Independent Women's Forum - News & Commentary

Connecting the Dots on Energy Policy

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:50:00 EDT

First published on Townhall.com

Most policy debates seem to be a war of competing theories: Will lower tax rates really stimulate greater economic activity? Do generous government welfare programs actually discourage people from seeking employment? Each side marshals data supporting its side and voters have to sort out whose case seems most compelling.

Often it's hard to connect those policies with the decisions that you make in your own life. After all, we take into account numerous factors when we make big decisions, like how much to work or whether to try to open a business. Corporations, too, consider the particulars of their industry, specialty, and business environment when deciding how many jobs to offer or where to locate. It's hard to isolate the affect that one policy, or even set of policies, has.

Yet Americans increasingly seem to be connecting the dots between national energy policy and its impact on their lives. As everyone knows too well, gas prices have soared by 35 percent in the past year. The rising cost of energy and transportation has rippled through the economy, driving up prices across all economic sectors. Families are finding their paychecks gobbled up by necessities, like gas, food, and home energy bills, and worry about where this disturbing trend might lead.

Undoubtedly, a variety of factors contribute to rising energy costs, but voters increasingly seem to understand that the central problem is one of supply and demand. In testimony before Congress this week, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernake, explained it like this: "There are multiple causes, no doubt, for energy price increases. The most important cause is the global supply-and-demand balance. The fact that ... oil production has not kept up with the growth and demand for oil, particularly in emerging market countries which are growing quickly and industrializing."

That's as simple as it gets. Demand has gone up. Supply hasn't, so prices have gone up. The clear solution is to find ways to increase energy supply. Conservation, reducing our demand for energy, would also help, of course, but most Americans know the limits to their ability to reduce energy use. High costs have discouraged many from taking a summer road trip, but hasn't changed the need to get to and from work each day.

Even aggressive conservation efforts in the United States won't balance out the growing demand for energy around the world. Increasing supply will remain paramount. Certainly, alternative fuels hold promise and hopefully will ultimately be able to contribute meaningfully to America's energy mix, but it's clear that in the near term increasing energy supply means increasing the supply of fossil fuel. Most Americans recognize this and support greater exploration: a recent Gallup poll found that 57 percent want to allow drilling in U.S. costal and wilderness areas that are currently off limits.

The Democratic Congress has been reluctant to acknowledge the need to allow an increase in energy supply. Their rhetoric and legislative initiatives seem designed more to confuse the voter about the root causes of the oil price spike than to actually solve the problem. For example, in an attempt to counter calls for more drilling, Democrats focused on how many acres are already available for exploration, suggesting that companies are letting vast supplies stay idle while prices surge. Yet surely the Democrats know that if oil was really readily available in these acres, the greedy corporations they complain so much about would be drawing supplies out now to take advantage of the record prices.

Democrats have also focused on the role of "speculators" in oil markets. But they misrepresent the role that speculators play. By buying commodities at low prices and selling when prices go up, speculators generally decrease price volatility. Moreover, if speculation was really the cause of high prices, there would be growing inventories of oil, and there's no evidence of such stockpiling. Legislative attempts to quash "speculation" will do nothing to change the root cause of high prices, which remains our limited energy supply.

Americans know that it is passed time to begin allowing access to the vast reserves of oil in the U.S. that are currently off limits. Democrats lament that, even if drilling is allowed, it will take years for these new reserves to reach the supply chain (somehow that logic never holds when they are taking about federal giveaways to favored "alternative fuel" research). Yet even if it takes years to access, the marketplace will benefit from the knowledge that more energy is coming.

Democrats may try to obscure the simple fact that prices are driven by supply and demand. Voters aren't being fooled.

DC Gun Ban Lift Empowers Women

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:30:00 EDT

First appeared on Townhall.com

Citizens in the District of Columbia had plenty of reason to celebrate over July 4th weekend. In addition to our nation's birthday, countless barbeques, and a fabulous fireworks display, citizens of D.C. could finally enjoy their rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights.

For more than thirty years, D.C. has robbed its citizens of their Second Amendment rights through a draconian handgun ban. And D.C.'s gun restrictions don't stop at handguns. D.C. also requires shotguns and rifles to be bound by a trigger lock or kept unloaded and disassembled. So much for home protection.

The justification for forbidding law abiding residents from owning weapons was that making guns illegal would lead to a reduction in violent crime. D.C.'s history is a vivid illustration of the folly of this presumption. Despite the nation's strictest gun control laws, D.C. has one of the nation's highest murder rates. Unfortunately for D.C.'s lawmakers and citizens, when you outlaw guns, only criminals have them.

In contrast, states with relatively loose gun rules, such as Vermont, New Hampshire, and the Dakotas, have the lowest murder rates in the country. States with high gun ownership rates (over 40 percent), such as Utah, North Dakota, and Iowa, boast firearm death rates below the national average. When criminals know that would be victims could be prepared to defend themselves, committing a crime becomes less attractive. That's why, counterintuitive as it may seem, more guns often mean less crime.

Gun bans like D.C.'s aren't only bad policy; as the Supreme Court decided last week in a landmark 5-4 decision that will be studied for years to come, they are also unconstitutional. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down the ban, further stating that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

And as Justice Scalia pointed out in his opinion, "the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon." All citizens of D.C. should rejoice at their new found freedom. But for women especially, guns are the ultimate equalizer in self-defense.

Much to feminists' dismay, men and women are different. For better or worse, men tend to be taller, stronger, and weigh more than women. So when it comes to physical confrontation, women don't have the best odds-especially when they are sitting ducks, as they were under D.C.'s gun ban. If nothing else, the ban emboldened criminals with the knowledge that their victims would be unarmed. But not anymore. Now women can finally rest assured that if, God forbid, there is a confrontation in their home, they will have a viable means of self-defense-regardless of the size of the intruder.

