Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Economics and Political Thought

Who Really Has the Ideas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 411 on Card Check

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:45:00 EDT

Over at Reason magazine, Dave Weigel explains why the Employee Free Choice Act will give unions too much power.

Double Trouble

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:23:00 EDT

In an editorial today, the editors of National Review Online do a good job in laying out the problems with the housing bills that passed last week:

Defying a White House veto threat, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a pair of housing bills Thursday that would reward foolish lenders and borrowers, weaken the reputation of American securities, and punish renters. Not bad for a day's work. The centerpiece of the first bill is a $300-billion mortgage-insurance fund that would allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure an estimated 500,000 troubled home loans, at a cost to taxpayers of $2.7 billion. Under this bill, lenders can get the FHA to insure a souring loan by agreeing to write down the loan's value by as much as 15 percent. This works out well for those lenders who let their standards plummet as housing prices soared, as well as for borrowers who took out loans they couldn't afford. It doesn't work out so well for taxpayers who exercised better judgment.

...

A separate housing bill passed Thursday would provide states with $15 billion in grants and loans to purchase foreclosed homes. The ostensible purpose of this bill is to allow states to prevent foreclosures from blighting neighborhoods and driving down property values. In reality, the bill is a massive subsidy to lenders who made bad loans and now find themselves struggling to find buyers willing to take foreclosed homes off their hands. What's worse, the bill provides an incentive for lenders to foreclose on struggling borrowers rather than work out deals with them.

More here.

IWF Podcast: American Consumers

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:02:00 EDT

Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas discuss high gas prices and other issues on the minds of American consumers.

Score one for transparency proponents!

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:44:00 EDT

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled federal financial transparency laws apply to certain public-sector unions, traditionally exempt from such regulations.

If it stands, the decision will allow workers across the country to have increased access to records of their unions' financial dealings.

The case, Alabama Education Association v. Chao, has worked its way up and down the court system for several years. The most recent decision, issued in late March, requires state-level public-sector unions to disclose their finances to the federal government if those unions are affiliated with a national union that must comply with the federal reporting laws.

While the case deals directly with affiliates of the National Education Association, the same principle applies to other public-sector unions, including the American Federation of County, State, and Municipal Employees and Service Employees International Union.

More here. (Hat tip: The Union Label)

Who Knew Hot Dogs Were So Controversial?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:01:00 EDT

In his latest video for Reason.tv Drew Carey follows vendors in Los Angeles selling illegal goods--bacon-wrapped hot dogs:

Podcast Alert: Living Wage Mandates

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:01:00 EDT

Over on the podcast page, Halima Karzai and I discuss the problems with living wage mandates. Give it a listen here.

For more information on this topic check out Elise Viebeck's Waging Blame paper.

IWF Podcast: Squeezing the Middle Class

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:33:00 EST

IWF Director of The R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies Allison Kasic and IWF Vice President for Policy and Economics Carrie Lukas discuss the economic stimulus package and what this means for the middle class.

Why are food costs rising?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:54:00 EST

Over at Townhall.com, IWF's Carrie Lukas takes a look at rising food prices:

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.

Read the whole article here.

Waging Blame

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:42:00 EST

Over at the IWF campus corner, Elise Viebeck has a fabulous new report on campus living wage campaigns. Here's the executive summary:

Living wage movements are gaining momentum on college campuses across the country. As one component of a larger social justice agenda, campus living wage measures represent student efforts to promote egalitarianism and acknowledge the basic dignity of campus employees. Students argue that the work of housekeepers, gardeners, and security staff, for example, often goes unnoticed and unappreciated, and therefore advocate raising minimum compensation so that any full-time worker earns enough to afford a "living." Students believe that college endowments are large enough to withstand the extra expense of increased employment costs, especially since doing so will strengthen the sense of community on campus.

Student activists, however, ignore the broader implications of living wage measures, which mimic those of federal and state minimum wage laws. Acting like a tax on employment, a living wage mandate results in layoffs and displacement. As jobs disappear, the competition for each available position intensifies and low-skilled workers find it even more difficult to find employment. Disadvantaged communities suffer most from the resulting stagnancy; underemployment among young black males, for example, is often attributed to the job destruction caused by the widespread establishment of minimum wages.

Books like Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed--now required reading at several leading universities--bolster the popularity of living wage activism. The unity between curriculum and campus activism is potent and appealing, but results in one-sided discourse on these issues. To ensure prudent decision making on campus, students must carefully examine the consequences of living wage mandates.

