Independent Women's Forum - Carrie L. Lukas

Position Paper No. 609: Excellence, Not Gender Parity, Should Be Priority for STEM Faculty

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:06:00 EDT

DOWNLOAD THE POSITION PAPER BELOW.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Women have made tremendous progress in academia, but they remain a minority of faculty, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments.

Yet it is unlikely that institutional discrimination is the primary cause of the discrepancy between the number of men and women in STEM faculties. Research suggests that women's greater challenge in balancing work pressures (particularly related to the tenure process) with their desire to have and raise children, as well as individual interests, play central roles in generating this outcome.

Additionally, some of the measures advocated by those who want more "balance" in STEM faculties could have adverse, unintended consequences, including undermining the position of women within faculties and creating reverse sexism; as hiring policies blatantly favor women over their male peers. Some have suggested that the government should use Title IX as a mechanism to increase female representation in STEM faculties, just as Title IX has been used to increase the portion of women among college athletes, including the active elimination of men's athletic opportunities in the name of "proportionality." It also fails to appreciate the real barriers to changing the makeup of faculties without explicit discrimination against men.

College and universities should consider if current policies are conducive to attracting the best women and men to engage in important research and teach the next generation. They should work to create a supportive environment that encourages both women and men to fulfill their potential and, to the extent possible, provide flexibility so that those who also have family or other responsibilities can continue to contribute to the important work of the institution. However, in doing so, their goal should be to generate the best, most productive academic departments, not to achieve a politically correct gender balance.

Feminists Meddle with the Market

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:27:00 EDT

National Review

When an economic issue makes headlines, you can usually count on Congress to respond, more often than not with an over-reach that creates more problems than it solves (think Sarbanes-Oxley or the recent housing bailout bill). Today is a rare moment when Congress has the potential to meaningfully address a real economic problem - rising energy prices - with sensible legislation to allow more drilling to increase energy supplies. So what has Congress slated for consideration this week? The Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that is the equivalent of throwing sand into the wheels of our economic machine.

Underlying the bill are the assumptions that our workplace is systematically hostile to women and that existing laws don't provide enough protection for women. As committee chairman George Miller (D., Calif.) said when celebrating the passage of the bill out of his committee: "This is a historic day in the fight for equal rights for women. If we are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at the weak sanctions under current law."

The committee's press release, like essentially every public statement supporting expanded "equal pay" laws, cites the statistic that women earn just 77 percent of men's earnings. This "wage gap" is considered proof that the work world's deck is still stacked against women and government needs to do more to make sure that everyone plays fair.

Yet a statistic that simply compares the wages of the median full-time working man and the full-time working woman tells us nothing about the existence (or lack thereof) of systematic wage discrimination. Many factors contribute to how much one earns, from occupation and area of specialty to education and years of experience. Not surprisingly, once those factors are taken into account, the wage gap shrinks.

Men tend to take jobs that are dirtier, more dangerous, and distasteful than those performed by women. Overwhelmingly, men are the ones working in our sewers, guarding our prisons, laying concrete in the scorching sun, and catching and gutting our fish. They work more graveyard shifts and longer hours, in fact, the Department of Labor estimates that even full-time working women spend about a half an hour less each day on the job than men do. Women disproportionately work indoors, in safe, climate controlled buildings, with regular, or even flexible, hours. More people are interested in working in libraries and school buildings than on the fishing boats featured in Deadliest Catch, which is why physically strenuous, dangerous jobs pay higher salaries.

Feminist activists tend to be frustrated with this analysis, and the explanation that the market (not nefarious men) is primarily responsible for women earning less. They don't think it's fair that jobs that require an education, like social work or teaching, are less valued in the marketplace than positions in trucking and sanitation work that require only characteristics like stamina and a high tolerance for filth.