There are countless examples of women warning off intruders with the help of a gun. In June, a gun-packing mom-to-be scared off two would-be burglars who kicked in the door to her residence early in the morning. Luckily, Kristen Holbert knew how to react. She grabbed a gun, hid in a closet, and when the opportunity arose, surprised the intruders. Holbert said of the incident, "I pointed [the gun] right in their face. They turned around, seeing a pregnant woman holding a gun. ...They knew they needed to get out."

Holbert is not alone. It is estimated that law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves as many as 2.5 million times per year. Often times, such incidents prevent serious, violent crime against women. Take 72-year-old grandmother Jean Zamarripa, for example. When a serial rapist broke into her home, Zamarripa wounded the intruder, ending a string of violent attacks and sexual assaults on elderly women in her neighborhood.

Hobert and Zamarripa are just two of many brave women who have defended themselves and their homes against intruders, with the help of a gun. Women in D.C. will finally be given a chance to follow suit, should the circumstance arise.

D.C. v. Heller was an important first step in the battle for the individual right of self-defense. Women around the country should hope that gun bans continue to fall and afford citizens the peace of mind that only a gun-and the knowledge that you are prepared to defend yourself--can provide.

Another Glorious Fourth: What Would the Founders Think?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:23:00 EDT

First appeared on Townhall.com

Independence Day is the most significant of our political holidays. Without the 4th, there would be no President's Day or Memorial Day. As we enjoy comfortable lives in the world's dominant power, it is hard to imagine the circumstances facing Americans in 1776. The colonists represented a string of settlements along the Atlantic coast, hemmed in between the ocean and an inhospitable wilderness inhabited by often hostile Indians.

As fighting broke out between the colonists and British troops, the early Americans faced a stark choice: submit to London and sacrifice their liberty, or rebel against the mightiest empire on Earth and face prison or death if they failed. We all celebrate the Founders for making the first choice, but how many of us would have pledged our own "lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor," as did the signers of the Declaration of Independence?

Frankly, we have it easy today. And we owe many of our advantages as Americans to the courage and fortitude of those who stood up for liberty on that July 4th many years ago. Of course, the fact that we are better off than the Founders does not mean that we don't face any challenges. Just pick up a newspaper.

The economy has slowed and times are uncertain. People are losing their homes and the stock market is falling. America is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, while terrorist groups like al-Qaeda remain a threat.

Congress continues to spend wildly, and the impending retirement of the baby boomers will create a financial tsunami from Social Security and Medicare. Our educational system is failing to teach our children reading, morality, or citizenship. Energy prices are racing out of sight.

Yet partisanship reigns supreme. For the last 20 years the Bushes and the Clintons have dominated American politics. While they all can be-and deserve to be-criticized for many things, they all also genuinely believed that their policies would benefit the nation. But vitriol and hatred have replaced civility and comity in the public square.

Indeed, for many people politics is but a game- red team versus blue team. Policies don't matter. Only victory counts. As a result, whether its Iraq, energy prices, or budget deficits, there is no hint of bipartisan cooperation.

It's a sad picture.

But the Founders would understand. After all, politics in the early republic was not for the faint-hearted. It often was rowdy, nasty, and personal. And creating a new government isn't the easiest of tasks.

The Declaration's signers also likely would be hopeful. Americans have spent more than two centuries overcoming big challenges. There's no reason they would believe we weren't up to the job today.

Despite the fact many people are dissatisfied with the two major presidential contenders, I believe the Founders would have been impressed with both of them.

There's John McCain, who would be the oldest man ever elected president. He was a rowdy young man, served heroically in the military, survived years as a prisoner of war, overcame political setbacks, and won his party's nomination despite opposing many of his party's policy positions. He might not be your cup of tea, but surely he's an impressive politician.

Then there's Barack Obama. Even many Republicans find themselves attracted to his rhetoric of change and unity. More important still is his race.

The Founders recognized that they were making a pact with the devil when they sanctioned slavery. But they believed the necessity of a union that included the southern colonies outweighed the moral and practical horrors of slavery. Leaders like Thomas Jefferson understood the potential for disunion that lurked beneath the infamous slave clauses of the Constitution.

So I believe those who signed the Declaration would be pleased that the American nation that came through the searing experience of the Civil War and reunited, eventually-after much hardship and pain-came to welcome black as well as white as part of our political union. They would recognize that Barack Obama's candidacy helps heal two centuries of racism and demonstrates America's uniqueness to the world.

In short, the men who signed the Declaration 232 years ago would be impressed with the nation they helped create. "Well done," I believe they would say, while enjoining us not to rest on their-and our-laurels. For truly we have much yet to do. But as Americans, we should never doubt our ability to prevail, whatever the challenge.

A Woman's Gratitude When Looking Overseas

info@iwf.org (Halima Karzai) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:18:00 EDT

This 4^th of July, as women of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds in America enjoy a three-day weekend in celebration of Independence Day, one can only hope that they also reflect on the many liberties and rights that they ordinarily take for granted.

Almost 90 years ago, women in the U.S. were granted the right to vote and had limited access to education and employment. Today, Women in the U.S. are reaching the height of political power, are working in high-level positions, and are fulfilling roles once seen as appropriate for only men.

American women are among the lucky few. Across the globe, many women wish they had access to the rights and protections that women in the United States view as ordinary.

In Iran, women's rights activists were arrested on June 12^th before the commencement of a peaceful assembly to mark the third anniversary of the National Day of Solidarity of Iranian Women. Iranian women live in constant fear of reprisal from their government for merely voicing concern about injustices the regime is imposing on them.

Can a woman in the U.S. grasp being tortured, raped, and beaten because her husband, son, or a male relative was a suspected supporter of a political party? Sadly, this is the case for millions of women in conflict and war stricken nations throughout the world. In Burma, women are raped by the military as a weapon to subjugate ethnic minorities.

