Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Government Regulation

Ban-happy Busybodies

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:33:00 EDT

In his latest mini-documentary over at Reason.tv, Drew Carey gives a good overview of nanny-state regulations:

Strong Arm Tactics Won't Help Consumers At the Pump

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:10:00 EDT

Townhall

Other than being over age 25 and a resident and citizen of the state, there are no qualifications to be a Member of Congress. If you can get the votes, you can become a Member. Yet anyone listening to recent discussions on Capitol Hill about gasoline prices can be forgiven for assuming hubris and economic ignorance are also required.

A headline-making exchange between Representative Maxine Waters and John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Company is just the latest and most egregious example. During questioning, Rep. Waters asked the oil executive to "guarantee" that the price of oil will go down if oil companies are granted authority to drill off U.S. shores. When Mr. Hofmeister failed to offer such a guarantee, Representative Waters issued a threat: "And guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socialize...basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

It's a breathtaking moment of honesty from a member of Congress. So much for concerns about the limits of government authority; so much for respect for private property and free enterprise. Rep. Waters shares the worldview of most of the world's dictators: if industry can't produce the desired results, then government should simply seize their property.

Beyond the totalitarian impulse, the exchange reveals Ms. Waters's ignorance about the role prices play in the economy. In a free market, prices help ensure that supply meets demand. The demand for energy has been growing, not just here in the United States but around the world. Unless supply keeps pace with demand, prices must rise. Rising prices send important signals to both consumers and producers: high prices offer producers an incentive to invest in producing more supply, while consumers are encouraged to buy only what is necessary, preventing shortages. The oil executive cannot promise that the prices will be lower in the future because he cannot know exactly how much demand will increase compared to supply.

Rep. Waters may think that if the federal government seized control of the energy industry, prices would fall, but she'd quickly learn (as did the Soviet bloc) that the laws of supply and demand are tough to escape.

Many will dismiss this exchange, made by one of the more radical, leftist Members, as out of step with the rest of the Majority. Yet the actual legislation that has been offered and passed in the name of bringing down oil prices reflects the same economic ignorance, and even shades of the same authoritarian impulse.

The "Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act," for example, has a nice sounding title, but actually will do little to advance the cause of lowering gas prices. The legislation would empower the U.S. government to sue foreign governments under U.S. antitrust laws. Of course, the government would have a tough time enforcing any decisions rendered against OPEC countries. Such action would be more likely to encourage retaliation then to actually encourage an increase in oil production.

The law would, however, have a real effect here at home, since the newly created antitrust task force at the Department of Justice would have massive new oversight authority over domestic producers. Forcing domestic energy companies to comply with additional document requests and new regulations would do nothing to encourage additional production here either-to the contrary, it would act as another drag on the industry and discourage new production.

Another piece of legislation championed by the House Majority, the "Energy Price Gouging Act" would create new penalties, fines, and possible jail time, for anyone in the energy supply chain found to inflate the price of energy "artificially." The federal government already has the power to investigate charges of price gouging, so this legislation would do little other than to discourage companies to do business, particularly in times of disaster or when supplies are short and price increases are an economic necessity.

The big losers from this ham-handed approach to policy are consumers. While there are certainly many factors at work in energy markets, supply and demand remain the basic factors that determine price. The problem we face today is that while demand for energy has grown dramatically, supply has not.

Many policymakers-particularly those on the Left who want to be seen as both environmentally friendly and a champion of the little guy-are uncomfortable with this simple fact. They damn the energy companies for high prices but work with environmental groups to prevent additional exploration and refining capacity. They're used to cognitive dissonance, but don't want voters to make the connection between their policies and its consequences.

If drivers are hoping for relief at the pump this summer, it's not going to come from Capitol Hill.

The Thom Hartmann Show: Deregulating health insurance

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:44:00 EDT

On this week's appearance on The Thom Hartmann Show, Carrie Lukas discusses whether deregulating the health insurance will turn it into the wild, wild west.

The 'Diversity' Threat to California Charity

info@iwf.org (Heather R. Higgins) — Fri, 30 May 2008 11:03:00 EDT

The Wall Street Journal

A bill purporting to encourage diversity among nonprofits has passed the California Assembly and faces a key vote in the state senate in early June. While little attention has been paid to this bill, it poses an enormous threat to private philanthropy in this country.

