Independent Women's Forum - Inkwell

Obama Keeps Fighting for Health Care, But Why?

info@iwf.org (Sabrina Schaeffer) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:27:00 EST

As the health care fight goes on…and on…and on, some might begin to wonder why President Obama and the Democrats continue to press forward despite the lack of public support and the deepening economic woes that confronting the country.

Gallup tells us that Obama’s job approval has reached a new low at 46 percent, with a 45 percent disapproval rate. And Rasmussen tells us that 82 percent of the country views jobs and the economy as a very important issue. (And 81% see ethics issues as very important!)

Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal is wondering the same thing. The fact is, over the past year, the Democrats have gone through several different reasons to fight. Early on, for instance, she explains they relied on the hypothesis, "If We Build It, They Will Come."

But ObamaCare ain’t no baseball field. Today the American public still rejects government-run health care:

Whatever their view on individual elements of the legislation, Americans now firmly believe the sum total is a monstrosity that will harm the economy, cost too much, raise their premiums, and result in higher taxes.

With the spring recess just weeks away, President Obama and his congressional colleagues are making one final push. Strassel calls this the "'Democrats Must Prove They Can Lead' theory." Or, we better show voters why they should show up and vote for us in November:

Put another way, Democrats will prove to voters how capable they are by passing a bill that most voters—including 62% of independents—hate. Curious. This theory also assumes Americans will confuse Cornhusker kickbacks, Christmas Eve votes, and a desperate reconciliation process with "governance." Curiouser. Most curious is that this theory does not allow for Democrats to prove their leadership by dropping ObamaCare and instead passing measures that are popular with the public and have bipartisan support.

The truth is, the American people don’t want a massive overhaul of health care (Stay Tuned for an IWV healthcare poll, to be released next week!), and it’s looking more and more like they question Democrats ability to get the job done.

Government-Run Student-Loan Scheme a Higher Edu-bacle

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:08:00 EST

It seems health care isn't enough-now the feds want to taker over college loans. U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan blasted banks last month for making profits on student loan interest. Secretary Duncan says his department is the better education investment vehicle. More like Department of Motor Vehicles, says Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), a former U.S. education secretary and former president of the University of Tennessee.

"Here is what they haven't told us," says Sen. Alexander. "The Education Department will borrow money at 2.8 percent from the Treasury, lend it to you at 6.8 percent and spend the difference on new programs. So you'll work longer to pay off your student loan to help pay for someone else's education -- and to help your U.S. representative's reelection." But what about Secretary Duncan's concern that college students graduate with debt averaging more than $20,000? Sen. Alexander does the math.

Typically students have an "average loan debt of $24,651. Assuming a standard 10-year repayment at 6.8 percent, those students would pay roughly $9,400 in interest. If we really want to save students money, why not just reduce the interest rate by 1.5 percentage points, to 5.3 percent, saving students $2,240 in interest?" Sen. Alexander explains that roughly 2,000 lenders offer government-backed student loans on more than 4,000 campuses. If students are smart enough to go to college, shouldn't they be smart enough to pick the lender they prefer?

Apparently not. Secretary Duncan says it's time to shift to "direct lending"and end "wasteful subsidies to banks." But how is ED, a government bureaucracy, better situated to be a lender-much less one that's not wasteful-since it exists on subsidies, too?

A better approach would be to let parents and students put aside as much as they can into tax-exempt college savings accounts at banks that offer the most competitive rates. Keeping more of their money would also get to the source of wasteful subsidies, namely government. Let other family members and even employers make tax-deductible contributions to those accounts as well. Meanwhile, cut the ED bureaucracy and redirect funds into college grants for students based on financial need. Make postsecondary institutions' federal funding contingent upon matching those federal grants by streamlining their own administration and cutting costs.

Such an approach would expand students' and their families' options for financing higher education, while helping shrink government back to its proper scope.

The Internet as a Battleground

info@iwf.org (Megan Carl) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:44:00 EST

The Washington Post ran an article Wednesday about the Iranian regime's response to the opposition movement's online activities. Truly, the internet is a critical battlefront for the opposition to the current Iranian regime. The article explains that after the controversial June presidential election in Iran, the opposition took to the Web to engage, organize, and get their message out. This very real and serious political drama is being played out on the most expansive and effective media platform in the world.

The internet is the newest frontline for political debate and organization, both here at home and abroad. It provides a space for those with similar convictions and causes to meet, discuss, organize, and promote their ideas. This medium is essential to the ‘tech-savvy' opposition movement in Iran-which utilizes social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and blog platforms. In many countries, it is a relatively safe place to organize politically--but not in Iran.

Just as physical demonstrations in the streets have been met by harsh crackdowns by Iranian security forces (whose orders come from the regime), such is the case with the online demonstrations. Anti-government activists who use the internet as a medium for their message are being shut down, even detained. Bloggers and Facebook users who write the truth about the regime and who organize for the opposition are facing regime-backed hackers and ‘cyber-intelligence units.' A law is also on the books, which threatens to jail bloggers for the vague crime of "[defaming] sanctities."