Read the report here.

Position Paper No. 607: Waging Blame

info@iwf.org (Elise Viebeck) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:16:00 EST

Download the report below.

Executive Summary

Living wage movements are gaining momentum on college campuses across the country. As one component of a larger social justice agenda, campus living wage measures represent student efforts to promote egalitarianism and acknowledge the basic dignity of campus employees. Students argue that the work of housekeepers, gardeners, and security staff, for example, often goes unnoticed and unappreciated, and therefore advocate raising minimum compensation so that any full-time worker earns enough to afford a "living." Students believe that college endowments are large enough to withstand the extra expense of increased
employment costs, especially since doing so will strengthen the sense of
community on campus.

Student activists, however, ignore the broader implications of living wage
measures, which mimic those of federal and state minimum wage laws. Acting like a tax on employment, a living wage mandate results in layoffs and displacement. As jobs disappear, the competition for each available position intensifies and low-skilled workers find it even more difficult to find employment. Disadvantaged communities suffer most from the resulting stagnancy; underemployment among young black males, for example, is often attributed to the job destruction caused by the widespread establishment of minimum wages.

Books like Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed-now required reading at several leading universities-bolster the popularity of living wage activism. The unity between curriculum and campus activism is potent and appealing, but results in one-sided discourse on these issues. To ensure prudent decision making on campus, students must carefully examine the consequences of living wage mandates.

Art Laffer on Rebates

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:42:00 EST

In today's Wall Street Journal Art Laffer (of Laffer Curve fame) shows the incentive problems surrounding the economic stimulus package:

In this world of ours, those resources going to the rebate recipients don't come from the Tooth Fairy. They have to come from workers and producers. If the resources come from workers and producers who thereby receive less for their work than they otherwise would have received, won't they in turn spend less? Of course they'll spend less, and the people who now supply them with less will also spend less, and so on down the line.

As my former colleague and friend Milton Friedman liked to say, "There's no such thing as a free lunch," and this rebate is exactly what he meant. The net effect is that the reduction in demand from those who pay the real resources will be exactly the same size as the increase in demand from the rebate recipients. It's sad but true. Income effects always net to zero in a closed system.

Or, to explain it another way:

To see this point from a more generic standpoint, if the price of apples rises, it is true that apple growers are better off. Their income effects go way up, and they can spend more. But apple consumers are worse off because their incomes go down by the exact same amount, and they have to spend less.

All of the stimulative effects of the rebate to the recipients will be 100% offset by the destimulative effects of the increase in liabilities of the workers and producers who have to pay for the transfer of resources to the rebate recipients. There is no stimulus from a rebate, period.

New at IWF: FMLA

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:24:00 EST

In the latest IWF policy paper, Who Pays for My Time Off? The Costs and Consequences of Government-Mandated Leave, Carrie Lukas makes the case against government mandates in the workplace. Here's the executive summary:

Balancing the demands of work and family life can be a challenge for any worker. Events such as severe illness or the birth of a child can make working outside the home impossible. People overwhelmingly sympathize with those facing these challenging situations and want society to support such individuals during difficult times.

In recent decades, however, the question has turned not to how civil society can support individuals in times of need, but to how the federal government can dictate how employers must accommodate employees facing these situations. Existing laws require that large employers allow qualified employees to take unpaid leave when facing such circumstances. Some policymakers want to expand these regulations so that they apply to smaller employers and to mandate the availability of additional benefits, such as paid leave.
This paper examines the Family and Medical Leave Act, which mandates that businesses provide unpaid leave to their workers, and considers some of the problems associated with its application. It will also consider the potential consequences of expanding these regulations.
This paper highlights how private entities are voluntarily providing leave benefits and considers ways that policymakers can further encourage businesses and individuals to take actions that will make it easier for individuals in need of leave, without costly government mandates.

Read the full report here.

Podcast Alert: Economic Stimulus Package

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:22:00 EST

Over on the podcast page, Carrie Lukas and I discuss the proposed economic stimulus package and the general state of the American economy.

Give it a listen here.

Black Enterprise: Our World with Black Enterprise

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:49:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard joins Ed Gordon on Our World with Black Enterprise for a roundtable discussion including such topics as Barack Obama, the woman's vote, the African American vote, and new African American leadership.