Many American women recognize that they are uniquely blessed to live in this country and are working to help advance women's rights around the world. After the tragic events of September 11^th, for example, several American women who had lost loved ones in the attacks took the initiative to help Afghan women. Some even moved to Afghanistan because they knew they still had a lot to be grateful for and even though they were dealing with unimaginable grief, knew Afghan women had endured this same sorrow for decades. For example, Deborah Rodriguez, a hair stylist from Michigan went to Afghanistan to give something to Afghan women, a beauty parlor-which may seem insignificant for women in the States, but was a place of comfort and self recognition for women in Afghanistan.

This weekend, undoubtedly many American women will be busy planning barbeques and picnics for their families. This is as it should be - a time to celebrate the joys that freedom brings. I hope they take a moment to be thankful they live in a nation where it can be done and think about their sisters around the globe who wish for the same for their own families. July 4^th is a time for celebration and a time to recommit ourselves to the idea that liberty is truly for all.

Pandering to Women, Barack Obama twists truth on equal pay

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:40:00 EDT

First appeared in the New York Daily News

For a "new" kind of politics, Barack Obama's rhetoric sounds awfully familiar. The senator from Illinois may decry his critics as practicing "old politics," yet he freely employs one of the most shopworn political tactics when pandering to women.

At an event this week in New Mexico, Obama repeated the misleading claim that "women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men," and dismissed the notion that factors other than discrimination explain the wage gap as "just totally wrong."

Yet even the organizations that champion the most aggressive government action in the name of equal pay acknowledge that most of the wage gap is a result of men and women's different choices related to work, not employment discrimination. A 2007 report from The American Association of University Women, for instance, found that most of the wage gap could be explained by factors such as employment, education and personal choices. Pay differential wasn't just the result of sexism in the workplace.

The statistic Obama repeats compares only the median wages of full-time working men with the median wages of full-time working women. It doesn't take into account different occupations by gender. Nor does it account for differences in total hours worked (Department of Labor data shows that even full-time working women spend less time in the office each day than men). Nor does it factor in years of experience (women take more time out of the workforce than men) or myriad other factors that impact compensation.

We all know from our own job searches that money isn't everything. At the event in New Mexico, Obama talked about the challenge of balancing his desire for family time with his political ambitions. Michelle Obama - who made more than a quarter of a million dollars working at Chicago hospitals in 2006, far exceeding her husband's Senate salary - has obviously had her own challenges balancing work and family. These are the kinds of choices and tradeoffs that all American families make regarding their career decisions.

No one claims that workplace sexism is nonexistent. But the flawed 77-cent statistic says nothing about discrimination's extent. What it does is encourage women to feel victimized and in need of government protection.

Obama tars those opposed to legislation called the "Fair Pay Restoration Act" as opponents of equal pay for women. That's a gross mischaracterization. Equal pay is already required by law; it has been since 1963. The Fair Pay Restoration Act would extend the time period during which an employee can bring suit against an employer for discrimination. Instead of having to take action within 180 days of a decision about compensation, employees could sue within 180 days after receiving a check related to such a decision. As a result, lawsuits could be filed decades after a compensation package was negotiated.

This longer period wouldn't discourage discriminatory behavior today - but would open the door for lawyers to unearth old grievances in pursuit of new legal fees.

Even a champion of equal pay must understand the need in employment law for balance - a middle ground between protecting the rights of employees to seek redress and the need for employers to be free from costly, frivolous litigation. It doesn't fit neatly in a campaign speech, but raising costs on employers can in fact hurt workers, including women. High employment costs reduce wages and job growth and drag down the economy.

It would be refreshing to hear a presidential candidate speak honestly about the progress women have made in America - rather than playing to false grievances. Unfortunately, Sen. Obama's "new politics" seems to be business as usual.

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

Domestic Disturbance

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:26:00 EDT

President Bill Clinton's first major legislative accomplishment - at least from his perspective - was passing the Family and Medical Leave Act. And though presidential hopeful Sen. Obama promises he is a new kind of candidate, ready to make a fresh break with the past, his domestic policy agenda largely begins where President Clinton's left off. This would include a dramatic expansion of workplace regulations.

At a speech in New Mexico this week, for instance, Sen. Obama lamented how "unfair" the workplace is. From women earning less than men to minimum-wage workers struggling to meet rising food and energy costs, Obama believes injustice in America is running rampant. He championed a litany of proposals he claims will address such inequities, including a massive expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The changes he envisions aren't minor.

Currently, only businesses with more than 50 employees are affected by FMLA. Obama wants to drag all businesses into the FMLA net. Existing law requires employers to offer unpaid time off. Sen. Obama wants to change that. "It's not fair," the junior senator from Illinois explained, for workers to be "punished for getting sick or dealing with a family crisis." Obama wants improve fairness by shifting the burden to someone else. "I'll require employers to provide all of their workers with seven paid sick days a year," he promises.

This is typical of the senator's compassionate, big-hearted, progressive proposals: He's very willing to compel someone else - in this case, employers - to be generous. We can all sympathize with folks who need time off to care for a baby, an elderly parent, a sick spouse, or to recover from an illness of their own. But it's old-style political dishonesty to ignore the costs that paid mandated leave creates for businesses and coworkers. These legislated benefits raise the costs of employment, which means that firms hire fewer workers. Plenty of people would prefer higher wages to more generous sick-leave packages, but big-government regulations move those decisions from individuals to politicians - Obama would effectively outlaw your right to accept more pay in lieu of paid leave.

Small businesses would be particularly hurt by these new workplace mandates. When an employee of a large company fails to show up, work may be shifted to coworkers without a significant loss of productivity. Not so with small employers. They face high marginal costs to hire replacements and productivity may plummet when employees take unplanned time off. FMLA qualified leave will require more paperwork and compliance expense, and businesses will have new challenges when enforcing attendances policies. The net result will be slower economic growth and fewer jobs - but that damage will happen over time, and the link with Obama's regulatory burdens will be hard for most voters to see. Obama knows his "change we can believe in" won't take the blame.