This is unsurprising behavior. We have come to expect Iran to impede upon civil society and free speech. Since we enjoy such uninhibited internet access here in the States, it is hard to comprehend the extent to which the Iranian regime controls the internet access of its people. They have the power to shut off the internet entirely (e.g., during a protest), filter blogs, and regularly block millions of domestic and foreign websites. News sites such as CNN and BBC are inaccessible. (How dare they report on the popular unrest in Iran!) The supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei defends the regime's restrictive actions as necessary. He claims they are in response to the U.S. and other Western countries using the internet in an aim to defeat the Islamic Republic.

The Post's article describes a recent change in U.S. trade policy - pushed by the State Department - which will now allow American companies to export social media technology to Iran. Companies like Google and Microsoft can now export "free mass-market software," to Iran. Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said that the "free flow of information" is a basic human right, and that Iranians will be able to benefit from this software. However, if and when the software will become readily available to the people is yet to be seen.

Big ED Takes Aim at Waste...With 27 New Shotguns

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:51:00 EST

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan vowed this year's $47 billion department budget would advance reform and cut waste. Apparently Big ED isn't kidding.

His department is buying 27 Remington Brand Model 870 police 12-gauge shotguns, which must be compatible with ED's existing shotgun inventory-"all new, no re-manufactured products, thank you," says the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is the education department's law enforcement arm and "is responsible for the detection of waste, fraud, abuse, and other criminal activity involving Federal education funds, programs, and operations. As such, OIG operates with full statutory law enforcement authority, which includes conducting search warrants, making arrests, and carrying firearms."

The OIG would not provide any examples of using firearms while cracking down on fraud. Still, knowing that the OIG is packing may help deter would-be crooks.

Growing Skepticism About Global Warming

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:13:00 EST

Although many lawmakers seem increasingly willing to discount public sentiment about public policy, it's certainly good news that a fewer Americans are buying global warming alarmism. Gallup reports:

Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.

Gallup also notes that today fewer Americans believe that global warming is due to human activities. In 2003, six in ten thought temperature increases were the result of man; now just five in ten do. In 2003, 33 percent thought temperature changes were just part of nature: today, that's the opinion of 46 percent.

Too bad Gallup didn't ask more about the public policy options that leaders are advancing in the name of global warming. Undoubtedly, even a big chunk of those who believe in man-made global warming recognize that U.S. efforts to curb carbon emissions wouldn't be meaningfully changing rising temperatures and would have a devastating impact on our economy and on family finances.

A Race or a Scramble to the "Top"? First-Round Finalists for Federal Cash Baffling

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:17:00 EST

(This post was co-authored by Evelyn B. Stacey, education policy analyst at the Pacific Research Institute, a free-market think tank in Sacramento, California)

Last week's Race to the Top (RTTT) announcement of the 16 finalist states has generated an outpouring of media coverage. At issue isn't just who made the cut but who didn't. Among the 40 states that applied for a slice of more than $4 billion in federal-funding pie, California didn't make the cut. Its share would have been up to $700 million.

The Los Angeles Times speculated that union influence compromised California's application: "...from our perspective, what the schools needed were rules allowing district administrators, not union contracts, to determine which teachers should work at specific campuses, so that urban schools with mostly poor, minority students would be staffed by excellent educators." The San Francisco Chronicle agreed:

One thing that definitely went wrong [with California's application] was the attitude of the state teachers' unions. Union leaders fought the reform legislation at every turn and managed to water down the package that eventually passed in January. Marty Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers, even said he wasn't sorry that California lost the first round.

Others were surprised New York made the first cut. The Washington Post suggested the finalists' list needs some "whittling." States like Louisiana, Tennessee and Florida mandate that student achievement factor heavily into teacher evaluations-so their inclusion made sense But "it's puzzling to see how New York, with its failure to enact new charter school laws and its ban on the use of student test scores in teacher tenure decisions, made the grade," noted the Post. "Ditto Kentucky, where there is no charter law. Some observers who thought Ohio had a weak application wondered if its importance on the political map might be a factor."

The Wall Street Journal called it a case of "no state left behind," and quoted Joe Williams of Democrats for Education, who called New York's inclusion "baffling." AEI's Andrew Smarick likened the RTTT competition thus far to a "cake walk" because a many state finalists "have glaring deficiencies that would make them unable to get over a medium bar, much less the ‘very, very high bar' that Secretary Duncan said he would set."

There results may go to show that government-no matter how lavishly it spends-can only do so much when it comes to meaningful education reform. True change comes from empowering parents to become involved in their own child's education.

But stay tuned on April 1^st when the final winners will be announced. The deadline for round two of the RTTT competition is June 1. It's anyone's guess where the race goes from here.

This Week's Top Ten

info@iwf.org (Megan Carl) info@iwf.org (Helen Whalen-Cohen ) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:29:00 EST

10. So much for public 'servants'.

9. Are you an avid fisherman or fisherwoman? Don't want the government intruding on your favorite pastime? Then you must read this.

8. Is hurtful speech protected speech?

7. We're all criminals now, or at least will be treated like them.

6. The damage and consequences of the chaos after the Haitian quake are far-reaching and conditions in make-shift camps are dangerous for everyone-particularly women.

