; I challenge her to try it without alcohol and then get back to me.

IWF: One of the most charming things in your new book is how to tell your boomer parents you've decided to remain a virgin. Talk a little about that and boomer parents in general.

SHALIT: I think like all parents, they want the best for their daughters, and they've observed that those who are experienced "fit in more" since that's what's being promoted as our ideal of womanhood. They want their daughters to fit in, but unfortunately when parents say, "it's good to try the shoes on before you buy them," or they ask a daughter if she's a lesbian because she's still a virgin as a freshman in college-that's a lot of pressure. And the parents don't mean it that way, but that's unfortunately how the daughters experience it, that's what the daughters are telling me.

So there's a very interesting tension now, where the older generation, they're the ones organizing the co-ed sleepovers; they're the ones renting the hotel rooms for the prom; they're the ones buying the skanky clothing for their "prostitots."

And increasingly it's the younger generation that's saying: You know what? No, we don't want this; this is too much, and we want something more than this. I think that's encouraging; it's really encouraging.

IWF: Well, the name of your book is Girls Gone Mild. Is this because you detect that the tide is turning with the upcoming generation?

SHALIT: Oh, definitely. But the problem is the most outspoken people are always the exhibitionists, the ones who say the only way to be a feminist is to be crude about sexuality. There is a feminist slogan on T-shirts that goes, "My cooking sucks but fortunately so do I." So this idea of being casual about sex, swearing, being crude "just like a guy"- we run into it everywhere, but is it actually advancing any women in real life? I don't think so.

The first problem is: there are a lot of wonderful guys out there who are not like this. So really, we're only imitating the most adolescent male. And a lot of young women are saying, "This doesn't appeal to me," so they don't identify as feminists because they don't want to be like that. In my interviews with younger feminists-I mean the ones who do identify as feminists-they want to bring dignity back, not pile on the gross slogans.

That is what the Abercrombie controversy [when young women protested crude T-shirts sold by the apparel company] was about; the young women who didn't like the T-shirts wanted to bring the concept of self-respect back. And the company told them, "these shirts are ironic," and the girls retorted, "Well, you know what, it's not being taken that way in school." I was so encouraged in talking with these young women, because they are so much smarter-or maybe they're more intellectually honest-than all the ideologues combined.

IWF: Wendy, how did you get involved in these issues? It's not a crusade a young woman on a college campus who wants to be "cool" is going to embrace, so how did this happen back then?

SHALIT: Well, actually most of my support comes from high school and college students. A high school girl from Los Angeles started a Facebook group for Girls Gone Mild and we keep it a closed group so the discussions are productive but we have 400 active members. I think it's really important to remember that not everyone involved in promiscuous behaviors is necessarily thrilled-very often they're participating because everyone else is. They're just waiting to know that an alternative is viable.

In terms of myself, I regard myself as pretty fortunate because I had great friends in high school-and I grew up in the Midwest where you didn't necessarily have to drink to be cool, and I had a very nice social life, and I came to college pretty confident in who I was. And-no one talks about this-but I noticed when I got to Williams that it was actually the ones who didn't have as many social skills, the kids who were the most insecure in high school, who were the quickest to blend in with the hook-up scene and to agree to everything that the college and the most ridiculous groups on campus were promoting.

So when I saw situations that didn't seem right to me, I spoke up right away. I didn't understand the implications of doing this. I didn't understand that I would eventually have people who didn't know me following me and giving me "the finger"; I didn't know that I'd eventually have to move off-campus because I became such a pariah. I didn't care because I had been used to being myself and speaking out, so that's what I continued to do. But nowadays I think there is more support for the traditional-minded student-that wasn't the case when I was in college.

IWF: How do you take the vitriol your book has unleashed?

SHALIT: Well it's always someone who represents a special-interest group of some kind, and whenever such a person attacks me personally or feels the need to create a caricature and then attack me for something I never said, I just take it as a compliment and an admission of defeat. They don't have a counter-argument. And certainly if they didn't feel I was making a difference they wouldn't feel the need to vilify me. So I accept the compliment, and then I also keep a log and write the attack down-whether it's a death threat or some "prude" silliness. You'd be surprised how often it comes in handy when the same people start blathering on about how tolerant and liberal they are. It doesn't faze me anymore, but sometimes it's worth pointing out the limits of their type of "tolerance." I've been dealing with this type of reaction for a long time-ever since I opposed the coed bathrooms in college.

IWF: Wasn't that kind of the beginning of it all?