It's hard to build a campaign slogan around the problems government mandates create for business. Yet voters should be concerned about these issues and the hostility that politicians so often show private-sector employers. Washington is good at making mandates, but it doesn't create jobs - at least not the kind that create wealth. Many voters say their greatest concern this election is the economy. It's ironic that so many will support a politician offering only vague hope instead of sound pro-growth policies.

Fueling a Furor

info@iwf.org (Donna Wiesner) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:50:00 EDT

The Washington Times

At a recent Senate committee hearing, Sen, Richard Durbin asked, "Does it trouble any of you when you see what you are doing to us?" The Illinois Democrat's question was aimed at U.S. oil executives, but would have been more appropriate if it came from millions of Americans and was directed toward Mr. Durbin and other policymakers.

Beyond the finger-pointing, it's important for Americans to understand that America's "big oil" industry did not place us in our current predicament. Congress and state legislatures - with the aid of special interests groups - are largely to blame.

The inescapable reality is that our nation needs and uses a lot of energy. And without policies that encourage increased domestic production of energy, fuel will get even more expensive.

Today, U.S. energy companies have very little influence on the price of oil, which largely determines the cost of finished fuel products such as gasoline and diesel fuel. Sadly, in part because of U.S. energy policy, worldwide oil production is determined largely by a limited number of companies from abroad.

Over the last three decades, progressive policymakers and activists have essentially blocked, banned or litigated nearly every conceivable means of new domestic oil production. The complex barriers set at the federal, state and local levels have ensured there has not been a new refinery or nuclear plant built in the U.S. in 30 years. More than 60 percent of inland federal lands and 85 percent of our coastal waters have prohibitions against production, and in some cases, even exploration. New coal generating facilities are being litigated out of consideration or failing to finance themselves with capital investments because of the likelihood of mandated emissions reductions.

In contrast, China, by way of Cuba, is now drilling closer to our shores than U.S. companies are allowed. Inland, vast deposits of oil shale have been identified in the Rockies and Western United States - estimated to be twice as large as the oil reserves of the Middle East - but restrictions are in place preventing any significant exploration.

While the United States restricts supply, global demand is at an all-time high. The result of these policies should be obvious. When increasing demand for fuel is placed against insufficient supplies, prices go up. When the majority of domestic oil and gas reserves are placed off-limits and we are forced to compete in an increasingly competitive global market for supplies, prices go up. When existing fossil fuels are penalized while alternative fuels that are not yet commercially viable are subsidized, prices go up. When arbitrary price controls and retaliatory trade measures are put in place, they create shortages ... and do we really want the Carter shortages all over again?

Unfortunately, Congress has once again missed the mark entirely as they try to pass legislation with the stated intent of bringing energy costs down. The playbook is getting entirely familiar. Once again a windfall profits tax on energy producers was voted on and defeated. A similar bill was passed in 1980 and quickly revoked after it produced less revenue than expected, decreased domestic production capability, and increased our reliance on foreign energy suppliers. Congress should not repeat this failed policy path.

Congress tried to revive another failed policy idea with a bill that claims to address "price gouging," which is legislative code for price controls. As we know from the 1970s, such laws would simply lead to supply disruptions, long waiting lines, and adverse economic consequences for all Americans.

Another congressional favorite has been the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC), which would require the United States to sue member states of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The law states that nations would violate U.S. law if they "limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product ... when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other petroleum products." Unfortunately, America's own citizens can't sue their government for the very same thing.

Casting scapegoats and villains won't address our energy challenges. Congress needs to quit passing the buck and embrace economic reality by crafting actionable public policies to help produce additional domestic energy supplies, both from alternative energy sources and traditional fossil fuels.

So, members of Congress, does it trouble any of you when you see what you are doing to us?

Donna Wiesner Keene is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and the chief executive officer of BrainTrain. She lobbied for the first successful energy deregulation bill in Maryland.

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.

Children Left Behind

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:17:00 EDT

National Review

Eleanor Holmes Norton recently reported that Washington, D.C., parents were "completely befuddled" by the news that their children may soon lose the scholarships they've been using to attend private school. The families have good reason to be befuddled. After all, Delegate Norton is their representative and yet she is working to destroy a program that has helped 1,900 children from some of the poorest families in the District.

Congress created the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program in 2004, which for the first time provides federal money for vouchers for K-12 school. It makes sense that Congress would launch such a program in the nation's capital: Congress has special authority and influence in the federal city, and Washington, D.C., boosts some of the country's worst public schools. In 2007, D.C.'s fourth- and eighth-grade students scored lower than kids from any other state on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a national standard test used to measure how well our education system is working. D.C. also has the highest dropout rate and lowest graduation rate in the country: according to one estimate, less than 6 in 10 D.C. students will graduate from high school.

Liberal policymakers tend to use these dismal statistics to argue that we need to give schools more resources. Yet it's tough to make the case that lack of funding is the problem in Washington, D.C.: The District spends $14,400 for every child in public school, which is more than any other state in the country (besides New Jersey).

These facts - the terrible performance of D.C. public schools and the already sky-high spending - led policymakers from both sides of the aisle to agree that something else needed to be tried. President Bush and Congress, with the support of former D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, created this program to help students from families with incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line attend private school by making them eligible for scholarships worth up to $7,500.

This school year about $12 million were used to fund scholarships for more than 1,900 kids. Those students, who came from families with an average income of less than $23,000, enrolled in 54 different private schools in the District.