We Need More Than an Economic Stimulus

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:19:00 EST

With the stock market's big drop, Washington wisdom now dictates that policymakers need to do "something" to give the economy a boost. President Bush came out yesterday with outlines of a package that would rely heavily on rebates to taxpayers, the idea being that people would then go out and spend these rebates and reverse sluggish sales.

On National Review Online, Larry Kudlow gives this idea a luke-warm endorsement, at least compared to other proposals floating out there:

President Bush has made the best of a bad situation by applying his so-called tax rebate proposal within the income-tax code, rather than positioning it as new federal spending, like Sen. Hillary Clinton's $100 billion spending package. He's going to oppose that. He's right to oppose that. It's essential to oppose that.
As I understand it, they're going to waive the 10 percent bracket which goes up to $15,650. Everybody passes through that bracket. I'm sure upper-end taxpayers will not get any of this relief. Lower-end and middle-end taxpayers will.
In doing so, there will be a very tiny incentive effect, although it'll only last a year. As I said, the president is making the best of a bad political situation. He had to do "something." And this is the least harmful thing he can do. It can be classed as income-tax relief, even though there's no permanent incentive effect.

et while I'm all for the government putting money back in the hands of the people, it seems like rebates are about as bad a way as you could do that. Bruce Bartlett makes this case in The Wall Street Journal, arguing that a rebate will do little to boost savings and is really just a political gesture:

In short, there is virtually no empirical evidence that tax rebates are an effective response to economic slowdowns. The increased personal saving doesn't help the economy because the federal budget deficit, which can be thought of as negative saving, offsets all of it in the aggregate. The main benefit of a tax rebate would seem to be political -- giving politicians a way of appearing to be doing something about the nation's economic problems that is superficially plausible.

This economic souring seems like a reason for policymakers to refocus on getting the fundamentals right and change some of the big things that we know are a drag on the economy. Obviously policymakers aren't going to be able to quickly scrap the tax code in favor of a simpler, flatter plan (though that would be ideal), but if essentially everyone recognizes that corporate taxes and taxes on savings are too high, why not go ahead and lower those? A cut in income tax rates would encourage productivity and increase income, not just temporarily like a rebate, but over the long term so people might feel more comfortable to increase consumption.

The debate about a stimulus shouldn't just be a Washington give away, but a chance to actually improve our economy's foundation.

How Free is Your Economy?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:16:00 EST

The annual economic freedom index from the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal is out, ranking 157 economies on 10 economic factors (property rights, regulations, trade, etc.). The index has long shown a strong correlation between economic freedom and prosperity. This year's index shows encouraging news out of Europe, where many countries are moving toward simplified tax codes, such as a flat tax:

While the world as a whole made little progress toward greater economic freedom, there were some surprising improvements by countries such as Mauritius and Mongolia, the survey found.
Hong Kong and Singapore retained their No. 1 and No. 2 rankings respectively on the annual Index of Economic Freedom for the 14th successive year. Both port cities benefit from low taxes and liberalized trade. Hong Kong, however, saw its score dip slightly due to higher inflation and greater tax revenues.
European countries accounted for half of the top 20 economies considered free or mostly free, with Ireland at No. 3, Switzerland at No. 9 and Britain at No. 10. The U.S. ranked No. 5, and Canada ranked 6th.
Moves by newer members of the European Union to introduce straightforward tax policies to attract more investment were having a radical impact on the region as a whole, the authors said.

More info here.

Podcast Alert: FMLA

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:50:00 EST

In a new IWF podcast, Carrie Lukas and I discuss the Family and Medical Leave Act. Give it a listen here. And, for more information, check out Carrie's policy brief on the same subject.

More on Taxes

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:52:00 EDT

In her latest Charlotte's Web column, Charlotte Hays examines the consequences of the proposed Rangel tax hike:

If the Rangel tax hike were enacted into law, government spending would skyrocket. Pay-go would become very go-go. I don't have a crystal ball, but I am going out on a limb here and predicting that, if the Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress, the Bush tax cuts will be repealed. With go-go spending, and projects that those in power deem worthy, there won't be enough money to do all these good things. There will be only one thing to do: increase taxes on people who haven't yet been hit by the Rangel hike. So those who breathe a sigh of relief that we won't have to cough up more than a few hundred dollars, are living in a fool's paradise. We will-and it won't be that far off.

Flush with cash (at least until the economy is chocked by high taxes), the government will spend recklessly. My least favorite programs are the entitlement programs that create a permanent underclass. The number of these programs will grow exponentially, and the number of people injured for generations will rise. It is not just to force self-reliant taxpayers to fund the indigence and, worse, the moral destruction of others.