The Foundation Diversity and Transparency Act requires California foundations with $250 million in assets to report the composition by ethnicity and gender orientation of their boards and staffs, the boards and staffs of the charities they support, and the degree to which they are run by or support certain minorities.

The bill has been rightly criticized for its potentially crippling costs: fewer funds and greater bureaucratic burdens for the thousands of charities served by charitable foundations. Worse is the attempt to institute quotas through the back door. A group dedicated, say, to protecting sea otters, will begin to worry about the future of its grants if its staff isn't sufficiently ethnically diverse, or if its non-minority-interest-serving cause is now less favored. Meanwhile, the Latina executive director of a community organization might wonder if putting a white woman or gay Alaskan Native on her board is a good idea to keep happy the diversity-counters at the foundations that support her organization.

The Greenlining Institute, a racial-justice advocacy group that is a strong sponsor of the bill, asserts that only "20% of foundation funding from the state's 50 largest foundations is going to 'minority serving' causes," an "embarrassingly low" number. Come again? In the first place, many foundations specialize in altogether different causes. Moreover, the phrase "minority-serving" deliberately obscures such everyone-serving causes as hospitals, medical research, homeless shelters, educational initiatives, substance-abuse treatment and environmental improvement activities. But even a charity that feeds or educates minority kids is not considered minority serving - unless the organization is itself 50%-plus minority staffed and minority controlled.

Champions of the bill claim that its only goal is to "request diversity data." Then why force the donors to collect this information from grantees, instead of asking each registered charitable organization simply to report the information directly to the government? The bill's critics fear the real goal is to pressure charities into meeting "diversity" goals out of fear of displeasing their funders - who themselves fear that ultimately their ability to set their own goals, or even their tax-exempt status, will be at risk if diversity goals aren't met.

The bill creates the opportunity for grandstanding, public relations shakedowns, and litigation. Already, foundations that have questioned this legislation have been publicly attacked. The executive director of Greenlining recently stated that "most of our money comes from lawsuits."

The "diversity" bill, if enacted into law, would be just the beginning. Already contemplated is legislation to cover all foundations, and all grant recipients, not just in California, but nationally; and to broaden reporting requirements to include the aged or the disabled. Ultimately, this all leads in one direction: to politically determine how private charities manage and deploy their resources.

At a recent hearing, state senators claimed that because of their tax exemptions, taxpayers "subsidize" charities and charitable money is "taxpayer money." But a tax exemption must not be confused with an actual government appropriation. The benefits arising from various tax exemptions - everything from libraries to child care, art galleries to IRAs - do not mean that the private money involved is suddenly public, giving politicians the right to strong-arm givers, or recipients. Yet such is the direction California is going.

The state senate should understand what a disincentive - and an injustice - it would be for the government to micromanage private charity to favor a preferred political agenda, thereby turning private funds into public funds by diktat.

Ms. Higgins is Chairman of IWF's Board of Directors and Vice Chairman of the Philanthropy Roundtable.

55 Feedback with Pat Snyder: Title IX

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:40:00 EDT

IWF Director of the R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies Allison Kasic discusses the dangers of using Title IX to increase women's participation in the sciences.

The Thom Hartmann Show: Encourage women participation in the sciences

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 27 May 2008 13:51:00 EDT

IWF Director of the R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies Allison Kasic joined The Thom Hartmann Show to discuss whether the government should offer incentives to encourage more women to participate in the sciences.

Title IX Invades Academia

info@iwf.org (Stacy Chin) — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:45:00 EDT

In a paper released today, "Studying Women and Science: Why Women's Lower Rate of Participation Rate in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Courses Isn't a Problem for the Government to Solve," Carrie Lukas argues that this application of Title IX would be unnecessary and an inappropriate use of government power. This paper explores claims that discrimination is the primary cause of men's and women's different participation rates and details the many other factors-such as differences in aptitudes, temperament, and interest-that likely contribute to this outcome.

IWF's Allison Kasic also wrote a piece that was published last week on Townhall.com which warns about the potential consequences of expanding Title IX in the academic arena.

Position Paper No. 608 Studying Women and Science

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 19 May 2008 09:53:00 EDT

Executive Summary

In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences released a report, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, which examined the causes of the different rates of participation among women and men in science, technology, engineering, and mathematic disciplines (STEM).[i] The report explored several potential factors that might contribute to fewer women than men pursuing STEM degrees, but concluded that discrimination was the central impediment to women's progress in these fields. The report called for greater government action and oversight to reverse this trend. The media have reported these findings, and many policymakers have embraced the report and explored legislation to codify the report's recommendations.