Testimony from these families has bolstered support for the program among unlikely sources. Former D.C. mayor and current Democratic councilman Marion Berry, for example, wrote an editorial in the Washington Post last month which explained his support for the program, which he acknowledged would surprise many: "Moms, dads, aunts, uncles and other guardians in my community tell me that these programs are making a difference in their children's lives and giving them hope they have never had." He cited an example of a parent who described how the opportunity to attend a private school had transformed that child's education and life prospects. (To listen for yourself about how this program is helping D.C. families, visit www.VoicesOfSchoolChoice.org for a collection of parent and student testimonials.) Councilman Barry also noted how he had exercised school choice with his own son, and felt that the rest of D.C. parents deserve that same opportunities.

Many other policymakers fail to connect their own experience in making choices for their families with the desires of parents in the nation's capital. A 2007 survey of members of Congress found that 37 percent of House members and 45 percent of Senators sent their children to private school. How many of these members are now going to vote to end this program that helps poor families in D.C. select schools for their children?

Even Delegate Norton seems conscious of the problems the program's termination would cause D.C. families. She claims to want to "protect the children" who are "innocent victims" during this process. Yet it is hard to know in what form protection could come. The five-year pilot program is set to expire next year unless Congress chooses to reauthorize or continue funding it.

If the program expires, most of the 1,900 students will have to return to their local public school. They'll lose the friendships they made at their private school. They'll have to start in a new educational environment, which the statistics suggest won't give them much hope for receiving a quality education. It also means that the public-school system will have more students to teach, more crowded classrooms and larger class sizes - all the things that public-education advocates say make the job of teaching more difficult. One quarter of D.C.'s public-school students attend charter schools and many more compete to do so. Many of the displaced scholarship students will now be competing with the rest of the public-school peers for the limited spots in those charter schools.

Who wins by ending the scholarship program? Teachers unions and other liberal interest groups may call this a sort of victory, but the clear losers will be D.C. parents and students.

Obama Has Yet to Truly Move Beyond Race

info@iwf.org (Heather R. Higgins) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:32:00 EDT

First appeared in Human Events.

Currently up for numerous Tony awards is a splendid revival of the 1949 Rogers and Hammerstein musical "South Pacific." It's worth remembering that its theme, examining racial and cultural prejudice, was highly controversial; indeed, there was a legislative challenge to its decency in Georgia. Key to the show is the song "You've Got To Be Carefully Taught," which the authors insisted would stay in even if it meant the show's failure.

In that song, a young American lieutenant, unexpectedly in love with a Tonkinese girl, realizes he can't marry her and bring her home to a country that would be appalled by an interracial union and a family that would be dismayed by a wife below his social class. The lyrics resonate far beyond marriage per se to prejudice and racism generally:

You've got to be taught to be afraid,

Of people whose eyes are oddly made,

And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,

You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,

Before you are six or seven or eight,

To hate all the people your relatives hate,

You've got to be carefully taught.

Cut to 2008. The encouraging news is that among young people particularly, race and ethnicity almost doesn't register. Focus groups and polls suggest most people are clearly "over" race. They say what matters are someone's attributes, skills, and character. Most believe that any preferences should be based on need, not ethnicity.

Yet this progress, apparently, hasn't touched Trinity United Church of Christ, the church Barack Obama -- now the Democrats' nominee for U.S. President -- attended for over 20 years. There the "black liberation theology" of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright prevailed, reiterated for us all this past week in Father Michael Pfleger's racist rant about whites generally and Hillary Clinton in particular.

It is this that makes Barack and Michelle Obama's decision to be part of the life of this church for so long so disturbing. It isn't simply the content of the sermons -- lots of us have endured sermons with which we disagree. It isn't Wright's radical views -- by all reports, he is charismatic and personally well liked, and his more controversial sermons contain legitimate grievance mixed with factually mistaken history and wacky conspiracy theories. Most of us know someone like that and just try to steer clear of those issues and be polite. Moreover, we understand that politicians particularly have to smile and make common cause where they can, and that endorsing and being endorsed are not equivalent.

No, what's disturbing is that the Obamas have children. And presumably they know other people in that congregation have children. People take children to church precisely to help inculcate them with the church's values. We now have some vivid examples of the received wisdom, what directly or indirectly gets drummed into each dear little ear from year to year at Trinity United, how they are told to be afraid of people whose skin is a different shade, how they are taught before they are six or seven or eight (or older) to hate all the people their fellow congregants hate.

This is a long way from Obama's "what unites us" message -- if anything, it is an old and toxic wine in a new bottle. Some assert that blacks can't be racist, as though black racism is so justified that it ceases to be racism. But anyone familiar with the occasional stigma in this country towards those darker than a paper bag by lighter-skinned African-Americans knows that racism and prejudice can infect any soul of any shade.

Obama has been adept at recognizing when his far-left base conflicts with the larger, all-embracing image he wants to present. Perhaps that is why he finally resigned from Trinity United. One can only hope that, given his speech on race in Philadelphia, combined with his repeated problems of long-time associates who surprise him with their views, that he will lead the effort to take a bolder step. Much as Lyndon Johnson's need to change how he was perceived on race issues moved him to endorse the Civil Rights Act, Obama could urge the nation to move beyond race-consciousness to the race-transcendence Martin Luther King advocated, but which was bypassed in our well-intended attempts at rapid atonement. One can only hope.

Heather Higgins chairs the board of the Independent Women's Forum.

Tackling Afghanistan's Food Shortage Crisis

info@iwf.org (Halima Karzai) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:21:00 EDT

Poverty has always been an obstacle to stability in Afghanistan, but current food prices have made this problem much worse. If the agriculture and technology advancements needed to make Afghanistan a self-sustaining nation are not quickly provided by the international community, Afghanistan's growing poverty problem could breed violence and possibly push Afghans into the hands of the Taliban.

Over the past 6 years, billions of dollars of aid have been allocated to Afghanistan, yet the country remains one of the poorest in the world. With an economy substantially dependent on opium production, 85% of the population relies on agriculture as their livelihood.

Soaring food prices, food shortages, price inflation, the drought, and a lack of seeds and agricultural technology are forcing millions of Afghans to be dependent on international food aid.