5. Ironically, the DC government provides evidence of the Laffer curve at work.

4. A Californian, ‘landmark' legislation is now just a source of embarrassment-especially for Governor Schwarzenegger.

3. If Obama's health care plan is so great, then why all the trouble to get people to accept it?

2. A comical, but nonetheless serious look at what us humans could learn about health care from...pet health care?

1. Check out Carrie Lukas' profiling of New York Times endorsed classroom activities aimed at teaching kiddies about global warming. (Hope you're not looking for a balanced presentation of viewpoints in this curriculum.)

More Blame for Unions that Block Reform

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:47:00 EST

Teachers unions protect bad teachers, stifle reform, and hurt students' education in USA Today's opinion. They're not alone.

In recent weeks, Time, the Economist, the Los Angeles Times, and others have expressed frustration (and outrage) at union leadership's efforts to block common-sense reforms. Even President Obama and U.S Secretary of Education Arne Duncan praised a Rhode Island school district superintendent for firing the entire staff at a local failing high school because of over-the-top union demands. As USA Today says:

At this time of high unemployment, one group of professionals has no shortage of job security: bad teachers.... Nationwide, 2% or fewer teachers are ever fired or fail to have their contracts renewed because of poor performance. Among tenured teachers - those who get job security, typically after two or three years of satisfactory performance - there are often no dismissals at all, according to the U.S. Education Department.

Union leadership is not only contending with seemingly eroding public support but support from its own members as well. According to Education Week, there is a generational divide between veteran teachers and newcomers:

Early-career teachers' commitment to the union is tentative at best. Many are not even sure they need a union. Frequently, they say that the uniform pay and standardized practices embodied in contracts limit individual initiative and reinforce mediocre performance. They especially resent paying dues to an organization that they suspect defends poor teachers.

Unless union leadership evolves, unions themselves could devolve right out of existence.

Senate Democrats Continue Job Crushing Agenda

info@iwf.org (Julie Gunlock) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:27:00 EST

The U.S. unemployment rate remains at over 10 percent and there appears to be no relief in sight. In fact, CNN reports this morning that "the number of people filing continuing claims jumped to 4,558,000 in the week ended Feb. 27, the most recent data available. That was up 37,000 from the preceding week's upwardly revised 4,521,000 claims."

Last week, Democrats made quite a show of their concern for the unemployed. Who can forget the sound of their shrieks over Senator Bunning's mere suggestion that they actually pay the $10 billion bill for continued unemployment payments.

Given their show of concern, it's more than a bit galling that the issue Senator Tom Harkin has chosen to focus on this morning as the Chairman of the Senate HELP Committee is another jobs crushing piece of legislation-the Paycheck Fairness Act. This bill, which passed the House last year, would make lawsuits against employers even easier and would shift the burden of proof to the employer to show that the difference in wages results from "any factor other than sex."

The Heritage Foundation summarizes this bill as a jobs killer. The report states that by facilitating lawsuits, the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) will hurt employers:

The PFA would give a windfall to trial lawyers, exposing employers to unlimited punitive damages.
The PFA would encourage trial lawyers to initiate many frivolous class-action suits in hopes of winning a few large judgments.
The successful lawsuits could transfer billions of dollars from employers to trial lawyers, bankrupting businesses and costing jobs.
The increased legal risks would also reduce the incentive for business owners to start new business or invest in and expand their firms, thereby costing even more jobs.
Under the PFA the courts will micromanage businesses. For instance, the courts would have to decide: Does experience constitute a "bona fide factor other than sex"?
A woman earning less than a more experienced man could argue that her employer should be required to send her to training and then pay both employees identical wages. She would have a strong case to argue that experience was not a "bona fide" factor because an alternative employment practice would eliminate the disparity.
Government micromanaging over areas in which the courts have no business expertise would reduce business competitiveness and cost jobs.

Read the entire report here.

Sticker Shock: New Study Shows the Real Price Tag for Government Schooling

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:26:00 EST

Public-school spending is on average 44 percent higher than officially reported, according to a new report from the Cato Institute's Adam Schaeffer. Analyzing district budgets and state records from the country's five largest metro areas and the District of Columbia, he finds those districts spent an average of nearly $18,000 per student but claimed to spend just $12,500. On average, public-school spending is 93 percent more than the estimated median private school for those areas. According to Schaeffer, "Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area."

This kind of "dishonest accounting," says Schaeffer, "is a nationwide problem." The lack of transparency and common district-level reporting standards means politically sensitive figures such as capital, debt, employee health, retirement, and benefits spending are typically excluded from publicly reported figures. Government school officials say those dollars shouldn't "count." Not so, says Schaeffer. "Parents and taxpayers have the right to know what public schools cost them," he says. "All of these are K-12 education expenses paid with taxpayer dollars. There's no good reason to exclude them."

Schaeffer recommends that states should require each local education provider to create and maintain a detailed expenditure and revenue database that presents information in an easily accessible, searchable, and downloadable format. That, he suggests, would help promote an honest education policy debate-a particularly pressing public concern since education typically represents the largest share of states' general budgets.

California Teachers Union Tops Big-Political-Spenders List

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:00 EST

Leading California's "billion dollar club" is the California Teachers Association (CTA), the state's largest teachers association and National Education Association affiliate, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).