Yet policymakers and the public should not simply accept the report's conclusion that discrimination is the primary cause of enrollment differences and should consider the potential pitfalls of greater government involvement in students' decisions about what field to pursue. Innate differences in aptitudes, temperament, and interest likely play a role in leading fewer women than men to pursue and commit to STEM disciplines. Attempts to steer students toward one area of study to achieve a politically correct gender balance would ignore students' true preferences, potentially leaving them worse off.

Greater government intervention to encourage institutions to reach an outcome closer to parity in enrollment in STEM fields could also have a discriminatory impact on men. While policymakers and bureaucrats attempting to institute policies to encourage institutional change would undoubtedly claim not to be creating a "quota" or encouraging the creation of different expectations for male and female students, the experience with the use of Title IX in the athletic arena should serve as a warning to the public. Title IX has encouraged schools to embrace a quota mentality in college athletics, leading many schools to eliminate men's teams in order to reduce the number of male athletes so that men's and women's participation rates are more equal. If this approach is applied to academic subjects, it could adversely impact students and scholarship.

Even those who champion women's interests alone should be concerned about the potential for Title IX's application to academy. After all, women now account for six in ten undergraduate students, and earn the overwhelming majority of degrees in biology, psychology, and much of the humanities. If Title IX is applied to STEM, it would be reasonable to assume that Title IX also would have to be applied to other academic areas. As a result, women may find themselves discouraged from pursuing disciplines that, for a host of reasons, they have traditionally found most attractive.

To the extent that there are barriers to women pursuing STEM, including discrimination against women and stereotypes that deter women from pursuing these fields, individual institutions are best suited to counteract these problems. Numerous nonprofit organizations reach out to young women to encourage them to pursue degrees in STEM fields. Individual schools are attempting to reach out to prospective female students as well as find ways to make STEM departments more hospitable to female students. These are the best ways to alleviate social pressures without undermining the independence of the academy.

[i] National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2007.

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.

IWF Podcast: Government Band-aids

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:48:00 EDT

Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas encourage policymakers to consider policies that will spur economic growth and job creation, rather than focusing on big government band-aids.

The Andy Caldwell Show: The Economy and Government's Role

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:39:00 EDT

IWF Director of the R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies Allison Kasic joins The Andy Caldwell Show to discuss the economy and what role the government should play.

Network: KINF AM 1440
Program: The Andy Caldwell Show
Time: 6:00 - 6:30 am ET
Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2008

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.

Sadly, This isn't an April Fools Joke

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:02:00 EDT

In today's Wall Street Journal, Clark Neily points to a push for new government regulations that seem so over the top that it must be an April Fools joke. Unfortunately, it is not:

Imagine you were a state legislator and some folks asked you to pass a law making it a crime to give advice about paint colors and throw pillows without a license. And imagine they told you that the only people qualified to place large pieces of furniture in a room are those who have gotten a college degree in interior design, completed a two-year apprenticeship, and passed a national licensing exam. And by the way, it is criminally misleading for people who practice interior design to use that term without government permission.

You might stare at them incredulously for a moment, then look down at your calendar and say, "Oh, I get it -- April Fool!" Right? Wrong.

These folks represent the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), an industry group whose members have waged a 30-year, multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign to legislate their competitors out of business. And those absurd restrictions on advice about paint selection, throw pillows and furniture placement represent the actual fruits of lobbying in places like Alabama, Nevada and Illinois, where ASID and its local affiliates have peddled their snake-oil mantra that "Every decision an interior designer makes affects life safety and quality of life."

More here.

The Right Balance: Squeezing the Middle Class

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:13:00 EST

Allison Kasic joins The Right Balance with Greg Allen to discuss "Squeezing the Middle Class," an op-ed written by IWF's Carrie Lukas.

One News Now: Taxes on oil

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:11:00 EST

One News Now

Economic analyst Carrie Lukas says a bill approved by the U.S. House that includes $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies would only further drive up the cost of gasoline at the pump and make America's energy problems worse.

Democrats says the billions collected from raising taxes on oil would provide necessary tax breaks for wind, solar, and alternative energy sources. But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) scoffed at the measure, saying the Democratic majority chose tax breaks for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez over tax cuts for middle-class families. Democrats rejected a GOP proposal that would permanently end the marriage penalty and keep the child tax credit intact.

Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum (IWF), a Washington, DC-based conservative think tank, argues the new taxes on oil companies discourage domestic energy production. "That's really not the direction that America wants to go when we have these demands for energy and really high costs," she attests.

Lukas says alternative fuels have a role to play, but the government needs to stop funding politically correct ones and let entrepreneurs decide what sources are the most efficient. "The government needs to stop trying to punish oil and gas companies and instead get out of their way so that they can start developing and finding new sources of energy to bring [down] some of these prices we face ...," says the IWF spokeswoman.

In addition, Lukas argues that America does not need new energy taxes. "When you add a tax, when you make something more expensive, that's going to passed on to the consumer," she points out.

"The simple fact is [that] when our gas prices go up, it's because of a scarcity of oil and gasoline," she continues. "So we don't want to make it worse [and] make it more expensive by taxing it; we need to find new ways, make it easier for gas and oil to come into the marketplace. Really, what we need the government to do is to get out of the way and stop trying to pick winners and losers."

Lukas says she is all for eliminating tax loopholes, but that it must be done in the context of comprehensive tax reform. She notes the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, which puts domestic companies at a significant disadvantage.

IWF Policy Brief #13: Congress Should Commit to Restraining Spending

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:51:00 EST

Executive Summary

As Congress considers how to boost the economy, they should begin by ceasing behavior that harms the economy: this means ending wasteful government spending and reforming entitlement programs to reduce the government's implicit debt.

Federal spending has been growing at a pace that outpaces inflation and population growth. While some of this growth can be justified as necessary to fund the war effort and national security activities, non-defense discretionary spending grew by more than a third in real terms since 1999.

Discussions of spending restraint often focus on eliminating government waste and frivolous earmarks-important goals to be sure. Yet the most important budgetary problem facing the government is the growing cost of entitlement programs. Already more than half of the federal budget is on autopilot. Social Security and Medicare alone consume 40 percent of the federal budget. As the baby boomers retire, the costs of these programs will swell. If nothing is done to address their costs, spending on other programs (including defense) will be crowded out, taxes will have to rise dramatically, or we will incur massive new debt.

Policymakers should act soon to control spending, both by ending government waste and by reforming entitlement programs.

Position Paper No. 606 Who Pays for My Time Off? The Costs and Consequences of Government-Mandated Leave

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:52:00 EST

Download Position Paper No. 606 below.

Introduction

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.

Regulating Cable

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:59:00 EST

The editors of National Review have a good editorial today about the flawed push for federal regulations to require cable companies to provide a la carte programming. As they point out, the bundling model is preferable and parents concerned with indecent material have other options:

All channels...benefit from the bundling model, which allows them to access households that might not otherwise be interested in their programming. For this reason, TV programmers have signed contracts with cable companies that prohibit à la carte sales. Forcing the cable companies to ignore these agreements would amount to a wholesale overwriting of private contractual arrangements. Supporters of à la carte have failed to demonstrate a need for such dirigisme. If consumer demand for à la carte options is sufficiently strong, there is no structural impediment to the market's satisfaction of it.

Some social conservatives argue that parents should be able to buy the Disney Channel without having to let MTV's 24-hour sleaze-a-thon into their homes. But parents who wish to shield their children from immoral influences are not without options. They can monitor their children's viewing, block channels, or forgo cable (or television) altogether. We realize that the existence of these options falls short of a comprehensive solution to the difficulties of raising children in a culture that sometimes seems hostile to the enterprise. But the answer is not a mandate that would trample private contract rights and drive religious programming off the air.

Earlier this year, IWF tackled this issue in our special report Indecency, which is available online here.

IWF Policy Brief #5: Senator Clinton's Plan to Expand Family and Medical Leave

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:36:00 EDT

Download the complete Policy Brief below.

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.

Related Podcast:

Family and Medical Leave Act with Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas

IWF Policy Brief #3: Bigger Waistlines or Bigger Government? Obesity Policy in America

info@iwf.org (Christie Raniszewski Herrera) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:32:00 EDT

Download the complete Policy Brief below.

Executive Summary

Americans are regularly warned about the new "epidemic" threatening its citizens: obesity. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has purported that more than 66 percent of Americans are overweight or obese, and that obesity-related deaths top more than 400,000 per year. These alarming statistics are used by politicians to justify new regulations taxes, and government programs that discourage Americans from unhealthy eating.