When taxpayers are allowed to keep their earnings, they fund charities that they approve. These charities, if they have oversight and time limitations, can be far more effective than crippling entitlement programs.

Read her column here.

What Civil Liberties

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:11:00 EDT

Libertarians tend to be frustrated by both political parties: Republicans tend to embrace limited government when it comes to economic issues and free markets, and Democrats protect civil liberties and personal freedoms, but neither party embraces freedom in both areas.

This description though increasingly gives the Left too much credit. It just doesn't seem true that the political Left stands up for civil liberties anymore (other than to foil American efforts in the War on Terror at least). The smoking ban movement is largely led by those on the Left, and on campuses students see their speech stifled by the hippies of old. John Fund has a piece in today's Opinion Journal that also highlights how Democrats are leaning toward greater repression of speech, by resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine:

Until the FCC scrapped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, it required broadcasters to provide equal time to all sides of "controversial" issues. In practice, this led to what Bill Monroe, a former host of NBC's "Meet the Press," called "timid, don't-rock-the-boat coverage." On radio, Newsweek's Howard Fineman notes, it "effectively kept partisan shows off the airwaves," so that in 1980 there were a mere 75 talk radio stations. Today there are 1,800.
But the Fairness Doctrine has always had fans in the corridors of power because it gave incumbents a way of muzzling their opponents. The Kennedy administration used it as a political weapon. Bill Ruder, Kennedy's assistant secretary of commerce, explained: "Our strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." The Nixon administration similarly used the doctrine to torment left-wing broadcasters.
Democrats who have become "Fairness" mongers insist they simply want to restore civility and balance to the airwaves. Al Gore, in a typically overheated speech last year bemoaned "the destruction of [the] marketplace of ideas" which he blamed in part on the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, after which "Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein rails against "one-sided programming" that has pushed the American people into "extreme views without a lot of information." She thinks Americans deserve to know "both sides of the story." Isn't it enough that National Public Radio, subsidized by the government, serves as a vehicle for liberal voices in just about every community in the country?
True, commercial radio is dominated by conservatives, but perhaps that's because liberal arguments in their full-throated glory just haven't sold as well. Air America, the liberal talk radio network that debuted in 2004, is in perpetual financial trouble. Then there's the GreenStone talk radio network started last year by feminists Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem. It offered cutting-edge liberal thinking pitched to a female audience--and flopped completely.

It shouldn't matter whose ideas are successful in the marketplace. The government has no business trying to create "balance" -- whatever that might mean. There is still plenty to complain about with both Right and Left, but libertarians who retain a belief that the Democrats at least stand up for civil liberties should reevaluate.

IWF Policy Brief: FMLA

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:54:00 EDT

In the latest IWF Policy Brief, Carrie Lukas explains why mandating more family and medical leave is a bad proposition for employers and employees. Here's the executive summary:

Last week, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) presented a plan for expanding family and medical leave. Specifically, she proposed changing the current Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) so that it applies to businesses with more than 25 workers (instead of the current requirement of at least 50 workers). She would also use federal dollars to encourage states to provide paid family leave.

Everyone understands the challenge of balancing the demands of work and family life, and that there are situations when individuals need time off from their jobs. While it is tempting to address this legitimate need through government action, there are significant costs to doing so.

In the years that FMLA has been in force, many businesses have struggled to make sense of the regulations and have had to bear increased financial and administrative burdens to comply with this law. Small businesses will likely experience greater disruptions if FMLA is expanded to apply to them since they are less likely to be able to shift work from those taking leave to their co-workers. These companies are also more financially vulnerable than large companies so will be more affected by the additional financial burden associated with FMLA.

Mandating benefits has costs for employers and ultimately for employees. An increasing portion of employee compensation is consumed by benefits, which means workers have less take-home pay. Rising costs of employment also discourage employers from offering new jobs and encourages outsourcing.

There are other ways for policymakers to help individuals sustain themselves during times of leave. First, the federal government ought to stop penalizing savings. Currently, the government discourages individuals from taking the responsible action of setting aside income that can be drawn upon during a period when they cannot work. Policymakers could also explore programs that encourage savings specifically to provide for paid leave. Policymakers have already created tax-advantaged savings vehicles for retirement, health expenses, and education costs, so they could create a similar initiative to deal with situations that require leave.
The primary goals of any government action should be to encourage individuals to provide for themselves and to avoid creating costly mandates that will be a drag on the economy and reduce job opportunities for Americans.