In their new report Big Money Talks, the FPPC looks at 15 of the state's biggest political players, who have spent $1.3 billion combined on political activities in the past decade. "This tsunami of special interest spending drowns out the voices of average voters," says FPPC chairman Ross Johnson, "and intimidates political opponents and elected officials alike." The CTA tops the list at $212 million-more than Big Pharma, and also more than Big Oil and Big Tobacco combined.

The CTA spent more than $173 million in the past decade to influence voters. Of that amount, the union's largest expenditure was more than $26 million in 2000 to defeat a ballot proposition to enact vouchers. The CTA spent another $12 million in the special election of 2005 to defeat a ballot measures that would prohibit the use of public employee union dues for political contributions without individual employees' prior consent (also known as paycheck protection).

[For a more extensive look at union opposition to education and budget reform efforts, see an article by my Pacific Research Institute colleague Evelyn Stacey and me in today's Human Events.]

Both of those measures are anathema to teacher-union leaders. Former chief legal counsel for the CTA's parent organization the NEA Robert Chanin said at the time that requiring teachers' permission to use their dues for political activity is "a royal pain in the [expletive]." It's easy to see why: Given the chance, teachers overwhelming opt out of paying for union leaders' political agendas. After paycheck protection passed, teachers union membership in Utah dropped from 68 percent to 6.8 percent, and from 82 percent to 6 percent in Washington State.

Having a place at the policy debate table is one thing. Stifling dissenting voices is another. Not surprisingly, Big Money authors conclude, "What is good for the people of California matters less than what hurts or helps the individual interests of these groups. ...The conclusion is inescapable: A handful of special interests have a disproportionate amount of influence on California elections and public policy."(See pp. 4 and 5).

AFT and AFL-CIO, Throwing Stones at Glass Houses

info@iwf.org (Nicole Kurokawa) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:27:00 EST

As prospects of a comprehensive takeover dimming by the day, progressives in town are desperate for a scapegoat. Fortunately for them, however (and unfortunately for insurers,) the Administration settled on health insurance companies as the bad guys a long time ago.

Cue this week’s AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association) annual meeting. Given the meeting’s ill-fated location in Washington – a town known best for its political theater – it was unsurprising that activists organized a protest march against these bloodthirsty capitalists on Tuesday, cleverly chanting “hey hey, ho ho, insurance companies got to go.” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called the insurance companies’ actions “criminal.” Despite calls to action by AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka and DCCC chairman Howard Dean, however, protesters’ attempts to conduct “citizens arrests” on executives fell flat.

Given the inflammatory rhetoric, one can only assume that the AFL-CIO and the AFT have relentlessly advocated for increased quality and lower costs in the industries that they represent, right? Maybe? Sort of?

Um, no.

The New Yorker highlighted several months ago how the AFT has a nasty habit of defending subpar teachers. Consider that, and then check out the Mercatus Center’s Veronique deRugy in BigGovernment.com, where she adeptly charts the ways that teachers’ unions have benefited from the stimulus – small wonder, given that legislators’ favorite fear-mongering tactic is “we need more money or we’re going to fire thousands of teachers” (cough, Governor Quinn of Illinois, cough).

Our friends over at the Alliance for Worker Freedom have a ton of great information on the numerous policies that the AFL-CIO (and the SEIU, and others) have advocated that have driven up the costs of goods and services in this country, making America less competitive in the global economy. The Cato Institute also has a recent study on how public sector unions negatively affect taxpayers. Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch just debated this topic the other day, which I also recommend if you can listen in the background at work.

These unions would be well-served to look in the mirror before they start lobbing unfounded accusations at… well, anyone.

And really, at the end of the day – insurance companies aren’t the bad guys. They’re the easiest mark in the debate given the esoteric nature of their business: managing risk for a fixed price. Punishing insurance companies and imposing price controls on premiums isn’t the right way to address the underlying driver of health care costs.

A better way to make insurance more affordable – and in turn, to cover more people – is to give individuals more control over their health care dollars, so that they make smart choices with their money. In addition, removing mandates that drive prices up and changing the tax treatment of individual plans to enjoy the same breaks that employer-sponsored plans do would give consumers more flexibility in selecting (and keeping) the plans they need. Fixing health care so doesn’t require a one-size-fits all government solution. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

School Choice Under Siege in DC; Surges in States

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:23:00 EST

While some DC politicians are doing their utmost to kill the Opportunity Scholarship Program, a growing number of state lawmakers are embracing school choice. Education Week reports, "The momentum in Florida to expand one of that state's voucher programs is a subtle but significant sign that such programs, which have been anathema to many Democrats, are beginning to win bipartisan support in a number of states." They include a new proposal in Illinois-home of President Obama, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and voucher-opponent-in-chief Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)-that would give vouchers to students in failing Chicago schools. A plan has also been introduced in New Jersey, as well as an expansion of Florida's choice programs. Currently, there are 18 school voucher and tax-credit scholarship programs nationwide serving nearly 180,000 students. Given such momentum, opposition to educational opportunity programs in DC and elsewhere will become increasingly difficult to defend.