With 70% of a family's income spent on food, families throughout several provinces have been forced to sell their children to make ends meet temporarily. Widows and households headed by women are also vulnerable because they are forced to become beggars.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that "the global food crisis may degenerate into violence and further armed conflict." This disturbing prediction could become reality if international attention is not placed on long-term agriculture and infrastructural rehabilitation in Afghanistan.

Already food scarcity has bred violence. Afghanistan's neighboring country Pakistan has closed its borders to exports, as it also suffers from a food shortage and inflation, and is taking extreme measures to enforce the policy. Most recently, a 7-year-old girl carrying 6 lbs of wheat was caught by Pakistani border police and run over by a truck as a deterrent to other Afghans hoping to feed their families across the border.

Yet daily, Afghan children who should be in schools are forced to smuggle flour and other food from Pakistan, where the products are cheaper, into Afghanistan.

Rather than increased international pressure on the Afghan government to eradicate the growing cultivation of poppies, the international community should ensure sustainable routes are in place so Afghanistan is not long plagued by poppy cultivation. Advanced quality seeding, power and water supply, and capacity to maximize land usage should be viable substitutes for deprived Afghan farmers who currently have no choice but to turn to poppy farming as a result of a lack in agricultural development and an efficient irrigation system.

A strong agriculture sector that provides for storage facilities and marketing of products can reduce poppy cultivation and prevent those lacking the necessary means to grow alternative crops from turning to opium production. Building infrastructure and a strong agricultural market will also aid the Afghan economy and create jobs, which would be vital in a country with alarming rates of unemployment.

Receiving international assistance to the food crisis is only a short-term solution. In order for Afghanistan to secure its position as a democratic state, it must have a developed agricultural sector and infrastructure. It can only achieve those goals with the help of the international community. The rising food costs could further threaten the country's stability as poverty will breed violence and steer Afghans, particularly children, to al-Qaeda and the Taliban who will pay them to become suicide bombers or to set road side bombs.

Food security is an important part of a democratic Afghan government's stability. Afghans want nothing more than to be less dependent on the international community. Creating a viable, vibrant agriculture industry is a first step toward true independence for Afghanistan. Strong agriculture infrastructure will reduce the need of Afghans to turn to terrorism to alleviate financial difficulties. It will create employment, free youth from the burden of supporting their families so they can gain an education, and also prevent them from being recruited by terrorists. These developments would not only benefit Afghan citizens, but would improve stability in the region and throughout the world.

No nation will support the path of democracy if they are deprived of food and a means to support their families. It is in the best interest of the international community to help Afghanistan be a self-sustaining nation by investing in a reliable infrastructure and wide spread agricultural development to ensure Afghans are involved in prolonged success for themselves and their nation.

Candidate Clinton: Sexism, Racism, and Electoral Politics

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:35:00 EDT

Townhall.com

The Democratic presidential race is coming to a close. The Democratic National Committee has attempted to resolve the controversy over the Florida and Michigan Democratic primaries by giving both state delegations half votes. That diminished Barack Obama's edge over Hillary Clinton, but he is still likely to win enough delegates to be named the Democratic nominee. In fact, it appears that it is mathematically impossible for Senator Hillary Clinton to reach the magical delegate threshold of 2,118. The question now is whether Senator Clinton exits the race and if so, will she do so with grace?

Hillary Clinton's candidacy is an historic milestone. She created a massive organization, raised millions of dollars, and plowed over all but one of her male rivals. In a different year, she would have won the nomination. But not this time.

The reasons are many. Her campaign made obvious strategic miscalculations. She was not prepared for vigorous competition, only rallying after losing eleven straight contests and falling significantly behind in the delegate count. Her husband's presidency was a mixed blessing. Unfortunate comments after the South Carolina primary created a whiff of race baiting, alienating thousands of African Americans who had, until then, strongly supported her candidacy. Finally, she faced another politician nonpareil-the seemingly effortless eloquence, grace, and unparalleled ability of Barack Obama to evoke hope in millions of Americans. Moreover, the symbolism of his candidacy-which dramatically repudiates centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, and horrific acts of overt racism-overshadowed the uniqueness of her run.

The result does no discredit to her. Unfortunately, blaming sexism and misogyny for the state of Senator Clinton's presidential aspirations threatens to diminish her legacy.

She has complained about the "sexism that has gone on in this campaign" and the fact that "so much of what has occurred that has been very sexist." Some of her supporters voice similar sentiments. "She's been treated pretty shabby," one claimed. Another complained of "pervasive and insidious sexism." Yet another stated that "latent sexism has been a part of this campaign." Therese Murray, president of the Massachusetts Senate, unapologetically claimed that "Obama wouldn't have gotten to where he got today if it weren't for the bias of the male media." Geraldine Ferraro lamented that racism is unacceptable, but sexism seems to be permissible.

These claims are nonsense.

Does sexism still exist in America and are some voters unlikely to choose a woman for president? Of course. But racism also still exists, and undoubtedly has cost Senator Obama as many votes as sexism has cost Senator Clinton. Indeed, both Clintons have played the race card. To Senator Obama's credit, he has not wasted his time whining about this ugly historical legacy, but has worked to create a new reality.

Consider the membership of the U.S. Senate. There are fifteen women and one African-American. Is sex or race the bigger barrier to winning high office? Moreover, Senator Clinton has emphasized her sex during the campaign and has won support from many women because of her gender. Yet even though Senator Clinton has enthusiastically played the gender card, Senator Obama won the votes of a majority of women in 13 states and split the votes in another one. Surely, not all of his female supporters are anti-feminist, inauthentic, self-hating women.

Blaming sexism for her loss in the Democratic delegate count will set back the cause of women in politics. A new Brookings Institution study finds that the "fundamental reason for women's under representation is that they do not run for office." The most effective way to make that gap permanent is to convince women that they have no chance to win.