Before the public accepts bigger government as a solution to obesity, they should take a more measured look at the extent of the problem of obesity and its consequences. Undoubtedly, many Americans may feel healthier if they lost weight. However, a more physically fit America will be the result of more personal responsibility, not big government.

Markets, Not Mandates, Are the Way to Provide for Paid Leave

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 09 May 2007 00:00:00 EDT

"This debate is really about what we value in this nation. If we want strong families and a strong economy, if we care about the health, well-being and economic security of our families, we will waste no time in passing the Healthy Families Act."

That's the case for requiring businesses with fifteen or more employees to provide seven days of paid sick leave, as articulated by Debra Ness, president of the liberal National Partnership for Women and Families, at a recent Senate hearing. Opposing this legislation means opposing cancer patients and single mothers with terminally ill children--at least that's how the Left would like the debate over the creation of massive new federal mandates to unfold.

But you don't need to be an economist to understand that the issue is more complicated than just whether you care about the sick. Such government regulations infringe on an individual's right to freely contract for employment. These laws make it illegal to offer or accept a job that fails to provide this one specific form of compensation. That's a loss of liberty for individuals. It makes our workplaces a little less flexible, and is another step away from the concept of the free market economy and toward greater government control.

The practical effect for employees is that there will be fewer jobs and lower pay. Mandates create new costs for employers, and that means less money for employees. Many workers will find that there is a direct trade-off between more benefits and more take-home pay. Benefits accounted for more than 30 percent of the average worker's total compensation in 2006. A new mandate like paid leave means that this portion will grow, leaving less money in the average worker's pocket to spend or save as he sees fit.

The increased cost of hiring a worker also gives employers another reason to cut down on staff and look for opportunities to outsource jobs, so they don't have to pay to administer and implement these costly benefits.

Policymakers have better options if they want to help individuals who need time off from their jobs due to illness or other personal circumstances. First, it's important to recognize that most businesses are already providing paid leave benefits and finding other ways to help their workers address their personal needs.

According to the Department of Labor, in 2006, 82 percent of American workers in the private sector had access to some sort of paid leave, whether sick leave, vacation, or personal leave. Many businesses are also choosing to offer employees greater flexibility with their work hours and arrangements. As of May 2004, 27 percent of full-time wage and salary workers had arrangements that allowed them to vary their work start and end times. More than four million Americans telecommute most days and an estimated twenty million telecommute at least once a month. This flexibility provides employees with many advantages, including great ability to care for personal and family needs. Businesses competing to attract employees find that it makes business sense to offer such arrangements. That's how it works in a dynamic market economy.

In addition to relying on the competitive marketplace, policymakers should look at ways to make it easier for individuals to provide for themselves during periods when they cannot work. A first step would be to eliminate disincentives for private savings in our tax code to encourage individuals to put money away to provide for themselves in times of need. The government has created tax advantaged accounts for retirement, for educational expenses, and for healthcare costs. Similar efforts could be made to encourage individuals to save to provide for periods of leave. Workers could be allowed to put a few thousand pre-tax dollars per year into a "Paid Leave" savings account, which could be accessed without penalty when they have to take unpaid (or partially paid) leave due to illness or the birth of a child.

Such proposals won't provide the kind of sympathetic stories that appeal to the media or make for tear-jerking congressional testimony, but they will make it easier for individuals to provide for themselves when they are unable to work. Government mandates may sound like compassion, but they impose real costs on employers and ultimately on the employees they are intended to help.

IWF Podcast: Indecency

info@iwf.org (Solveig Singleton) — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:17:00 EST

IWF Visiting Fellow, Solveig Singleton, discusses the special report, Indecency, which examines the many problems with the government's attempts to regulate media content.

In the News: IWF Special Report on Indecency.

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:00:00 EST

The Insider

Solveig Singleton, in a new report for the Independent Women's Forum, says government regulation of media content is a bad idea, concerns about indecency notwithstanding. Among the important points she makes:

Parents today have many tools for making sure material they find objectionable does not reach their kids.