Politics, Not Procedure, Killed D.C. Voucher Vote in the Senate

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:36:00 EST

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT.) and a bipartisan coalition of U.S. Senators have been working to save the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program for current and future students. Their latest effort was to introduce an amendment yesterday to the American Workers, State and Business Relief Act to enact the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act, which would extend and expand the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Joining Sen. Lieberman in offering the amendment were Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), John Ensign (R-NV), and George Voinovich (R-OH).

The Washington Post rightly recalled that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has been promising to allow a vote on the Opportunity Scholarship Program-yet hasn't. Sen. Lieberman also tried to work with Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), who authored the original language effectively killing the program. But Sen. Lieberman was forced to withdraw the amendment. "Not germane" a spokesmen for Sens. Reid and Durbin told the Post.

Nonsense.

As Sen. Lieberman explained (See Amendment No. 3381 to Amendment to No. 3336, pp. S1293-S1293, about halfway down):

In my view, this amendment did belong on the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act--the underlying bill before the Senate--because, obviously, the opportunity to seek and receive a better education enables our children to be better, more productive workers, to help our businesses and, of course, to grow our national economy. Achievement gaps in our schools have a profound effect on the quality of our workforce and on the future of our economy. Most importantly, the quality of our schools has a profound effect on the quality of the lives of the children who go to better schools and get a better education. ... The DC voucher program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the Federal Government's official educational research arm so far. [Emphasis added]

The real reason for squashing a vote has little to do with procedure, and everything to do with politics. As the Post explains:

This is exactly what the program's chief antagonists, the teachers unions, want; the National Education Association lobbied fiercely against Mr. Lieberman's amendment. Given that a rigorous, federally mandated study confirmed the program's effectiveness and that local leaders such as D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee have supported it, we understand why Mr. Reid sits on his hands. What possible explanation could Democrats devise for killing something that has been so crucial in the lives of thousands of poor D.C. children? How would it look? No, better to do nothing and hope the issue goes away.

Thankfully, Sen. Lieberman and his allies will continue fighting. In fact, Sen. Lieberman intends to introduce the SOAR Act as an amendment to the next bill that comes to the Senate floor.

Common Core or National Curriculum? New Standards Ignite Debate

info@iwf.org (Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:49:00 EST

High academic standards encourage high hopes for better educational outcomes. But proposed new standards are generating controversy.

The National Governors Association and Council for Chief State School Officers announced their draft common academic standards today for K-12 education. President Obama has also made academic standards a priority and supports the proposed core standards. Under the U.S. Department of Education's Race to the Top (RTTT) competition, adoption of the common core standards weighs into states' applications. Last week the Department announced 16 state finalists who will compete to receive the first round of Race to the Top grants. Of those states, only Kentucky has agreed to adopt the common core standards, even though they won't be finalized until the spring. Georgia will likely adopt them, as well as Maryland, which is not a first-round RTTT finalist.

The common-core standards are intended to replace a "hodgepodge" of state standards. But will academic quality be sacrificed for the sake of consistency? Another concern is whether the federal government is attempting to establish a national curriculum, which is expressly prohibited (See "Federal Control of Education Prohibited," Sec. 604, p. 90).

States already have academic content standards in place. But standards on paper won't translate into quality education and improved student learning unless parents are free to choose the schools they believe do the best job for their children. Such freedom puts powerful pressure on schools to hire the best teachers, pay them well, and give them the freedom they need to choose the best instructional materials and methods for ensuring all students learn.

More Ways This Health Care Reform Plan Will Hurt the Poor

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:14:00 EST

Certainly proponents of this health care bill aren't pushing the legislation with the intention of damaging the employment prospects of low-income workers. Yet they should be warned: multi-thousand page bills that empowers government to reorder one-sixth of the economy and create new rules and incentives for all of our employers have lots of unintended consequences.

And as John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis demonstrates, this legislation will have the effect of discouraging employers from hiring or retaining low-income workers. It also contains provisions that make it more likely that low-income workers will lose their existing insurance than would higher-salaried workers, and creates oppressive marginal tax rates for those at the bottom of the income scale.

The NCPA explains:

Employers of low-paid workers would have an incentive NOT to provide insurance, because the workers could get much greater subsidies in the individual market ($19,400 compared to $2,295).

Employers of high-paid workers would have an incentive to KEEP providing insurance, because it's tax-free and the workers wouldn't qualify for subsidies anyway.

Employers' subsidies are based on the average income of all their workers. So to take full advantage of the subsidies, Goodman points out:

Basically firms with high-income folks will fire their groundskeepers, maids, custodians, etc. and contract out that work to a firm that employs low-wage labor and provides no health insurance. ...

Obamacare has another big problem:

The House version would create marginal tax rates in excess of 60 percent for workers earning as little as $25,000; this is caused by the steep withdrawal of health insurance subsidies (in the exchange) as income rises.

As is well known by economists and policymakers alike, when people get to keep only one-third of each extra dollar they earn, they react in all kinds of ways that are harmful to the economy; they will choose more leisure and less work.

Isn't it time to go back to the drawing board on health care reform?

