By Sally Kohn
The first thing I noticed about Juan when I met him is his presence. For a young man, just graduated from high school --- that period when most of us were shy and awkward at best --- Juan is confident and vocal, the kind of person with clear potential to be a leader in whatever field he might choose.
The second thing you notice about Juan is the sadness in his eyes. His country, the only home he has ever known, decided his potential is irrelevant --- that no amount of talent and passion and vision and drive could ever overcome the fact that he and his family once crossed our nation’s borders without permission. It’s as though Juan the person doesn’t exist without Juan the paperwork. In our country, he’s treated as a number --- one to be reduced or feared.
Fear is one of the dominant motivating and manipulating forces in politics today. Some have tried to convince us that we should be afraid of immigrants, exploiting our fear about our jobs, healthcare and the economy, while pointing fingers at immigrants and saying they’re the cause of our problems. These are problems that have existed for years, deep flaws in the distribution of wealth and opportunity in our society, and undocumented immigrants are just the latest scapegoats. Fear is used to distract us while the real problems only grow.
The other motivating force is usually pity. But that’s not the answer either. Pity is equal parts compassion and isolation --- a sort-of thank goodness that it’s not me in his shoes. Pitying Juan would rob him of his dignity and power --- and absolve ourselves of responsibility.
What else, then? The most mutually respectful of emotions, where your fate is entwined with another’s, where you could never be truly safe if they are in danger, truly free if they are imprisoned, truly happy if they are unhappy -- we call that love. I don’t just mean romantic love. I mean the moral, even spiritual love --- a deep feeling of connection to other human beings, that their struggles are our struggles, their pain our pain, and that no one person’s happiness or security or hopes for the future can be rightly put above any one else’s. Just as the interests of billionaires should not be put ahead of people who are starving or losing their homes, one person’s claim on the American dream should not be put above anyone else’s by simple virtue of the geography of birth.
At what point did we close the borders on the American dream? The ideal of America has never been perfect in practice --- our present is still stained by a past of Native American extermination, slavery and sexism. Yet we have always marched toward inclusion, sometimes slowly, sometimes begrudgingly, but always bending the arc of our nation toward justice, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. observed. When did the arc start flattening out? Did we decide we’ve dished out just enough love and justice or that there’s not enough to go around? In a nation founded on the idea that freedom and equality and opportunity are renewable resources and the more the merrier, have we achieved “peak love” and tapped out?
The writer CS Lewis wrote, “We love to know that we are not alone.” And we are not alone. And as a nation, we are blessed by the bounty of generation upon generation of immigrants who have come to our borders and our shores to make a better life for themselves and, in so doing, make a better country for us all. It is the nation that, despite its hiccups and growing pains on the path to justice, is one that we should be proud to love. And Juan, like millions waiting at the gates of the American dream, loves his country and asks for our love in return.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kohn is a senior campaign strategist for the Center for Community Change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 4/08
Monday, April 28, 2008
Juan’s Story: Undocumented But Not Un-American
Watch a video of Juan telling his story.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Who Really Pays for Taxes in North Carolina?
By Meg Gray Wiehe
Two workers arrive at the office at 8 am. By 8:34, one of the workers has earned enough money to pay his share of state and local taxes for the day. The other worker must keep going for another 17 minutes to earn enough to pay his share. The difference between these two workers is their income, but not in the way you make think.
In North Carolina today, it is the state’s poorest taxpayers who pay the highest share of their incomes in state and local taxes and the wealthiest taxpayers who pay the least.
State and local taxes pay for many of the things that keep North Carolinians safe and enhance their quality of life. These include physical structures like roads, jails, and school buildings, and services like health care, education, and restaurant inspections.
Because these investments benefit everyone, each North Carolinian should contribute an appropriate share of his or her income to pay for them. It should be a common goal that all North Carolinians pay similar shares of their incomes in state and local taxes. A good case can also be made that wealthier taxpayers should contribute a greater share of their incomes.
However, the situation today is the exact opposite of this ideal. In 2007, the bottom 20 percent of North Carolina households, with an average annual income of $10,000, paid 10.7 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes. In the same year, the top 1 percent, with an average annual income of $970,000, paid only 7.1 percent. The responsibility of paying local and state taxes falls hardest on those with the least ability to pay.
North Carolina’s state and local tax system on the whole is unfair, or “regressive.” North Carolina relies primarily on income, property and sales taxes to fund state and local services. The income tax is the largest of North Carolina’s combined state and local revenue sources. This helps to lessen the overall “regressivity” of the state’s tax system, but it is not enough to offset the impact that the sales, excise and property taxes have on the poorest households. A fair tax system should be structured such that the combined impact of all tax sources results in households with higher incomes paying the greatest share of income in state and local taxes.
The “regressivity” of North Carolina’s tax system has a serious impact on the state’s ability to collect adequate revenues. The majority of state income is concentrated in the wealthiest households, and the incomes of the top 1 percent are growing at a much faster rate than any other income category. Because North Carolina’s state and local tax system primarily targets working families who have seen their wages stagnate and have the least ability to pay, state revenues are in danger of lagging behind. Unless the state makes some key tax policy changes, we will certainly face serious budget problems in the future.