Senator Clinton should take pride in what she has accomplished. Equally important, though, her campaign should accept responsibility for its failings. A combination of her mistakes on strategy and Obama's gifts, not discrimination, doomed her candidacy.

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.

Opposing View: Forget about 'gender parity'

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 29 May 2008 09:51:00 EDT

First appeared in USA Today

Political parties should seek to recruit qualified women as candidates. They should do so because women are electable and make good policymakers and leaders, not to reach an artificial goal of gender "parity" among elected officials.

The notion that "Democratic legitimacy in the United States demands we continue to move toward gender parity in electoral office," as advanced in the Brookings report, wrongly assumes that men and women have divergent interests and that only women properly speak for and reflect women's values. As a supporter of limited government and free markets, I don't feel my views are reflected in any way by Speaker Nancy Pelosi or presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.

Women wield tremendous political power in our democratic process, by exercising the right to vote (women cast 54% of ballots in 2004), working in government and holding public office at all levels. While women represent a minority of elected positions, Clinton, Pelosi, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and many others have demonstrated that women can reach the heights of political power. And women continue to assume roles once exclusively held by men.

Yet there is no reason to expect men and women to be equally represented in elected office. Research indicates women are less interested in the process of running for and holding office, and they have other preferences for how to use their time and talents. Those fixated on achieving "gender parity" - whether it's in the halls of Congress, university science departments or in day care centers - want to discount men's and women's stated interests and preferences, which frequently diverge. But we should not assume that individuals are routinely mistaken about what careers give them fulfillment.

The modern campaign process requires long hours under intense media scrutiny. Unwise restrictions on fundraising make it necessary for candidates to seek new sources of money continuously. Fewer women than men are willing to undertake these activities.

Yes, the public should question whether the political process is conducive to identifying and electing the best representatives - I doubt it is. The right reforms would encourage the participation of people who can best serve our country, regardless of gender.

Saudi Migrant Workers Subject to Abuse

info@iwf.org (Halima Karzai) — Wed, 28 May 2008 13:47:00 EDT

The President recently challenged Saudi Arabia to release more oil. The U.S. and international community should also pressure Saudi Arabia to improve their human rights record, in particular their treatment of women and migrant workers.

According to Human Rights Watch, Saudi Arabia employs approximately 8 million migrant workers. Foreign workers come to Saudi Arabia to earn money to send back to their families and to escape poverty themselves. To secure their residency, workers must obtain an invitation and sponsorship from local Saudi employers.

Unfortunately, this practice puts those workers at the mercy of their employers who can withhold their passport and other legal documentation and prevent them for leaving their jobs. Some workers are even denied their earnings and subject to harsh conditions unspecified in their contract.

Female domestic workers have particular challenges and are vulnerable to exploitation. Some are forced to live in complete isolation and forbidden to leave the home in which they work. In addition to being overworked and underpaid, female migrant workers also face the risk of enduring physical and sexual abuse at the hands of their employers. Even when abuse is reported by foreign workers, it is extremely rare for Saudi employers to be prosecuted.

For example, the BBC recently reported that a Saudi couple who was accused of brutally abusing their Indonesian maid had their charges dropped by Saudi judges. Initially the maid, Nour Miyati, was sentenced to 70 lashes for falsely accusing her employers of mistreatment. Finally, she was awarded $670 in damages, hardly commensurate with the atrocious cruelty she suffered during her employment.

Most recently, a shelter holding Yemeni migrants was allegedly set on fire by Saudi authorities. Despite serious injuries, they were taken into custody for interrogation for two days without food or medical attention.

These are just more unfortunate reminders to the international community that foreigners living in Saudi Arabia face discrimination and are unable to receive equal treatment before the legal system.

It's not just foreigners, of course, who fail to find justice in Saudi Arabia. Women are routinely punished for crimes committed against them. In 2006, a Saudi woman was gang raped and later sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in prison. This caused a worldwide uproar which later resulted in the "gracious" pardon of the victim by King Abdullah.

Western governments and international human rights institutions must place pressure on the Saudi government to be more responsive in addressing charges of misconduct against migrant workers, and women generally. Governments whose citizens are migrant workers should take measures to ensure Saudi employment sponsors do not mistreat their employees.

What the 2008 Farm Bill Means for American Families

info@iwf.org (Sabrina Schaeffer) — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:18:00 EDT

Townhall.com

Slumping housing prices and ballooning gas and food prices have led many families to put the brakes on spending. Now Congress is set to make things worse for the American consumer by passing a $300 billion Farm Bill that will increase the cost of living for families and further burden taxpayers.

The 2002 Farm Bill was set to expire last October, but after a failure to compromise, Congress extended the bill. Now with the Memorial Day recess looming, Congress is working to pass a new Farm Bill so they can return to their districts, pockets overflowing with goodies for special interests.

The proposed five-year plan (no kidding) would increase subsidies for commodities like corn, soybeans, and wheat, boost spending on assistance programs like food banks and food stamps, and expand tax-credits for ethanol production.

Who benefits from this largess? The farm lobby likes to pretend the subsidies help preserve the small family farmer. But it's clear that's not the case.

According to one taxpayer rights group, 60 percent of today's commodity subsidies provide payments to the wealthiest 10 percent of recipients - "corporate welfare for the rich" as it has been described. And while the new Farm Bill makes a gesture toward curbing these subsidies, it plans to add up to $26 billion in direct payments to mega-farms over the next five years.

This kind of agricultural policy continues to bias the market in favor of a few crops that lend themselves to large-scale production at the expense of other crops - namely fruits and vegetables. Subsidies that reward a select segment of the agriculture industry encourage consolidation. They make it easier for large farms and absentee landlords to raise rental prices and make it more difficult for small farmers to grow other crops.