Human Rights Kabuki

info@iwf.org (Nicole Kurokawa) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:42:00 EST

Happy International Women’s Day! Created in 1909 by the Socialist Party of America (bear with me!), the day “is a time to reflect on progress made, to call for change and to celebrate acts of courage and determination by ordinary women who have played an extraordinary role in the history of women's rights,” according to the United Nations’ website.

It is ironic, then, that this week, the UN – the same body that promotes this day as a “rallying point to build support for women's rights and participation in the political and economic arenas” – is currently considering giving Iran a seat on its Human Rights Council. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Among its presumptive qualifications, says Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, is that last June's elections were ‘an exemplary exhibition of democracy and freedom.’”

There are certainly many nations in the world with deplorable human rights records – but Iran’s has become particularly odious in recent years. My colleague Julie has done an excellent job pointing out the Iranian regime’s many crimes in the post-election period, as well as the key role that women have played in the underground opposition. For a general look at women in Iran, I recommend checking out The Stoning of Soraya M, a true story about a courageous woman victimized in a remote village in Iran. (It just won a 2010 NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Foreign Motion Picture, too!)

In protest of this (and the many other concerns that will not be addressed by the Human Rights Council), a group of non-governmental organizations are holding a parallel event in Geneva this week to spotlight the voices that the Council’s sitting members have silenced. The Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy will focus on the human rights of Iranians, Cubans, Tibetans, Uighurs and Burmese.

Patrick Goodenough of CNSNews.com reports:

“Organizers say the summit offers a global platform and forum for dissidents and human rights advocates to discuss their struggles and visions for bringing about change. ‘Regrettably, the chief international body charged with protecting human rights is failing to live up to its mission to stop … abuses,’ they said in a statement, in reference to the 47-member HRC. ‘Strong politicization of the council, driven by bloc-based voting patterns, has led to inaction in face of atrocity and abuse.’”

With such black marks on its record, putting Iran on the Human Rights Council would make a mockery of an already shaky organization. The people of the world deserve better from the United Nations – and it should start by denying Iran a seat.

International Women's Day--Good News in Africa

info@iwf.org (Julie Gunlock) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:28:00 EST

Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino marks International Women's Day with an inspiring personal story about her recent trip to Ghana and Sierra Leone where she saw firsthand what women in these countries are doing to improve their lives:

In America, we often complain about how hard we work. Compared with women in Africa, we've got no idea what hard work is. They work from before dawn until well after dark. Slowly, however, new programs are providing new ways to earn a living.

In Ghana, we met women who are small-holder farmers in a rice cooperative. These women combined resources to create a co-op, so they can earn an income by selling their produce in local markets. They sell to buyers collectively, which allows them to get a fair price and avoid being undersold. The income earned provides their families with food and health care and sends their children to school - laying the groundwork for a better life.

This phenomenon is not exclusive to Ghana. It's a story unfolding across the African continent. Empowering one woman is an investment in the future of families and countries.

As Perino points out, conditions in Africa are improving. Reuters reported last week that according to a new report "Africans are getting wealthier more quickly than previously believed and that these riches are spreading beyond the narrow confines of Africa's elite."

The report, by U.S. economists Xavier Sala-i-Martin and Maxim Pinkovskiy from the National Bureau of Economic Research (read full report here, subscription required), shows an assessment of poverty levels and income distribution in Africa from 1970 to 2006 and shows that Africa's economic situation is finally improving-contradicting the bleak assessments given by the United Nations. As Reuters reports:

The study also challenges the suggestion that strong African growth over the last decade or more has done little to alleviate grassroots poverty due to the countervailing effect of equally strong population expansion. Going by an inflation-adjusted $1 per person per day yardstick, the study, using statistical analysis pioneered by the two authors said 32 percent of Africans were in poverty in 2006, compared to 42 percent in 1995 and 40 percent in 1970. By contrast, the United Nations' population agency estimates the average African is 22 percent worse off now than in the mid-1970s because "20 years of an almost 3 per cent annual population growth has outpaced economic gains".
Similarly, in 2008 the U.N. Development Programme said sub-Saharan Africa had made "little progress" in reducing extreme poverty as part of a Millennium Development Goal bid to halve it between 2000 and 2015.

The new study, published by the private, non-profit U.S.-based National Bureau of Economic Research, analysed the shift in distribution curves of African incomes, derived from standard data sources over more than three decades.

Africa's failings appear particularly stark when compared with the tens of millions who have benefitted from the economic boom in Asia, most notably China and India.

However, the study suggests Africa is on track to achieve its goal only two years late -- and if the impact of civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the last decade is stripped out, it would get there two years early.

"The main point is that Africa has been moving in the right direction and, while progress has not been as substantial and spectacular as in Asia, poverty has been falling and it has been falling substantially," the authors wrote.

The Green Jobs Cover Up

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:48:00 EST

Recently I wrote about the high costs of the "green jobs" agenda. The subsidies that government has to give to create a "green job" tends to be enormous. Alternative energy sources remain inefficient. And subsidies for politically-favored alternative energy sources may inadvertently discourage the creation of new technologies that might actually work.

CEI's Chris Horner has uncovered through a FOIA request just how far the Administration has been willing to go to defend the "green jobs" agenda. Horner writes:

After two studies refuted President Barack Obama's assertions regarding the success of Spain's and Denmark's wind energy programs, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to attack the studies.