SHALIT: Most definitely. I wrote about that because I felt there was a connection between the lack of a dating scene, which many students complained about, and the lack of mystery, for example, in the bathrooms. I was told I was "not comfortable with [my] body" when I opposed the coed bathrooms. But when I wrote about it and Reader's Digest reprinted my piece [which originally appeared in Commentary] I got a ton of positive letters in response-from students on campus too-and that's really when my perspective began to change. I realized that there were so many people who actually did value the things that I valued, but they were afraid to speak up. They were intimidated because of what happens when someone stands up for modesty or privacy; they are always attacked, personally and viciously. People know that and so they decide it's not worth it.

But the funny thing is that after I graduated, I was invited back by a group of Williams students, about 200 students turned up, and many of them thanked me for changing the situation on campus. So I really wish that people would be less concerned with what other people think. You only have one life after all, and if more people would speak up about these situations that don't seem right for them instead of just going along with the herd, we would have a changed society.

There will always be smirkers, but if you realize that you can transcend them and have a hopeful message, you can reach so many people. What means more to me is the letters I get from girls who say that they were about to commit suicide, literally, and they read my book or they came to the website and they realized that they weren't alone. And why were they ready to end it? Because all the people attacking me are also attacking them for stepping outside the socially-acceptable bad-girl ideal.

So that's what motivates me to take the heat, because I feel like maybe I'm taking a bit of the heat off of them.

IWF: I understand you have launched a website to help young women who might need help navigating the sexual seas. Tell us about it.

SHALIT: Well, what motivated me was getting all these letters from girls saying that they felt so isolated at their schools and they thought there was something wrong with them because they just wanted to meet the right person and they didn't want to hook up. And I thought: Wouldn't it be great to organize these girls and have them form alliances and exchange ideas and know that they're not alone?

Way back in 1999, iVillage hosted a forum for me. I was really enjoying hearing from people, but then all of a sudden, this one person started writing all in capital letters and attacking a particular girl and saying that they were "outraged" that iVillage would even host this discussion on modesty. And eventually, because participants were being attacked, the discussion petered out; and finally iVillage had to take it down because it became just so unpleasant.

And I thought it was such a shame because these smirkers and exhibitionists are not even in the majority, yet they always dominate the conversation. And I thought: Wouldn't it be cool to have a space online that would be safe, where girls and women could come and exchange ideas, and we just won't publish the death threats and the attacks, and therefore they'll feel that they can come back and feel encouraged in their high standards?

And so that's the idea behind our group blog [ModestlyYours.Net] because unlike the herds of people who have nothing better to do than attack people all day, most people who believe in modesty and love, I find, have very full lives. So this way, busy moms & busy students can every once in awhile write a thoughtful blog and it's certainly been a very interesting conversation.

IWF: How has it affected your writing?

SHALIT:Well, my new book is about how the real rebels today are the good girls. And someone asked me why I quote so much material from the girls' lives instead of philosophers like Rousseau and Hume-whom they had preferred reading about in my first book. They regarded the philosophers as more "important." Well, when you become a mother you have such little time. And so you really have to ask yourself where you're going to devote your efforts. When I was younger, I was more concerned about seeming smart, and I guess that's just not important to me anymore. As a stay-at-home mom who writes during nap-time, I'm not really interested in impressing anyone; I'm just trying to use the time I have to help people in some way.

Sure, there is a certain type of person who cares about Rousseau's views on modesty and that's fine-I was a philosophy major so obviously I care about that stuff too. But in general, when a girl reads about another girl who stood up to her friends who were making fun of her, and she just went her own way, that has a much bigger impact. So that's what my second book is about: talking to these role models in person and finding out where they got that courage.

Right Heart

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) info@iwf.org (Brad Lips) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:52:00 EST

National Review

This primary season has encouraged some serious soul searching about what it means to be a conservative. The discussion is important, not just as the party selects a nominee, but as we at long last move beyond the Bush era of "compassionate conservatism."

An important part of this discussion began when then-candidate Fred Thompson was asked if, as a Christian and a conservative, he supported President Bush's global AIDS initiative. Thompson responded: "Christ didn't tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it." President Bush's former speechwriter, Michael Gerson, excoriated the candidate in a Washington Post oped, "Callous Conservatives." Gerson argued that Thompson's response revealed a "lack of moral seriousness" and failure to understand the strategic value of humanitarian efforts.

The particulars of the AIDS global initiative are less important than the broader principle at stake. It's true that targeted development and aid can be important foreign-policy tools. In certain circumstances, a federal investment can make sense. But Gerson wasn't simply criticizing an underestimation of such initiatives' foreign-policy benefits; he suggested that it's a moral failing to question if government's duties extend "to the treatment of sick people in extreme poverty."