By manipulating the market, the federal government makes it desirable for more farmers to produce a few items like corn, wheat, and soybeans. That leaves fewer farmers producing everything else - driving the supply of fruits and vegetables down and the price up. It's a policy that ultimately hurts the consumer who will have fewer choices at the grocery store and will face the burden of higher prices.

It's not just at the supermarket, however, where consumers will feel the pinch. Americans are likely to spend more at the gas pump thanks to the Farm Bill's support for more ethanol production. While the existing tax-credit for corn-based ethanol will be trimmed by 6 cents a gallon, a new production tax-credit will be offered for cellulosic ethanol - a policy that will lead to even higher gas prices since mixing ethanol into gasoline supply reduces fuel economy.

President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, because it "has too much spending and not enough reform." But this frustration is not limited to conservative, pro-taxpayer groups. The left-leaning international anti-hunger organization Oxfam released a similar statement claiming the bill continues to favor a "system that rewards those who need help the least."

Even the reliably liberal Los Angeles Times editorial board supports Bush's promised veto, in part because of the "accounting shenanigans" Congress is relying on to balance the books. With this bill, Congress takes another step toward abandoning even the pretense of a budget, as it is to exceed the spending limit by nearly $10 billion.

The 2008 Farm Bill will hurt Americans at every turn by inhibiting competition, limiting consumer choice, burdening individuals with higher food prices, and exacerbating the rising cost of fuel. During a period of economic uncertainty, American families need more spending flexibility, not less.

As is too often the case, however, Congress's concern with special interests and political support trumps sound economic policy. If Congress really wants to bring something home to the American people this Memorial Day, they should go back to the drawing board and institute real reform to the Farm Bill.

Big Girls Cry

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:00:00 EDT

National Review

Nothing frustrates grievance peddlers more than a rival victim group threatening their turf. Regardless of any official mission statement, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) exists to complain about how unfair the world is for women and to leverage sympathy into favors from government or academia's power brokers. One recent AAUW publication depicted college women under siege from ubiquitous sexual harassment; another lamented how women earn less than men - even though their own research showed that individual choices, not discrimination, were mostly to blame.

But AAUW's bread and butter has been complaining about how women and girls are "short changed" by the U.S. education system. It's a case that's increasingly difficult to make: Girls have higher GPAs in high school, take more difficult course loads, are more likely to graduate, and earn the majority of college degrees. This has led many to wonder if it's boys, not girls, who are being overlooked in the education system.

It would be bad news indeed for the AAUW if women could not claim first place in the academic grievance contest, so AAUW dedicated their latest report, "Where the Girls Are: The Facts About Gender Equity in Education," to fending off the idea of a "boy crisis." They highlight data showing that both men and women have made gains in recent years on many measures, such as college attendance and standardized test scores. Women's gains have tended to outpace men's, but they argue that isn't a concern since women's gains have not come "at the expense" of men's.

It's certainly true that education isn't purely a zero-sum game, but it's hard to imagine the AAUW being so blasé about different rates of improvement if girls were failing to close the gap. And other evidence suggests that boys are being disserved by schools: for example, boys are less likely than girls to report they "like" school, and find their work interesting and meaningful. They are less engaged in school-related extra curricular activities, with the exception of athletics.

This doesn't mean that males should win the victim lottery and be rewarded with Department of Education programs, but it is something for parents to be aware of and seek the academic environment most likely to make their sons excited about learning.

Surely girls' academic prowess suggests it's past time to stop appropriating taxpayer dollars for programs predicated on the idea that girls are disproportionately suffering in our public schools. That's a conclusion the AAUW isn't willing to reach. In this report, they reluctantly admit that girls aren't doing so badly, but then quickly push to move the public debate "beyond gender" to focus on other factors, like race and family income, which are more closely tied to educational outcomes.

Yet AAUW has no plans to move beyond gender when it comes to seeking women-specific educational support from government benefactors. The AAUW has been among the chorus pushing policymakers and educators to take proactive measures to increase the number of women focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, which are among the few remaining disciplines in which men outperform women. The AAUW has applauded using Title IX to scare colleges into creating "proportionality" in their athletic roster, even when that results in eliminating men's sports teams.

The AAUW likely fears that if the public accepts the idea of a "boy crisis," activists and policymakers will steer the public-school system in a more "boy friendly" direction. After all, that's the tactic they embraced when sounding alarms about a "girl crisis." You could say they're unintentionally right to want to stop that from happening - it would be a terrible policy outcome, since there is no one best way to educate a boy or a girl of any race or income level.

If only the AAUW were sincere in their desire to move beyond the obsession with sex-specific outcomes. After all, the issue really shouldn't be whether we call it a boy crisis, a girl crisis, or an inner-city crisis. The problem is simply that too many public schools aren't helping children make the most of their potential.

Policymakers from across the political spectrum - from President Bush to Washington D.C. councilman and former mayor Marion Barry - are increasingly recognizing this truth and fighting to give parents more choices and control over how children are educated. Boosting educational achievement is the top priority. But school choice would also importantly help defuse the contentious policy debates that fuel the educational gender wars. A ceasefire would be good news for everyone... except of course for the grievance peddlers.

Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming How Scares Are Costing of the Earth

Wed, 21 May 2008 14:10:00 EDT

With politicians discussing adopting major, economic-crushing legislation in the name of stopping global warming, it is imperative that the public reads Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming How Scares Are Costing of the Earth. Scared to Death puts the global climate change craze in the context of other scares, which have turned out to be fueled by alarmist rhetoric and trumped up scientific claims. For a limited time, don't miss your chance to read the books full chapter on global warming by clicking here. The entire book is a must read and is available at Amazon.com.

Title IX Not the Answer for Scientific Men's Club

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even After Taliban, Violence Against Women Remains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High Costs

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

National Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Obama

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

Townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spare Consumers the High Costs of Bad Government Policy

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

Townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't Use Women To Justify Bad Economic Policy

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

Townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equal Pay Day has lost relevance

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

The Baltimore Examiner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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