Via the FOIA request, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has learned that the Department of Energy - specifically the office headed by Al Gore's company's former CEO, Cathy Zoi - turned to George Soros' Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama's wind energy proposals.

The FOIA request was not entirely complied with, and CEI just filed an appeal over documents still being withheld. In addition to withholding many internal communications, the administration is withholding communications with these lobbyists and other related communications, claiming they constitute "inter-agency memoranda." This implies that, according to the DoE, wind industry lobbyists and Soros's Center for American Progress are - for legal purposes - extensions of the government....

As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to "think about what's happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany" if they wanted to know what successful "green jobs" policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.

Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid's King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources." The paper concluded that Spain's "green jobs" program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.

The truth is that if alternative energy sources were competitive with energy derived from coal and oil, then they wouldn't need massive federal subsidies to encourage their use and to manufacture "green jobs." And if the market is allowed to work properly, it's likely that someday someone will come up with an alternative energy source that makes economic sense and will reshape the economy. Yet for now, all the talk about a "clean energy economy" sounds nice, but the American public should realize that that rhetoric comes with a high cost--a cost some federal officials are trying to keep from us.

(Hat tip: James Delingpole)

Celebrate This Divorce

info@iwf.org (Megan Carl) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:07:00 EST

Nujood Ali, now 12, has already been married and divorced. Living in Yemen, Nujood was forced to marry a 30 year old man at the age of 10. Nujood's husband committed marital-rape, physically abused Nujood, and forced her to stop going to school, where she was in the second grade. Eventually, Nujood bravely snuck to a courthouse, came face to face with a judge, demanded a divorce, and eventually won one.

She and her divorce gained media attention and celebrity in and out of Yemen. She has even authored a best selling book, I am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced. Nujood's life has changed dramatically, but most importantly, she has been able to return to school, her own home, and her family-who are now supported by Nujood's income and entrepreneurial spirit. Despite facing crushing circumstances, Nujood has emerged bright and hopeful. She dreams of being a lawyer. (Read more of Nujood's story here.)

Julie Gunlock reminds us that Women's History Month and International Women's Day (March 8^th) is a good time to reflect on women throughout the world. As women in America, we have much to be grateful for and, therefore, much we take for granted. It is a story like Nujood Ali's which reminds us how much is still at stake for women around the world, and how blessed we are to have grown up in a country where we are afforded truly great opportunity. The problems that still plague too much of the world--child marriage, sex-trafficking and slavery, honor-killings, girls' education in the developing world, and women amid conflict zones--deserve our attention.

This Weeks Top 10

info@iwf.org (Megan Carl) info@iwf.org (Helen Whalen-Cohen ) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:58:00 EST

10.Milton Friedman saved Chile from the devastating effects of an earthquake? If it weren't for a Chilean born contingent of Friedman's students who secured prominent economic posts in Chile and a letter from Friedman himself, Chile's current situation post-quake would be much, much different.

9. The public wants answers about the TARP financial bailout. Here are some answers in the form of an infographic (easy-to-understand and entertaining).

8. Beware! Coming to a restaurant near you: hidden, after-the-fact fees on your restaurant bill for employees' health coverage.

7. Let These Women Pray! A must read article about a deep-seated controversial issue in Islam, playing out only a mile from the White House.

6. On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago. While it is likely that the Court will uphold Second Amendment rights, it won't be because of an originalist reading of the Constitution.

5. No, Congressional Action is not needed.

4. What? Use leftover stimulus money for unemployment benefits, instead of additional spending? (Washington says) never!

3. The Post Office is pushing to eliminate Saturday service. Tad DeHaven at the Cato Institute has another idea: privatize the old dinosaur.

2. Obama is unwilling to compromise on health care reform.

1. Even though the unemployment rate for the month of February didn't change, we are still asking the same question...Where are the jobs?

The Opposite of a "Jobs Bill"

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:56:00 EST

Students on college campuses often hold protests calling for a minimum or "living" wage. It's appealing to the average, not-so-well-informed undergrad: it sounds all progressive and like you really care for the poor, and who really wants to bother thinking through all of the implications.

IWF tried to educate college students about those implications in this guide on the issue. The Wall Street Journal offers additional evidence on the consequences of the most recent minimum wage hikes, which have contributed to a surge in teen unemployment:

There's plenty of competition, but our vote for the recent act of Congress that has caused the most economic hardship goes to the May 2007 law raising the minimum wage in three stages to $7.25 an hour from $5.15. Rarely has a law hurt more vulnerable people more quickly.

A higher minimum wage has the biggest impact on those with the least experience or the fewest skills. That means in particular those looking for entry-level jobs, especially teenagers. And sure enough, as nearly all economic models predict, the higher minimum has wreaked havoc with teenage job seekers, well beyond what you would expect even in a recession.

...The first increase, to $5.85 from $5.15, came after a decade of no increases and when the overall jobless rate was below 5% and the teen rate was 14.9%. The demand for labor was sufficiently strong in many areas that most employers were probably willing to absorb the higher wage.