Changes that would require wealthy households to pay their fair share are essential to the state’s success. If we were to change the state and local tax system to require the wealthiest 1 percent of households to pay as much of their income as the poorest 20 percent do, the revenue yield would have been $589 million in 2006.
One way to improve tax fairness is to expand the sales tax base to include more personal services (used more by the wealthy) and use the revenue gains to lower the overall sales tax rate. Another is to increase the size of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to offset the impact of the sales tax on low-income households.
Changes can also be made to the property tax to benefit low-income homeowners and renters. The preferred approach, used in more than 30 states, is a refundable “circuit breaker” credit that would return a portion of property taxes low-income homeowners and renters pay through a refundable credit on their state income tax form.
Ideally, when lawmakers consider any changes to North Carolina’s current revenue system, they should account for the impact the change will have on low- and moderate-income taxpayers. If fairness is not at the center of every tax policy debate, reform efforts will fall short on achieving long-term adequacy. Focusing on fairness will help the state meet its needs without relying on those with the least to contribute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Wiehe is a policy analyst at the North Carolina Budget and Tax Center and the author of a special report entitled “Who Pays Taxes in North Carolina?”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 4/08
Two workers arrive at the office at 8 am. By 8:34, one of the workers has earned enough money to pay his share of state and local taxes for the day. The other worker must keep going for another 17 minutes to earn enough to pay his share. The difference between these two workers is their income, but not in the way you make think.
In North Carolina today, it is the state’s poorest taxpayers who pay the highest share of their incomes in state and local taxes and the wealthiest taxpayers who pay the least.
State and local taxes pay for many of the things that keep North Carolinians safe and enhance their quality of life. These include physical structures like roads, jails, and school buildings, and services like health care, education, and restaurant inspections.
Because these investments benefit everyone, each North Carolinian should contribute an appropriate share of his or her income to pay for them. It should be a common goal that all North Carolinians pay similar shares of their incomes in state and local taxes. A good case can also be made that wealthier taxpayers should contribute a greater share of their incomes.
However, the situation today is the exact opposite of this ideal. In 2007, the bottom 20 percent of North Carolina households, with an average annual income of $10,000, paid 10.7 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes. In the same year, the top 1 percent, with an average annual income of $970,000, paid only 7.1 percent. The responsibility of paying local and state taxes falls hardest on those with the least ability to pay.
North Carolina’s state and local tax system on the whole is unfair, or “regressive.” North Carolina relies primarily on income, property and sales taxes to fund state and local services. The income tax is the largest of North Carolina’s combined state and local revenue sources. This helps to lessen the overall “regressivity” of the state’s tax system, but it is not enough to offset the impact that the sales, excise and property taxes have on the poorest households. A fair tax system should be structured such that the combined impact of all tax sources results in households with higher incomes paying the greatest share of income in state and local taxes.
The “regressivity” of North Carolina’s tax system has a serious impact on the state’s ability to collect adequate revenues. The majority of state income is concentrated in the wealthiest households, and the incomes of the top 1 percent are growing at a much faster rate than any other income category. Because North Carolina’s state and local tax system primarily targets working families who have seen their wages stagnate and have the least ability to pay, state revenues are in danger of lagging behind. Unless the state makes some key tax policy changes, we will certainly face serious budget problems in the future.
Changes that would require wealthy households to pay their fair share are essential to the state’s success. If we were to change the state and local tax system to require the wealthiest 1 percent of households to pay as much of their income as the poorest 20 percent do, the revenue yield would have been $589 million in 2006.
One way to improve tax fairness is to expand the sales tax base to include more personal services (used more by the wealthy) and use the revenue gains to lower the overall sales tax rate. Another is to increase the size of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to offset the impact of the sales tax on low-income households.
Changes can also be made to the property tax to benefit low-income homeowners and renters. The preferred approach, used in more than 30 states, is a refundable “circuit breaker” credit that would return a portion of property taxes low-income homeowners and renters pay through a refundable credit on their state income tax form.
Ideally, when lawmakers consider any changes to North Carolina’s current revenue system, they should account for the impact the change will have on low- and moderate-income taxpayers. If fairness is not at the center of every tax policy debate, reform efforts will fall short on achieving long-term adequacy. Focusing on fairness will help the state meet its needs without relying on those with the least to contribute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Wiehe is a policy analyst at the North Carolina Budget and Tax Center and the author of a special report entitled “Who Pays Taxes in North Carolina?”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 4/08
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Mind the Pay Gap
By Mary Beth MaxwellRecent headlines reveal what many of us already know -- Americans are witnessing the highest inflation rates seen in over 20 years. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, food prices climbed nearly five percent in 2007, and as housing and energy costs skyrocket out of control, working families are getting squeezed. In these difficult times, we should also be reminded that women face even greater financial struggles when weathering this economic storm.