Government regulation of content is unlikely to influence personal behavior significantly:

Public policy makers often make decisions based on individuals who are at risk and who are likely to benefit from government intervention. But would a kid who is at risk because of absent or uninvolved parents benefit from a top-down approach to media regulation? It is highly unlikely; media consumption is a relatively small factor in determining an individual's life outcome, and entertainment programming is only part of the media.
Treating the entire country as if it were a dysfunctional family on the off chance of having a minimal impact on a minimal number of youngsters is a dangerous direction for our republic. There are many better ways to help at-risk kids, starting with school vouchers to improve the quality of educational opportunities and to bring safer schools and better role models within kids' reach.

The Federal Communications Commission acknowledges that it cannot define indecency once and for all. Yet, it is contrary to historical experience to expect that regulators would not abuse the power to decide on a case-by-case basis what is indecent:

Presidents Nixon and Kennedy both ordered crackdowns on radio stations critical of their policies under the now defunct "Fairness Doctrine." How far could newspapers have pursued their aggressive reporting on the Watergate scandal if there had been "public interest" controls on the print media?

Self Discipline, Not Regulation, Needed for Ethical Business

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:00:00 EST

Townhall.com

Even as the new Congress prepares to convene in just a few short weeks, it's still unclear exactly what voters can expect in terms of big domestic policy changes. Tax policy, Social Security reform, healthcare policy, the environment, all these issues loom before the new Congress, but Democrats have not yet indicated exactly where they will take the country while in the new majority.

One priority is clear: Paving the way for more ethical government must top the agenda for both parties in the upcoming Congressional session. Democrats need to deliver on their most clearly articulated campaign promise and Republicans have to regain the trust of voters. This may mean Congress will create new laws to limit interaction between policymakers and lobbyists or eliminate earmark appropriations, which invite corruption.

While Congress attempts to clean its house, corporate America would be wise to do the same. Five years ago, the American economy was rocked by some of the biggest corporate scandals in history. Enron and Worldcom collapsed under the weight of massive fraud and corruption, ruining investors and employee pensions while shocking the public.

There were plenty of existing laws broken by Enron and Worldcom senior officials and some employees. But Congress wasn't satisfied to let the judicial process work and watch the perpetrators get sentenced to prison. Instead, at least in part to demonstrate their disgust for this corruption, Congress created a thicket of new regulations through a law commonly referred to as Sarbanes-Oxley.

Sarbanes-Oxley increased penalties for corporate malfeasance, instituted new requirements for companies' disclosure of their internal audit systems, and made executives personally and criminally liable for their public financial reports. Not surprisingly, these new requirements entail significant costs for businesses. Compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley has cost companies an estimated $35 billion, a burden that is particularly onerous for small businesses.

Analysts worry that these regulations have made America a less attractive climate for business. These regulations, their costs, and the significant liabilities facing executives and board members may discourage small businesses or foreign entities from listing their companies on an American stock exchange.

America's business climate already has some significant drawbacks that make companies increasingly interested in locating elsewhere. Our complex tax code includes one of the highest business tax rates in the world. Companies face the specter of high legal costs from our litigation-happy society. Regulations that require businesses to provide expensive benefits and high payroll taxes make hiring American workers costly. Policymakers who complained about a lack of "good" jobs may want to consider if there was any drag from Sarbannes-Oxley and seek ways to make the United States more attractive for businesses.

Sarbanes-Oxley's intent was in part to do just that by reassuring investors about the security of investing in American companies. Transparency and reliable financial records certainly are critical to ensuring that investors have the information they need to evaluate companies and can comfortably invest their money. Yet policymakers need to carefully weigh if the new regulations' benefits outweigh their costs, and with portions of Sarbanes-Oxley, it seems clear that the costs outstrip the benefits.

No set of regulations, of course, is going to prevent some businesses from behaving badly In spite of these myriad regulations and requirements, corporate scandals continue to make headlines. Hewlett Packard's chairman, Patricia C. Dunn, had to resign after revelations of the company spying on their employees and board members. Reports recently surfaced about UnitedHealth Group's slipshod method of issuing executives stock options and a board replete with conflicts of interest. In October, Oracle agreed to pay a $98.5 million fine for charging the U.S. government inflated prices for software and service for eight years, reminding the public that taxpayers often are among the victims of corporate scandals.

None of these recent scandals has sufficiently impressed the public's consciousness to prompt meaningful Congressional action. The Dow's record highs and the economy's steady growth quell the impulse for Congress to push new reforms. Yet that could change at any moment.

Businesses can help themselves by examining their own practices to ensure that they meet high ethical standards. If they don't and Congress moves toward to new regulations, it could be our economy that pays the price.