But as the minimum wage increased even as the overall job market began to worsen, the damage to teen job seekers became more severe. By the time the third increase to $7.25 from $6.55 took effect in July 2009, the teen jobless rate was 24.3%, and by October it peaked at 27.6% before dropping to 26.4% in January.

The story is even worse for black teens, who often have lower than average education levels or live in areas with fewer job prospects. Their jobless rate climbed from 38.5% before the third wage hike to 49.8% in November 2009, before falling back to 43.8% in January....

Most readers remember the work habits they learned from their first job. Showing up on time, being courteous to customers, learning how to use technology-such habits are often more valuable than the actual paycheck. Studies have confirmed that when teens work during summer months or after school they have higher lifetime earnings than those who don't work. So raising the minimum wage may inadvertently reduce lifetime earnings.

The Senate recently passed a (flawed) "jobs bill" that's purpose is to lower the cost of employment to encourage hiring. Policymakers should recognize that the minimum wage does exactly the opposite: it raises the cost of employment and it should be of no surprise that less work for the low-skilled is the result.

Constitution FAIL

info@iwf.org (Helen Whalen-Cohen ) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:21:00 EST

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago this past Tuesday. The good news is that the Court seemed eager to protect the right to keep and bear arms. The bad news is that the nine Justices were not as willing to protect the Constitution. (For a round up of commentary, go here.)

Some quick background-McDonald v. Chicago is the case challenging one of the strictest gun bans in the country. Inkwell readers remember District of Columbia v. Heller from 2008, which struck down a similar ban on Second Amendment grounds. DC is not a state, though, so the decision only applied as far as the limits of the city border. After the ruling in Heller, individuals scrambled to have Second Amendment rights applied to their states.

This is where the trouble begins. Alan Gura, the attorney representing Mr. McDonald, argued that Chicago's gun ban violated an individuals rights under the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. In doing so, he attempted to overturn 140 years of bad precedent. Unfortunately, the Justices were not eager to play along. While the majority indicated that they would strike down the gun ban, they were only willing to do so on Due Process grounds.

There are lots of good reasons to employ the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In a nutshell, here are two important ones: first, Privileges or Immunities guards against judicial activism. It is meant to assert unenumerated rights against states. By taking the Due Process route instead, activist judges are empowered to decide what rights we have (or not). Second, using Privileges or Immunities shows more respect for the Constitution. It is a stretch to use the Due Process clause (which is meant to guarantee access to legal proceedings) to cover individual rights. Ignoring particular clauses degrades the document as a whole.

I waited outside of the Supreme Court building for 15 hours because I was hoping to witness a revival of respect for our founding document. Even though I was not confident that the Supreme Court would resurrect the Privileges or Immunities Clause, it was still disappointing. Striking down gun bans is important, but so is taking the Constitution seriously.

History Making Iraqi Women

info@iwf.org (Julie Gunlock) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:55:00 EST

The Associated Press ran a heartening story yesterday about the prominent role of women in Iraqi politics. Under a U.S.-backed quota, Iraq's parliament currently requires at least one quarter of lawmakers to be female. This requirement has helped Iraqi women gain a foothold in Iraq's legal and political systems.

This alone is good news but two items from the story stood out as truly healthy signs for women in Iraq which show these female representatives to be confident and competent legislators who don't just vote as one monolithic block but rather bring diversity of opinion to parliament (emphasis mine):

But women have found that sheer numbers in parliament do not always translate into more power for women - especially when they so rarely agree with one another. And, because many people write off female candidates as simply being part of the quota, it doesn't necessarily earn respect either.

Regarding the ongoing need for these quotas, Iraqi parliament member Maha al-Douri says they should be phased out:

"The quota was very important in the previous elections because we live in a male-dominated society and the quota was necessary to give women a chance to have a political role," al-Douri told The Associated Press at the offices of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in the Shiite slum of Sadr City, where the prayers were held last week.
"But in the future this quota should be removed and women should compete equally with men, because women politicians have proven their competence and reliability in politics," said al-Douri, who is running for a second term on the slate of al-Sadr's party.

Presidential Double Speak

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:05:00 EST

There are near countless examples now of the President saying one thing while doing another: calling for bipartisanship while lambasting Republicans; promising to pursue "whatever works" in education, while allowing Congress to crush one of the few programs that has actually been shown to boost student achievement; and promising to reduce health care spending by pushing a bill that does just the opposite. And of course, there is all the President's talk about the need for fiscal discipline (read more about the latest sad, but kind of amusing, pay-go hypocrisy here) while he offers blow out budgets and deficit-inducing legislation.

In an oped in Politico, Rep. Paul Ryan identifies another example that perfectly encapsulates the disconnect between the President's actions and his rhetoric:

The most candid expression of this sidestep can be found on Page 146 of his budget: On top of the page is a summary table of the president's actual budget numbers, which show a simple continuation of the unsustainable path of ever-higher spending, taxes, deficits and debt. Immediately below this table is a large box acknowledging that the budget numbers are unsustainable and calling for a commission to fix the situation. The executive order creating this panel says: "The fiscal commission is charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long term."

Yes, the President is a champion of fiscal discipline because he's calling for a commission to deal with overspending... just pay no attention to his actual proposed budget.