With the observance of Equal Pay Day on April 24, we mark how far into each year a woman must work to earn as much as a man did in the previous year. Recent wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not give cause for celebration. In 2007, women earned only 80 cents for every dollar a man earned. This pay gap was substantially greater for minorities, with African-American women making only 70 cents and Hispanic women making only 62 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. While women are more reluctant to negotiate salaries and are often employed in underpaid professions, one grim reality remains -- gender-based discrimination still inherent in our society has largely caused the pay gap that persists today.
Although women can’t always rely on their employer to give them equal pay for an equal day’s work, they can count on union representation to help close the gap. That’s a dirty little secret most employers don’t want their workers to know – just ask educators at the Ithaca City School District in Ithaca, N.Y. In 2002, hundreds of teaching assistants and teacher aides, 90 percent of them female, had a starting pay of only $6.72 an hour. Putting pressure on the school district to end these poverty wages, the educators organized a union and bargained a contract, receiving a 50 percent raise in starting salary to $10.05 an hour. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent data indicates that when women are members of unions, they make the same pay as men who are not, a clear indication of the benefits unions can provide in helping improve the financial security of women.
At a time when union membership presents us with a chance to narrow the wage gap and move toward greater equality, passage of the Employee Free Choice Act is vital. Set to be reintroduced in Congress next year, the bill will give workers a more direct path to freely and fairly form a union if they so choose. Since employers often resist organizing campaigns with illegal tactics used to intimidate and scare workers, this legislation will also hold anti-union employers accountable for violating federal labor laws through tougher penalties and greater enforcement.
The wages of many working women have already improved thanks to union membership, but even more women stand to gain ground if this proposal is passed. For example, in the retail food industry union members earn 31 percent more than non-union employees. Overall, the employer contribution to health insurance premiums and pension coverage is more than twice as high for union members as for non-union members. By breaking down the barriers workers face when attempting to join a union, the ability of women to reach the American dream through fair and equitable compensation will be heightened.
That is, if lawmakers next year have the conviction to pass the legislation. While the Employee Free Choice Act overwhelmingly passed the House this session, the Republican leadership killed the bipartisan version of the bill in the Senate. Members of Congress will soon have the opportunity to hear from Americans wanting their elected leaders to take another step toward income parity through passage of this legislation. As the cost of rent, gas, health care and other necessities continues to rise, women who often are the sole breadwinners for their families can’t afford another stalemate of this critical bill in Congress next year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell is the executive director of American Rights at Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 4/08
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
How the Christian Right Goes Wrong
By Cristina PageNew research reveals that female students in programs that promote abstinence exclusively are more likely to get pregnant than those in programs that teach about the full range of contraceptives as well as abstinence. The news, published in the April issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, is just the latest proof that the $1.5 billion dollar “just say no to sex” experiment on our teens has failed. And while Christian conservatives defend their approach even in the face of this latest devastating news, it’s time to ask them one simple question: Shouldn’t the results matter?
At current rates, half of all teenagers will have sex before graduating high school and 95 percent will before marrying. These statistics infuriate the abstinence-until-marriage proponents. Their hope is that, by keeping teens in the dark about protection, ignorance will somehow lead to temperance. Those most committed to the abstinence approach seem to have paid most dearly though. Earlier findings by researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities revealed that teens taking part in virginity pledge programs (they pledge to stay virgins until marriage) are more likely than their non-pledging peers to engage in risky unprotected sex. The study also showed virgin pledgers were six times more likely to have oral sex and male “virgins” are four times more likely to have anal sex than those who do not take the pledge. These “virgins” had the same rate of STDs as other teens but were much less likely to be treated for them.
Southern school districts, which are five times more likely to use the abstinence-only approach than northeast schools, have much to show for investing in the abstinence-only. Today, southern states lead the nation in the acquisition of STDs, are home to the highest rate of new HIV/AIDS cases, and have the highest percentage of teen mothers in the country. The damage is so staggering that 17 states have opted to reject federal funding for abstinence only. In the long term, they concluded, the costs of their failure outweigh any benefits.
Abstinence is not the only policy that Christian conservatives pursue despite evidence that it doesn’t work. In fact, much of the movement’s policies have, even by their own standards, led to perverse outcomes. Consider the drive to outlaw abortion. Last year, 11 states moved to ban abortion immediately and create a case to test Roe vs. Wade in the Supreme Court. But, if ending abortion is the goal, banning abortion is quite possibly the worst strategy. The countries with the highest abortion rates in the world are those that have banned abortion. Take Latin America, where most countries have outlawed abortion yet have the same rate or- as in the case of Peru, Chile and the Dominican Republic -- rates twice as high as the United States. And where on earth have the lowest abortion rates been achieved? In countries with the strongest pro-choice policies; like the Netherlands, Germany and Italy where abortion is not only legal, but in several cases available free of charge. This pro-choice policy/lower abortion rate trend has been true in our country as well. We witnessed the most dramatic decline in abortion in the history of our country under our first pro-choice president, Bill Clinton. These declines continue today and notably where it is falling sharpest is where the strongest pro-choice policies, namely prevention through wider access to contraception, have been adopted.