Yet this is a very important question. Is it government's duty to care for all those in need? Most politicians accept Gerson's view of "moral seriousness" and use promises of government action to showcase their compassion. Is this really compassion and charity?

It takes no sacrifice on the part of a politician to use taxpayer money to alleviate some group's particular misery. In fact, these gestures tend to be the easiest politically, providing a visible photo-op and easy applause from the media.

Yet there was a time when both parties respected the limited role and responsibilities of government. Democrat Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill in 1887 that would have sent federal relief to drought-stricken farmers in Texas. He didn't want to encourage "the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government" and believed that individual Americans could best help Texan farmers through private acts of charity. (They did, sending several multiples of the aid proposed in Congress.)

Cleveland understood that government efforts - even, and perhaps especially, those motivated by compassion - tend to have unintended consequences that render them ineffective. Decades of foreign aid to African countries served to prop up failing governments and undermine private development, exasperating the misery it was supposed to relieve. The "compassionate" War on Poverty within the U.S. had a similar effect, devastating the very communities it was intended to uplift.

Advocates of limited government recognize that angels will never run Washington. Politicians will favor spending on a problem when it is advantageous to do so, and they will avoid accountability when the spending fails to solve the problem. Once it's established that the government will aid all who suffer, the definition of suffering invariably expands, from drought victims to ill-advised recipients of adjustable-rate mortgages. Finally, a "moral hazard" is created - citizens realize that, if the decisions they make turn out badly, preening, crisis-hungry politicians will rescue them.

If being a conservative means anything, it should be skepticism toward big-government solutions and faith in the decency and competence of ordinary Americans. Gerson shows as little of the latter as he does of the former.

He jibes at Thompson's assertion that private charity can address major problems, "One wonders . . . if responding to the 2004 tsunami should also have been a private responsibility." Yet as National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out, private American donors gave twice as much as the U.S. government did to assist tsunami victims. And certainly the growing expectation that government will respond to crisis dampens private behavior. How many over-taxed Americans hesitate to support the local church's food bank, because they know they are already forced to contribute to a food-stamp program and a government-run homeless shelter down the street?

What's true at home is also true abroad. Doing what seems obvious often is not the route to doing good. You might assume that a major investment in public education in poor countries would be worthwhile. But the E. G. West Centre's research in India and Africa has shown how markets for private education serving the poor have emerged in response to terribly corrupt, incompetent government-run schools. It would be counter-productive to more heavily subsidize what already is not working.

Kenyan think-tank leader James Shikwati has urged Western leaders to stop sending aid to Africa. He explained, "Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. . . . development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems."

This kind of realistic talk often falls on deaf ears among so-called compassionate conservatives and other advocates of big government. In reality, it isn't callous to question the value of government programs. It is the attempt to stifle debate and demonize skeptical views that truly shows a lack of moral seriousness.

Brad Lips is the executive vice president at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation and Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum.

The Path to Democracy and Stability in Pakistan

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:57:00 EST

Townhall.com

Who are we fighting in this War on Terror? For many Americans, the War on Terror remains a confusing concept. We are used to wars against countries, not against a group of people brought together by an ideology and hatred of the West. Our enemy is most easily defined by their acts: the attacks of September 11th exemplify the threat they pose. Now, with news that the CIA has concluded that members of al-Qaeda, in concert with allies of Baitullah Mehud, a Pakistani tribal leader, were responsible for the murder Benazir Bhutto, we are reminded that this War on Terror isn't just about the safety of the United States, but the fate of the world.

Another foreign nation is in crisis. Americans should appreciate yet again how fortunate we are to live in a country that is both free and stable. We do not worry about one killer turning our political system upside down.

The contrast today with Pakistan could not be greater. The murder of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was a tragedy on many levels. Her family has lost a wife and mother. Her party has lost its soul and inspiration. Her country has lost an intelligent, courageous woman prepared to lead in difficult times. The rest of us have lost one of the world's leading female politicians-living proof that a woman can run the government of an Islamic nation. Bhutto could have helped turn Pakistanis and Muslims elsewhere away from the failed politics of extremism and terrorism and towards the positive approach of global engagement and leadership.

Bhutto's death was a blow against people of goodwill all over the world. But we must not grow discouraged. To the contrary, the U.S. and its allies must redouble their efforts in the War on Terror and aid Pakistanis as they attempt to advance democracy in their nation.