You Can't Beat Something With Nothing...Or Can You?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:21:00 EDT

Over at National Review Online, IWF's Carrie Lukas examines some of the presidential hopefuls' Social Security reform plans. As Carrie notes, candidates seem eager to tell voters what there aren't going to do about Social Security rather than providing a detailed plan to deal with the challenges facing the failing Social Security system:

"This week, presidential hopeful Barack Obama penned an op-ed providing insight into what he might do as President to reform Social Security. Most of his piece focused on what he would not do to solve Social Security's problems: "First, I will fight against efforts to privatize Social Security...Second, I do not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors."

"In other words-as anyone who seeks the Democratic nomination must-Senator Obama bows to the powerful AARP senior lobby, vowing not to do anything to affect the payments given to this richest cohort in our society. He also promises them a tax cut for good measure.

"The only change he recommends considering for Social Security is to raise taxes. Specifically, he proposes eliminating the cap on the amount of income taxed for Social Security. He claims: "If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."

"Yet this massive tax increase would not, in reality, eliminate Social Security's deficit. Under current law, the highest earners' benefits are calculated based on the amount of income they paid payroll taxes on. If the wage cap were eliminated, and Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, and other multi-millionaires paid taxes on all their earnings, then the amount that they would be due at retirement would also soar. A recent Social Security Administration study of eliminating the wage cap found that this massive tax increase would only give Social Security an extra seven years before beginning to run deficits."

FOX's Your World with Neil Cavuto: Subprime lending policies

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:08:00 EDT

Anne discusses sub prime lending policies and home ownership.

More ERA thoughts...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:21:00 EDT

The world has changed since 1972, when the ERA was first introduced. Some of us think it was redundant then. It's certainly superfluous now, as columnist Steve Chapman explains:

"One supporter of the revived amendment is Democratic State Rep. Lindsley Smith of Arkansas, who told The Washington Post, 'The question I get most frequently is, 'Lindsley, I thought this already was in the Constitution.'' What she overlooks is that, for all intents and purposes, it is.

"In the last three decades, the Supreme Court has handed down a string of decisions overturning laws that treat people differently on the basis of sex. It required the all-male Virginia Military Institute to admit females, ordered the Air Force to provide the same dependent benefits to spouses of women as it provides to spouses of men, and struck down an Oklahoma law setting a different drinking age for men and women."

Read the whole column.

The only ERA that matters is in baseball

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:08:00 EDT

Be sure to check out the editorial on the new ERA push in Investor's Business Daily today. IBD rightly calls into question the consequences of the law, the myth of the wage gap, and even gives IWF a shout out.

On the ERA:

"The ERA, as it was called in the heady days of feminism back in 1972, was championed by supporters as a way to 'put women into the Constitution.' Women were said to not be full participants in either American democracy or the American economy. Phrases like 'gender gap' and 'equal pay for equal work' along with the famous 'glass ceiling' came into vogue.

"Concerns about the unintended consequences of its simplistic language and the power it might grant to litigious liberals caused it to fall short of ratification. For example, could insurance companies charge different rates even if actuaries determined women had different health problems and life expectancies?

"With Democrats back in control of Congress, the ERA is back as well, this time under an alias - the Women's Equality Amendment. It was introduced in the Senate and the House last week. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, says he plans hearings on the revived ERA."

On the wage gap:

"Wage discrimination has long been a hot-button issue for liberals. Sen. Hillary Clinton last month introduced something called the Paycheck Fairness Act, complaining that women continue to make 'just 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.' She says the bill would give government more power to make 'an equal paycheck for equal work' a reality.

"The problem with that figure is that it is both right and wrong at the same time. As Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics with the Independent Women's Forum, points out, surveys have long shown that 'women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay.' The 77 cents fails to account for differences in experience, seniority, education and hours worked.

"Women tend to avoid jobs where travel and relocation are required. Their service is often interrupted, they take more hours off, and they spend less time in the office than men. On average, Lukas reports, women leave the work force for a decade to care for their children....

"Where genuine discrimination exists, it should be rooted out. But policy decisions should not be made by statistical anomalies resulting from individual choices. Nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of who they are. But in the real world there are differences between us, including the consequences of our free will, differences that cannot be legislated away."

Read the full article here.