And while banning abortion has failed to stop abortions, limiting abortion rights has also produced undesired outcomes. A favorite tactic of the “right to life” movement is to impose mandatory delay policies on abortion. A woman must receive information about her right to an abortion and then must wait 24 to 48 hours before receiving a procedure. Sounds harmless enough. However, while these policies have had little effect on the frequency of abortion they have dramatically increased late term abortions. In the year after Mississippi passed a mandatory delay law, second trimester abortion increased statewide by 53 percent. Nearly half the number of women presenting for an abortion late in pregnancy these days cite pro-life restrictions as the cause.
The danger of policies guided by ideology is that the means often are the end. There is no better example of the deleterious effects of policies based on wishful thinking than in the reproductive rights debate. We need to respect people’s ability to make their own life decisions and not impose our values and views upon them. If Americans were to set aside the catchy sound bites and suspiciously simplistic reasoning and instead judge by results, most would find the pro-choice movement is a more comfortable home for their stated values.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Page is the author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex and spokesperson for BirthControlWatch.org
----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2007 by the American Forum. 4/08
Collaborative Mental Health Policy is Best for Alabama
By Amy Hinton
For many years, mental health advocates have complained that mental health policy is made in a vacuum. The tendency is to treat mental health as if it were an island, separate and distinct from any of the other legitimate functions of government. It is not.
Several state agencies, including the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, the Department of Corrections and the Department of Youth Services (DYS), recently participated in the first phase of a multi-year collaborative strategic planning grant from the U.S. Department of Justice. It gave Alabama the opportunity to explore ways to reduce the number of adults and juveniles with mental health and/or substance abuse disorders that come into contact with law enforcement and the state criminal and juvenile justice systems. The goal is to not only reduce the numbers, but also to improve early identification efforts that would appropriately route persons with mental illness into the correct social service delivery system.
Many state agencies are being forced to deal with mental health issues in much the same way as an entertainer tries to keep multiple plates spinning on sticks during a vaudeville show. This is neither an effective nor efficient use of Alabama’s limited policy and planning resources. The concept of collaborative policymaking regarding mental health issues is relatively new and unfamiliar to most state agency leaders who may feel the issue has little relevance to their particular service area. Nothing could be further from reality. Mental health is an important policy issue that touches every major service area in state government.
Every day, in jails and prisons across Alabama, law enforcement officers find themselves responsible for individuals with serious mental illnesses and/or substance abuse and addiction. Lacking qualified medical staff and access to appropriate medications for inmates, correctional facilities are ill-equipped to serve as de facto mental health treatment centers. We should look to Alabama’s existing mental health and drug courts, which have evidenced promising results in diverting offenders with mental illness and/or substance abuse disorders into appropriate services.
Gov. Bob Riley recently invited the Annie E. Casey Foundation to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the state juvenile justice system. It was discovered that more juvenile offenders in Alabama are committed to DYS for property crimes than for violent offenses. Numerous juvenile judges acknowledged that
these commitments are usually inappropriate, but community-based adolescent substance abuse treatment resources are lacking statewide. Many juvenile offenders are removed from their families and committed to DYS to access substance abuse treatment resources unavailable in their communities.
The lack of training and professional development for public school personnel regarding early identification of mental health and substance abuse disorders ties the hands of the individuals who could be the most effective in early identification of juveniles with mental health needs. County and municipal governing bodies and State Department of Education officials need to be brought to the table to discuss how to integrate mental health into their policymaking activities.
Three problems exist that, if rectified now, could generate significant cost savings for Alabama.
First, serious deficiencies exist in data collection that would help state agencies identify individuals with mental health needs entering or being released from state correctional facilities and community corrections programs.
Second, too many individuals are incarcerated because the mental health and/or substance abuse service delivery systems in their communities are inadequate or nonexistent. It costs more to institutionalize someone than to provide community based services.
Third, the money that was previously spent on institutional mental health services did not follow patients into the community during the wave of psychiatric hospital closings that occurred nationwide beginning in the 1970s and 1980s. This has resulted in inadequate budgets for community-based services that are being accessed by increasing numbers of people each year.
The importance of adequately funding community-based mental health and substance abuse treatment services cannot be understated. Alabama should encourage these efforts between state agencies who deal with mental health issues every day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hinton is an advocate and public policy consultant specializing in mental health policy and former mental health services provider, who most recently served as project coordinator for Phase One of the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Project at the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Alabama Forum. 4/08
For many years, mental health advocates have complained that mental health policy is made in a vacuum. The tendency is to treat mental health as if it were an island, separate and distinct from any of the other legitimate functions of government. It is not.
Several state agencies, including the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, the Department of Corrections and the Department of Youth Services (DYS), recently participated in the first phase of a multi-year collaborative strategic planning grant from the U.S. Department of Justice. It gave Alabama the opportunity to explore ways to reduce the number of adults and juveniles with mental health and/or substance abuse disorders that come into contact with law enforcement and the state criminal and juvenile justice systems. The goal is to not only reduce the numbers, but also to improve early identification efforts that would appropriately route persons with mental illness into the correct social service delivery system.