All people are entitled to self-government. Throughout history, all people have sought self-government. Unfortunately, however, not all people are ready to build stable and free political systems. This is the ugly truth that we have learned in the Middle East. Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, and other Muslim states have suffered under autocracy. All have taken some moves toward democracy but still face enormous barriers to the practice of liberal democracy in their nations.

For democracy to work, government must be built on respect for the life and dignity of its citizens. People must be willing to work peacefully with other groups and accept defeat in elections. Private mediating institutions are necessary to link individuals and families to communities and the nation.

Washington has long worked with various governments in Islamabad. Since September 11th, the U.S. has provided the Musharraf regime with some $10 billion. For that money, America has won at times reluctant cooperation in the fight against both the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, all of Pakistan has not been fully in the fight.

Many residents of the provinces bordering Afghanistan have welcomed America's enemies as guests. The Pakistani military has been unable--or unwilling--to clear out these safe havens. Even many secular Pakistanis are hostile to America, which they blame for supporting military dictatorships at home. Thus, we should consider a new strategy in Pakistan.

It is critical to win the allegiance of the Pakistani people. The U.S. government must be more careful to ensure that the Pakistani people understand that it supports them, and not any particular government or politician. America cannot dictate the form of Pakistan's government or the speed with which it returns to democracy, but Washington should unequivocally support the right of the Pakistani people to choose their own leaders.

We also must ensure that our aid actually goes to help people in need. Military assistance will remain vital so long as the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain threats, but the U.S.-Pakistan relationship must not focus on security alone. Non-governmental organizations, including those which promote the full economic, political, and social advancement of Pakistani women, should take on a greater role, bypassing the Pakistani government and establishing a direct relationship with community and tribal leaders. As some Middle Eastern suffragettes have remarked, half a democracy is not a democracy. Finally, Washington must demonstrate that it has learned humility and is willing to listen to the Pakistani people even as it encourages them to remain on a democratic path.

Benazir Bhutto won renown as one of the world's most noted female politicians. But, more important, she earned respect as one of her nation's most important leaders, irrespective of sex. The best way to honor her legacy and advance our interests in this War on Terror is for the American people to become true partners of the Pakistani people in order to encourage both democracy and prosperity in their nation. This approach will make us more secure. This commitment also represents America at its generous and democratic best.

Michelle D. Bernard, a lawyer by training, is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of the soon to be released Women's Progress, How Women are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent Than Ever Before.

If I were running for president, this is what I would say

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:46:00 EST

Nashua Telegraph

If I were running for president, one of the many questions I would ask is, "What do women want?"

Women, after all, are the majority of voters in the United States.

The answer is quite simple: Women want policies that improve the lives of our families and increase the safety of our nation. Women want an America that is, as Abraham Lincoln stated, "the last, best hope of Earth."

Earlier this month, women from around the country met in Manchester to participate in Lifetime Television's "If I Were President" Forum. This nonpartisan coalition of women sought answers from the candidates about how they would handle many of the domestic and foreign-policy issues of particular concern to women.

Candidates who listen to women find that women aren't that different than men: Women want policies that generate the stability and security necessary for women to successfully balance family and professional life.

Women want a prosperous economy with low interest rates and stable prices. Jimmy Carter's era of "stagflation" demonstrated how important it is to get the essentials right. That means not letting the subprime loan mess turn into an excuse for government to wreck the credit market, and promoting a marketplace that rewards entrepreneurship and hard work.

A big tax hike would strike hardest at businesswomen, particularly those starting their own businesses. The burden of federal regulation remains far too high - at more than $1 trillion, it exceeds the total amount collected in federal income taxes.

The looming insolvency of Medicare and Social Security also concerns women, especially those who rely on these programs. These programs' $90 trillion unfunded liabilities will eventually have to be paid if we are to keep faith with our elderly. We need reform now to protect those currently collecting benefits while providing better options for younger workers.

Health care is also a critical issue for women. The U.S. medical system offers unparalleled quality, but leaves some people behind. Women want a system that builds on the strengths of American medicine, emphasizing the role of patients as consumers. Women want an end to the bias for employer-provided health insurance, which hurts women who are more likely to move in and out of the workforce and don't want to risk losing insurance or changing doctors with each job change.

Women care deeply about education. We want our daughters and sons to be taught to be good citizens. We also want our children prepared to succeed in an increasingly global economy.

Real reform requires more than throwing money at poorly performing schools. Real reform is holding schools accountable for their performance. Real reform is ending the public school monopoly and giving parents a genuine choice as to where their children attend school.