They've long championed policies, dubbed as "comparable worth," that would give government officials the power to supersede the market to make sure that women's contributions aren't undervalued. The Paycheck Fairness Act takes steps in that direction. The Department of Labor would issue "guidelines" that compare the wages of different jobs to give employers a sense of what is considered "fair." The guidelines may not have the force of law (yet) but certainly would be a powerful specter hanging over employers seeking to avoid costly litigation.

And employers would have additional reason to fear that they would be targets for litigation if the Paycheck Fairness Act becomes law. This bill would subject employers to unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, even for unintentional pay disparities, creating potential paydays certain to inspire trail lawyers to action. The bill would also strip employers of the ability to defend differences in pay as based on factors other than sex, such as experience and performance, leaving courts to dictate what constitutes a legitimate pay structure.

Of course, no congressional legislation would complete without a healthy serving of waste, and the Paycheck Fairness Act doesn't disappoint. It would create a new grant program to instruct women on salary negotiation tactics and require the Department of Labor to train employers in strategies for eliminating pay disparities. It seems almost quaint to ask, but where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to engage in this type of activity? Taxpayers should be outraged that their money is being put to such use.

Federal law already outlaws sex discrimination. This legislation would afford women few new protections against actual sex discrimination, but would raise the cost of employment and discourage workplace flexibility. It is exactly what women - and the economy - don't need. If this is what we can expect from the rest of this Congress, Americans should hope for an early recess.

- Carrie Lukas is the vice president of Independent Women's Voice and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

A Strange Way to Save the Planet

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:27:00 EDT

So much for "saving the planet." Charles Krauthammer makes the point that by preventing domestic exploration, Speaker Pelosi encourages more around the globe, where they are much more likely to make a mess of it:

Does Pelosi imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic?

The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is (BEG ITAL)negative(END ITAL). Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage.

Read the whole article here.

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.

Drilling for Oil

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:03:00 EDT

Over at National Review Online, Mark Hemingway has a really interesting story on his experience visiting an off-shore oil platform:

The platform is the size of a few football fields jammed together, and the top of the derrick was easily a few hundred feet off the water. Dozens of people lived on board, and everything - from the computer systems to the actual drilling rig - was state of the art. Brutus produced over 100,000 barrels of oil a day - down from over 300,000 at its peak capacity.

That sounds impressive. But here's what truly floored me: Shell decided Brutus's location in the gulf would be profitable for drilling in April 1999. The company then built the massive oil platform, transported it to the right location in the gulf, anchored the floating leviathan onto the seafloor 3,000 feet below, drilled 17,000 feet below that, and began producing oil in July 2001. It took only two years to get Brutus online.

Of course, as Hemingway writes, this doesn't mean that allowing additional exploration would mean that Americans would be enjoying $2 per gallon gasoline, but it does suggest that help could be on the way sooner than many drilling opponents are willing to admit. Of course, allowing more exploration might also encourage foreign producers to begin pumping more and discourage speculation. In other words, while allowing drilling isn't an immediate fix, it would generate positive effects very quickly.

Who Is Uninsured?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:38:00 EDT

The Clare Booth Luce Institute has put out a great primer on health care written by long-time friend of IWF, Sally Pipes. Health care is a central issue in every campaign and can be confusing. This piece helps seperate out fact from myth, helps the reader better understand who the uninsured are (hint, they are often young and with above average incomes) and what's at stake in reform proposals. It's a must read for anyone who cares about the future of our health care system.

IWF Podcast: Women in the Workplace

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

Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas discuss several issues pertaining to women in the workplace, including the wage gap and mandated paid leave.

IWF Podcast: Single-sex Education

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:00:00 EDT

Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas discuss the latest controversy over single-sex education. Get the scoop on an important law suit out of Kentucky. View IWF's dedicated Women for School Choice section and sign our petition!

Obama's Real Stance on Equal Pay?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:22:00 EDT

CNS News Reports: "While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men. That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men."

IWF Podcast: Is there a "boy crisis"?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:40:00 EDT

Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas discuss the status of boys in the education system. Is there a "boy crisis"?

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."