Many state agencies are being forced to deal with mental health issues in much the same way as an entertainer tries to keep multiple plates spinning on sticks during a vaudeville show. This is neither an effective nor efficient use of Alabama’s limited policy and planning resources. The concept of collaborative policymaking regarding mental health issues is relatively new and unfamiliar to most state agency leaders who may feel the issue has little relevance to their particular service area. Nothing could be further from reality. Mental health is an important policy issue that touches every major service area in state government.
Every day, in jails and prisons across Alabama, law enforcement officers find themselves responsible for individuals with serious mental illnesses and/or substance abuse and addiction. Lacking qualified medical staff and access to appropriate medications for inmates, correctional facilities are ill-equipped to serve as de facto mental health treatment centers. We should look to Alabama’s existing mental health and drug courts, which have evidenced promising results in diverting offenders with mental illness and/or substance abuse disorders into appropriate services.
Gov. Bob Riley recently invited the Annie E. Casey Foundation to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the state juvenile justice system. It was discovered that more juvenile offenders in Alabama are committed to DYS for property crimes than for violent offenses. Numerous juvenile judges acknowledged that
these commitments are usually inappropriate, but community-based adolescent substance abuse treatment resources are lacking statewide. Many juvenile offenders are removed from their families and committed to DYS to access substance abuse treatment resources unavailable in their communities.
The lack of training and professional development for public school personnel regarding early identification of mental health and substance abuse disorders ties the hands of the individuals who could be the most effective in early identification of juveniles with mental health needs. County and municipal governing bodies and State Department of Education officials need to be brought to the table to discuss how to integrate mental health into their policymaking activities.
Three problems exist that, if rectified now, could generate significant cost savings for Alabama.
First, serious deficiencies exist in data collection that would help state agencies identify individuals with mental health needs entering or being released from state correctional facilities and community corrections programs.
Second, too many individuals are incarcerated because the mental health and/or substance abuse service delivery systems in their communities are inadequate or nonexistent. It costs more to institutionalize someone than to provide community based services.
Third, the money that was previously spent on institutional mental health services did not follow patients into the community during the wave of psychiatric hospital closings that occurred nationwide beginning in the 1970s and 1980s. This has resulted in inadequate budgets for community-based services that are being accessed by increasing numbers of people each year.
The importance of adequately funding community-based mental health and substance abuse treatment services cannot be understated. Alabama should encourage these efforts between state agencies who deal with mental health issues every day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hinton is an advocate and public policy consultant specializing in mental health policy and former mental health services provider, who most recently served as project coordinator for Phase One of the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Project at the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Alabama Forum. 4/08
Friday, April 04, 2008
Gas Gouging and Green Jackets
By Martha BurkPaid at the pump lately? Who hasn’t, and we’re paying more with each tank. Gas is up a quarter a gallon in the last two weeks alone, but don’t expect big oil to feel your pain. The moguls at ExxonMobil, the fattest of the petroleum cartel cats, will squander several millions of your fuel dollars sponsoring the Masters golf tournament and entertaining their buddies during the April 8 to 12 festivities.
The Augusta National Golf Club, home of the Masters, is famous for its top notch course, beautiful azaleas, members in green jackets -- and sex discrimination. A female may be good enough to take the Oval Office, but no woman is good enough make it through the front gates of Augusta National as an equal. Even after a national argument five years ago that played out from network TV to kitchen tables, the boys in green refused to allow women members into their exclusive club. They’re still standing firm.
Augusta National lost its TV sponsors for two years over their refusal to admit women, but ExxonMobil came to the rescue, stepping up to the sex-segregation plate with a new multi-year contract to underwrite the Masters broadcast. Female shareowners are outraged, and have filed stockholder resolutions demanding that the company account for the number of dollars spent at Augusta and other venues that discriminate on the basis of gender. The resolutions state the obvious -- the company wouldn’t do it if the subject was race. But apparently the boys in the boardroom (there are only two women out of 13) don’t think sex discrimination is such a big deal. Management sent out a letter last month urging stockholders to vote against this simple demand for disclosure.
But don’t think the company isn’t trying to woo women’s dollars while thumbing its nose at the principles of fairness and equality. In a breathtaking act of corporate hypocrisy, last month ExxonMobil also ran a nationwide full page color ad in the New York Times touting its celebration of International Women’s Day, and its support for women rising in the ranks of business -- in Africa. The ad cost only a few hundred thousand -- several million less than the Augusta sponsorship. Guess they think female newspaper readers are a cheap date.
Women at ExxonMobil are not buying the stonewalling by company management on the Augusta National issue, and women at other firms involved with the club continue to complain of sex discrimination to national women’s rights groups. Attitudes that begin on the golf course naturally spill over to the office, where women say they are passed over for promotion, paid less, and even sexually harassed at many of the companies these guys head. The National Council of Women’s Organizations has been making sure women at the green-jacketed CEO companies get a little payback. The group helped women employees at Morgan Stanley sue that company two years ago for discriminatory employment practices. They recently got a settlement for $46 million. And importantly, they got a change in company policy that expenses and entertainment at discriminatory clubs will no longer be underwritten with company dollars.