Although women are thought to be more interested than men about the home front, it is for this reason that national security is also a women's issue. Any woman who grieved after Sept. 11, 2001, or who watched 186 children killed at the Beslan school siege in Russia cares not only about domestic policy, but about national security and terrorism.

Yes, we want our husbands, sons and daughters home from Iraq. But we also want a peaceful, democratic Iraq that improves the lives of the Iraqi people and the security of the American people. We want responsible leaders to balance the freedoms that make America great with the policies necessary to prevent new attacks on the United States.

Women insist on policies to deal with a potentially dangerous world. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Russia is growing more antagonistic. The brightest hope for democracy in Pakistan has been assassinated. Women don't want war, but we do want to be ready if conflict is forced upon us.

There is one other issue. Elections in America always have been competitive; campaigning always has been vigorous. But women, again like most Americans, are tired of the vicious bickering in Washington that makes it harder to meet the serious challenges facing our nation.

Throughout our history, we Americans have consistently overcome obstacles in our way and surprised our enemies. We will continue to do so. But first, we need to remember that we are Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats.

If I were running for president, I would recognize that women want what all Americans want: a better life for ourselves and our countrymen.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of "Women's Progress: How Women and Are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent Than Ever Before."

Start With Spending Restraint

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:46:00 EST

National Review Online

Congress is back in town this week, and will resume its power struggle with the administration. The president may be a lame duck, but he closed out the 2007 legislative year by winning a budget battle. It was an important show of presidential strength for an administration entering its final year. Yet sadly, it was no big win for fiscal conservatism, a philosophy that's been under assault.

Just how bad has the start of this millennium been for budget hawks? Think back to 1999. The United States was engaged in a war in Kosovo, we were worried about Y2K, and president Clinton was entering his last year in office. Total federal spending was $1.7 trillion.

Since that time we've added more than another trillion dollars to the federal budget. Even after adjusting for inflation, spending has increased by about a third over the last eight years.

There are understandable reasons for some of the increase in our budget: Most notably, America's population has grown - though not nearly as fast as spending. The total population in 1999 was 273 million; today it's 304 million. Yet the federal government now spends about $9,000 per person, nearly $3,000 more than was spent in 1999. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the reason for the federal budget's tremendous growth, but domestic spending has also been on the rise: Non-defense discretionary spending grew by more than a third in real terms since 1999.

Imagine if Washington had grown only at the rate of inflation plus population growth since 1999. Not only would America have no federal deficit, but we would have hundreds of billions of dollars of surplus. Even if politicians had merely held the line on non-defense discretionary spending, our deficit would be nearly $100 billion lower.

Policymakers can justify some of the additional spending as necessary in the post-911 world. But just as surely as we've needed investments in homeland security and intelligence, plenty of the federal budget has deserved cuts. And let's be honest: Returning to 1999 spending wouldn't exactly be a journey to Spartan frugality. The Citizens for Government Waste found $12 billion of pork that year, which would have been a good place to start the trimming.

Nearly all of the current crop of presidential aspirants has tried to claim the mantel of "fiscal responsibility." Democrats primarily use the term to call for rolling back tax cuts, ostensibly in hopes of eliminating the deficit, while Republicans refer to a return to spending restraint. Yet the real budgetary challenge for the next President won't be the yearly tug-of-war with Congress over appropriations or tax cuts. In truth, our fiscal future largely will be determined by entitlement spending.

This year, less than half the federal budget was actively allocated by our elected officials; the rest was on autopilot. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security accounted for more than 40 percent of total spending by Washington. As the baby-boomers retirement accelerates, these costs will skyrocket. The nonpartisan Concord Coalition projects that without serious reform (primarily of these big three entitlement programs), mandatory spending and interest on debt could consume all federal revenue by 2020. Nothing would be left for other domestic priorities, even for defense.

For the most part, the 2008 presidential candidates (with the exception of Senator Fred Thompson, who offered a detailed plan for reforming Social Security) have avoided any real discussion of how to bring these ballooning costs under control. Senator Obama was savaged by the left-wing punditry for daring even to suggest entitlement spending might be a problem.

A serious conversation is unlikely to happen unless Americans wake up to reality. The media, which obsesses about "gotcha" issues of marginal importance, should ask tough questions about the candidates' vision for the federal budget. America needs a president who is committed to fiscal discipline - something far beyond the usual throwaway lines about eliminating government "waste" and reducing "unnecessary" growth in domestic spending. The next president will have to grapple with the runaway growth of entitlement spending, or the American people will one day be in for a rude awakening.

- Carrie Lukas is vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.