Obama's Social Security Mistake

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:51:00 EDT

Today's Wall Street Journal has a fantastic article explaininig just how counterproductive Senator Obama's plan to expand the payroll tax on high income earners. In a nut shell, it does nothing to address Social Security's real financial problems and constitutes an enormous tax on middleclass Americans. Read the article here.

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.

IWF Podcast: Rising gas prices

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:53:00 EDT

Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas discuss rising gas prices. Is the government's "helping" really hurting American consumers?

Strong Arm Tactics Won't Help Consumers At the Pump

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

Townhall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Thom Hartmann Show: Deregulating health insurance

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

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

IWF Podcast: Title IX Update

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:05:00 EDT

IWF's Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas discuss Title IX, the state of collegiate athletics, and the recent program cuts at Arizona State University.

Point of View with Carmen Pate: Forget about gender parity

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:03:00 EDT

Carrie Lukas discusses gender parity in politics on Point of View with Carmen Pate.

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.

ABC Alarmism

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:52:00 EDT

ABC is going to "brief" people about predictions that civilization is doomed and then ask them to make videos depicting how terrible it will be. Is this really news or just incredibly alarmist speculation?

Global Warming Socialism

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:25:00 EDT

Pete DuPont has one of the best, though most disturbing, analysis of the recent global warming debate in the Wall Street Journal. Here's the ending:

The core of the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner legislation is that an expanded government, not the market economy, must control our society. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has produced a chart--click here to see it--showing that the bill "contains over 300 regulations and mandates," each of which must go through a federal regulatory process.

The bill does focus on some global warming objectives--although it is an America-only program estimated to lower global CO2 emissions only by about 1.4%--but it is less about that and more a step towards traditional socialism. The government would take control of our economy and regulate everything from electricity, oil and gas to imported shoes, our food, how high we may set our thermostats, and what kinds of light bulbs we may use. The EPA and the Energy Information Agency predict such controls would reduce GDP by "as much as seven percent (over $2.8 trillion) by 2050 and reduce U.S. manufacturing output by almost 10 percent by 2030."

Add to that the fact that Barack Obama and John McCain both support the bill, and that the next Congress is likely to have bigger Democratic majorities, and one can see in the next administration where a very collectivist America will be headed.

The only good news is that it seems that a growing number of people are questioning the science and the logic of such massive government action. Will it be in time? We can only hope.

IWF Podcast: Gender Parity in Politics

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:00:00 EDT

Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas discuss gender parity in politics. Should we be concerned that the majority of elected officials are male?

What Would You Do With $45 Trillion?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:48:00 EDT

Drudge's morning headline is that "$45 trillion needed to combat warming" -- that's the conclusion reached by some energy agency that wants to build thousands of nuclear power plants (this is the new goal of the radical environmentalist movements?).

Would this really be the best use of trillions and trillions of dollars in the world wanted to tackle some big problem? (As Bjorn Lomborg has argued many times before.)

This is a particularly important conversation now though since the Senate is still debatinig cap-and-trade legislation. Sounds like it won't happen, but the U.S. Congress is contemplating massively costly legislation that really has no prospect of affecting the environment in any meaningful way.

I just finished reading a book called The Deniers, by Lawrence Solomon. It is really interesting in highlighting a sampling of reputable scientists who have questioned global warming orthodoxy (often paying a steep price for it). As he concludes, it certainly doesn't mean that the global warming is just a hoax, but it does mean that the science is far from settled and we probably shouldn't take extreme measures to combat a problem we aren't sure exists. Makes sense to me.

NPR's All Things Considered: Hillary Clinton's Slow Retreat

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:13:00 EDT

Carrie Lukas joined NPR's All Things Considered to discuss Clinton's campaign and reverse sexism at play.

The Martha Zoller Show: Title IX

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:40:00 EDT

IWF Vice President for Policy and Economics Carrie Lukas on The Martha Zoller Show to discuss the dangers of using Title IX to increase women's participation in the sciences.