Exxon ought to listen to this canary in the coal mine. Women -- no doubt including some of its own employees -- are fed up. The company’s record-breaking bottom line has been fattened by their work. That bottom line has also been pumped up by female customers who must drive to get to work, school, church, and the grocery store. So whether you’re a woman behind the wheel or a man who cares about the women in your life, the next time you need a fill-up, consider what you’re really paying for when you choose one brand over another.
While ordinary people struggling to balance their checkbooks, the corporate guests of ExxonMobil are struggling to get another drink at the company-sponsored open bars in Augusta, Georgia. And oh yeah, the corporation gets to deduct every penny. Hold that thought. It just might cause you to drive to the next pump a little further down the block.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burk is author of Your Money and Your Life: The High Stakes for Women Voters in ‘08 and Beyond
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 4/08
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
PSA: Can You Hear Us Now?
Public Service Announcement on Verizon's rejection of services to NARAL Pro-Choice America based on their deeming the organization's mission "too controversial."
Public Service Anncmt: Truly Value Motherhood
A Public Service Announcement by Martha Burk, distributed by American Forum, chronicling various social policies from inadequate maternity leave to equal pay.
Public Service Anncmt: The Real Estate of Women's Health
This Public Service Announcement, distributed by NWEF, focuses on the battle over real estate for women's reproductive health centers.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Overweight Epidemic Requires Community Solutions
By Laurie IscaroOur hurried lifestyles lead us toward sedentary recreation. Our children “play” with the computer, I-Pods and Gameboys, and our teens spend many idle hours on MySpace and Facebook. Our schools rarely provide recess or physical education any more, and our kids are rushed through 20-minute lunches in a cafeteria where chicken fingers, pizza and ice cream are more common than a salad bar. Once home, kids who are alone without supervision often opt for sugary or salty treats and TV instead of outdoor play and a nutritious snack.
It’s little wonder we’re having issues with being overweight and obese. Yet schools alone cannot meet the needs of the healthy child for physical, artistic, social and emotional expression.
Obesity presents a staggering health issue today. The level of this epidemic has been unseen in the past and has grown dramatically worse in recent years. Today, one in three Georgia children is obese. According to the CDC, nearly one in four kids does not engage in any type of physical activity during their free time. Middle school students watch three or more hours of television per day on school days and 80 percent of our high school students do not eat the recommended five per day servings of fruits and vegetables.
Georgia has taken an important first step in addressing this crisis with a proposal calling for physical fitness assessments for students. This confidential assessment of data would be reported to the state as an aggregate for each school to shine some light on how our students are faring as a group. A yearly review will allow us to track whether we are making progress in addressing student fitness. The proposal also creates incentives for complying with Georgia’s modest physical education requirements for schools and promotes increased physical activity as a way to increase fitness.
Yet, success will require much more. We must improve the nutrition standards for school breakfast and lunch programs and step-up nutrition education. We need to also fully address vending machine practices and policies in schools and other public places where children are offered food and drink choices that are inconsistent with healthy eating habits.
Also, nonschool hours represent the single largest block of time in the lives of children. It is during this time where we must provide increased opportunities for children to participate in community-based after-school and summer programs that support a range of healthy physical activities. Afterschool programs provide the ideal environment for engaging children in sports and active play. They model and teach healthy behaviors and provide a direct connection to parents. Unfortunately, a recent survey by the Afterschool Alliance found that a large percentage of school age children do not have access to these programs.
It is important that a strategy to challenge obesity reflects the factors that have created the crisis. Today, in most families, both parents work outside the home and for longer hours. When parents get home from a long day at work, they are met with kids needing homework help, a long list of household chores to perform with little time to do them, and the need to prepare, serve and clean-up supper so their growing children can consume healthy, fresh, balanced, non-processed meals. All this for families often isolated from traditional community and family supports.
The 21st Century has presented a unique set of challenges for children, schools and families. The solution cannot rest on the shoulders of parents, or even parents and schools alone. This crisis requires a strategic and comprehensive community effort.
It’s time to recognize the challenges that our families live with today, and provide the needed services to children in school and through quality programs after school. Doing so ensures that harried, hard working families can raise healthy children that thrive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iscaro is the executive director for the Georgia School Age Care Association.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Georgia Forum. 3/08
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Women Make History Today on the New York Times Op-Ed Pages
As part of National Women's Editorial Forum's project to monitor Op-Ed pages of newspapers across the country, I have been reading the opinion section the New York Times for several months and have been very discouraged by the lack of women authors. The names of women rarely appear as bylines, and when they do, there is usually only one, most often one of the Times’ two female staff columnists. So, imagine how ecstatic I was to see that all of the four op-eds posted in today’s New York Times featured women authors. Then I discovered the topic to which the entire page was devoted: the Elliot Spitzer sex scandal.
One author is a woman who sympathizes with Spitzer’s wife, Silda, having gone through a similar predicament herself. The second author wrote with a male author to explore the myth of the victimless crime, discussing the consequences of the sex-for-hire industry and publicity faced by the prostitutes themselves. The third author is a former sex worker, and the fourth author is a syndicated columnist uses Elliot Spitzer’s poor choices as evidence as to why America should elect a woman president, as if that would eliminate infidelity among male politicians.