A Discount Cornucopia of Gratitude: Giving thanks for Wal-Mart

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:00:00 EST

National Review

"Black Friday," the first day of the holiday shopping season, will soon be upon us. Crazed bargain hunters will line up at 2:00 A.M. for the chance at a $10 DVD player or a free (after rebate) pack of printer paper-- anything retailers think will get shoppers through the door. This consumer frenzy will be accompanied by reports of unruly shoppers pushing and shoving each other to grab limited deals, followed by earnest pundits debating whether capitalism has gone too far.

Wal-Mart and its price-cutting smiley face will be at the center of this debate. To the anti-corporate Left, Wal-Mart represents everything wrong with America.

A few years ago, Starbucks was the target of this anti-capitalist ire. Globalphobes protested "corporate coffee," which they claimed impoverished farmers, drove out local shops, and ruined communities' aesthetic character. Yet Starbucks was an awkward villain for the Left because mainstream Democrats often are its most reliable customers. Urban liberal yuppies guiltily enjoy Starbucks's comfy couches, clean restrooms, and eclectic music. Even the occasional sheepish protestor can be seen waiting in line for his morning caffeine.

Wal-Mart is a more comfortable enemy because it's synonymous with red-state America. It caters to middle- and lower-income families concerned about saving a few dollars. Unlike Starbucks, which was born in the hipster mecca of Seattle, Wal-Mart hails from Bentonville, Arkansas-- about as red-state as it gets.

The latest shot across Wal-Mart's bow is a documentary called Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. The film makes a familiar case: That the big box retailer ruins communities by driving out mom-and-pop stores and good jobs and replacing them with a heartless corporation that mistreats and underpays its workers.

This plotline may set heads nodding in the East Village, but it's woefully disconnected from the facts. Global Insights, an economic analysis firm, released a report earlier this month that details Wal-Mart's impact on local communities and the wider economy. It will be difficult for anti-corporate fanatics to dismiss the report as Wal-Mart propaganda because it was reviewed by an independent panel of economists, including a scholar at the liberal, oh sorry, "centrist" Brookings Institution.

Global Insights found that Wal-Mart's expansion between 1985 and 2004 was associated with a 9.1 percent drop in the price of food at home, a 4.2 percent decline in the price of other commodities and goods, and a 3.1 percent decline in consumer prices overall, as measured by the consumer price index. As a result, Wal-Mart saves the average working family about $2,329 per year.

Even families who don't shop at Wal-Mart benefit from the competition caused by the chain's low prices. And some may be shocked to find that Wal-Mart was responsible for a net increase of 210,000 jobs in 2004 alone. Global Insights didn't find evidence that Wal-Mart workers are paid below market wages and concluded that "real wages were 0.9% higher by 2004 than they would have been in an economy without Wal-Mart."

Wal-Mart is also what the Left might call a good corporate citizen, giving away $170 million to non-profits and charities in 2004. Wal-Mart was a leader in responding to Hurricane Katrina, giving $17 million in cash donations to relief efforts and another $3.5 million in merchandise to shelters and command centers in the affected region.

Private charity and job creation isn't enough for politicians who see the retail giant as a cash cow ripe for the milking. The Maryland state legislature, for example, has targeted Wal-Mart with legislation that would force the company to spend more on employee healthcare. The legislation applies solely to companies with more than 10,000 workers in the state-- and Wal-Mart is the only corporation that meets this criterion.

If this bill becomes law, Wal-Mart likely will comply by shelling out more money for employee healthcare. Yet lawmakers should consider Wal-Mart's alternative: It could fire employees in Maryland until fewer than 10,000 remain on the payroll-- hardly an outcome good for Maryland citizens or their representatives. Although cutting its workforce by some 5,000 people isn't something the company wants to do, it would help cure imperious politicians of seeing Wal-Mart as a state welfare agency and force kooky anti-Wal-Mart types to remember that employees need employers.

Ultimately, the extreme anti-Wal-Mart campaign will fail because millions of people still will choose to shop there. The real danger is that damage to the company's image will leave it vulnerable to the kind of legislative theft now being practiced in Maryland. The eventual result will be higher prices, tighter family budgets, and fewer jobs. The cultural elitists might feel satisfaction, but America will be the poorer.

Carrie Lukas is the director of policy at the Independent Women's Forum.