Not to discredit the voices of these women, but I find it interesting that the only time I’ve ever seen women dominate the commentary section in the nation’s paper of record is when the topic is sex, prostitution, and dishonorable conduct by a married male politician.
This is why it is so critical to monitor women in the media. Tracking the behaviors of local, state, and national publications allows us make valid plausible arguments in defense of the absence of women in the commentary continuum. You can help us by letting us know what’s on the op-ed page of your local newspaper. It’s easy to do through our Web-based form.
Sign up for Women’s Monitor today!
--Sui Lang Panoke
One author is a woman who sympathizes with Spitzer’s wife, Silda, having gone through a similar predicament herself. The second author wrote with a male author to explore the myth of the victimless crime, discussing the consequences of the sex-for-hire industry and publicity faced by the prostitutes themselves. The third author is a former sex worker, and the fourth author is a syndicated columnist uses Elliot Spitzer’s poor choices as evidence as to why America should elect a woman president, as if that would eliminate infidelity among male politicians.
Not to discredit the voices of these women, but I find it interesting that the only time I’ve ever seen women dominate the commentary section in the nation’s paper of record is when the topic is sex, prostitution, and dishonorable conduct by a married male politician.
This is why it is so critical to monitor women in the media. Tracking the behaviors of local, state, and national publications allows us make valid plausible arguments in defense of the absence of women in the commentary continuum. You can help us by letting us know what’s on the op-ed page of your local newspaper. It’s easy to do through our Web-based form.
Sign up for Women’s Monitor today!
--Sui Lang Panoke
Friday, March 07, 2008
Join The Women’s Monitor Project
Following on the heels of the discussion of The Washington Post’s editorial judgment in selecting guest columns, this is a good time to reintroduce the National Women’s Editorial Forum’s “Women’s Monitor” project. We are currently looking at Opinion pages across the country to see how many feature women’s voices and how often.
We need your help to know who’s there and who’s not -- so we can begin to make change, one paper at a time. We’re looking for volunteers who don’t mind reading their own daily newspaper (or any one accessible on the web) and providing a report of the day of how many of the opinion columns (not unsigned editorials) are written by women.
For example, a sample report from the Los Angeles Times on March 7, 2008 shows the paper printed five columns, all by men. We’re looking for readers across the country to track their paper (or papers) and submit similar daily reports. (Looking at papers online is fine). The more reports, and the more consistent the data, the more we can take the numbers to the papers and demand they provide a forum for women’s voices. Women shouldn’t be regulated to the token voices, representing only one-fourth or less of the paper’s columnists….or less. As Katha Pollitt recently pointed out at the Washington Post the “current roster of op-ed columnists: 16 men, two women.”
That’s unacceptable and it’s time to get the data to show the editors they are excluding women’s voices from the debate.
Click here to apply for a password to the Monitor and afterwards you’ll be able to submit a report of your paper’s Opinion page breakdown.
If anyone has questions feel free to email us at nwef (at) mediaforum dot org.
We’re looking forward to hearing about how well papers across the country represent (or don’t) women’s voices.
---Rachel Joy Larris
We need your help to know who’s there and who’s not -- so we can begin to make change, one paper at a time. We’re looking for volunteers who don’t mind reading their own daily newspaper (or any one accessible on the web) and providing a report of the day of how many of the opinion columns (not unsigned editorials) are written by women.
For example, a sample report from the Los Angeles Times on March 7, 2008 shows the paper printed five columns, all by men. We’re looking for readers across the country to track their paper (or papers) and submit similar daily reports. (Looking at papers online is fine). The more reports, and the more consistent the data, the more we can take the numbers to the papers and demand they provide a forum for women’s voices. Women shouldn’t be regulated to the token voices, representing only one-fourth or less of the paper’s columnists….or less. As Katha Pollitt recently pointed out at the Washington Post the “current roster of op-ed columnists: 16 men, two women.”
That’s unacceptable and it’s time to get the data to show the editors they are excluding women’s voices from the debate.
Click here to apply for a password to the Monitor and afterwards you’ll be able to submit a report of your paper’s Opinion page breakdown.
If anyone has questions feel free to email us at nwef (at) mediaforum dot org.
We’re looking forward to hearing about how well papers across the country represent (or don’t) women’s voices.
---Rachel Joy Larris
Farm Bill Reforms Must Be Permanently Funded
By Kathryn Sherlock
It's stunning that in a country with such abundant resources, know-how and advanced technology, we can’t seem to figure out how to end hunger.
Second Harvest reported in 2006 that 35.5 million people, 12.6 million of whom were children, experienced food insecurity (the government’s more palatable term for people who are hungry). Households with children reported food insecurity at almost double the rate of households without children. New Mexico ranked second in the nation behind Mississippi in food insecurity between 2004 and 2006.
Congress has an opportunity to do something significant toward ending hunger as they make their final decisions on the Farm Bill. What gets included (or not) will set U.S. agricultural policy for the next five years or more. This impacts everyone in New Mexico.
The Nutrition Title of the Farm Bill includes the Food Stamp Program and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), which helps supply food banks around the country. In the U.S., 26 million people use food stamps each month to help prevent food insecurity -- half of these people are children. Yet, Congress has failed to update this successful program to meet society’s changing needs. Food stamps currently provide recipients only $1 per meal. Eighty percent of these benefits get used up by the middle of the month. The program’s requirements for financial eligibility and benefits are badly out of date (limits on savings were set in 1985). Food Stamp benefits do not adjust for inflation, so as food prices rise, benefits buy less food.
In 2007, both the House and Senate passed versions of the Farm Bill, including about $4 billion in improvements to Food Stamps and TEFAP. The changes, although modest, are essential updates to these programs. They include increasing the income and childcare deductions for food stamp applicants (income determines benefit levels) and raising the minimum monthly benefit from $10 to $18 -- the first increase in 30 years. TEFAP funding is increased from $140 to $250 million per year. Of great concern is that if these changes are not permanently funded, 300,000 people would lose benefits and millions more will see benefits cut when the changes expire in 2013. Improvements need to be permanently paid for, preferably with savings generated by reforming the outdated and unjust commodity payment system.
The key to really helping hungry families is to see that the best possible provisions for Food Stamps and TEFAP are adopted in the final Farm Bill and that they are permanently funded. That means adopting Food Stamp provisions on the standard deduction, childcare expenses, and minimum monthly benefit; and adopting provisions on asset limits and unemployed adults.
Unfortunately, even these modest changes are now facing cuts in the final negotiations even though Congress has refused to reform the antiquated commodity payment system that pays out billions of dollars each year, to already-rich farms. Money spent should work for the benefit of those who need help, not those who have wealth. Reform of commodity payments would not only change this out-of-date and unfair system, it would also free up much-needed revenue to help pay for improvements in nutrition and rural development programs. Hungry people and rural communities should not have to sacrifice vital assistance to further subsidize the rich.
As food prices rise and the economy is in a downturn, failure to strengthen the Farm Bill will make it even harder for people living in hunger in New Mexico to get the food they need to live productive, healthy lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherlock is the co-group leader for RESULTS-Santa Fe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by the New Mexico Editorial Forum
It's stunning that in a country with such abundant resources, know-how and advanced technology, we can’t seem to figure out how to end hunger.
Second Harvest reported in 2006 that 35.5 million people, 12.6 million of whom were children, experienced food insecurity (the government’s more palatable term for people who are hungry). Households with children reported food insecurity at almost double the rate of households without children. New Mexico ranked second in the nation behind Mississippi in food insecurity between 2004 and 2006.
Congress has an opportunity to do something significant toward ending hunger as they make their final decisions on the Farm Bill. What gets included (or not) will set U.S. agricultural policy for the next five years or more. This impacts everyone in New Mexico.
The Nutrition Title of the Farm Bill includes the Food Stamp Program and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), which helps supply food banks around the country. In the U.S., 26 million people use food stamps each month to help prevent food insecurity -- half of these people are children. Yet, Congress has failed to update this successful program to meet society’s changing needs. Food stamps currently provide recipients only $1 per meal. Eighty percent of these benefits get used up by the middle of the month. The program’s requirements for financial eligibility and benefits are badly out of date (limits on savings were set in 1985). Food Stamp benefits do not adjust for inflation, so as food prices rise, benefits buy less food.
In 2007, both the House and Senate passed versions of the Farm Bill, including about $4 billion in improvements to Food Stamps and TEFAP. The changes, although modest, are essential updates to these programs. They include increasing the income and childcare deductions for food stamp applicants (income determines benefit levels) and raising the minimum monthly benefit from $10 to $18 -- the first increase in 30 years. TEFAP funding is increased from $140 to $250 million per year. Of great concern is that if these changes are not permanently funded, 300,000 people would lose benefits and millions more will see benefits cut when the changes expire in 2013. Improvements need to be permanently paid for, preferably with savings generated by reforming the outdated and unjust commodity payment system.
The key to really helping hungry families is to see that the best possible provisions for Food Stamps and TEFAP are adopted in the final Farm Bill and that they are permanently funded. That means adopting Food Stamp provisions on the standard deduction, childcare expenses, and minimum monthly benefit; and adopting provisions on asset limits and unemployed adults.
Unfortunately, even these modest changes are now facing cuts in the final negotiations even though Congress has refused to reform the antiquated commodity payment system that pays out billions of dollars each year, to already-rich farms. Money spent should work for the benefit of those who need help, not those who have wealth. Reform of commodity payments would not only change this out-of-date and unfair system, it would also free up much-needed revenue to help pay for improvements in nutrition and rural development programs. Hungry people and rural communities should not have to sacrifice vital assistance to further subsidize the rich.
As food prices rise and the economy is in a downturn, failure to strengthen the Farm Bill will make it even harder for people living in hunger in New Mexico to get the food they need to live productive, healthy lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherlock is the co-group leader for RESULTS-Santa Fe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by the New Mexico Editorial Forum
Where Are the Women?
After the fracas over the characterization of women in the Sunday opinion section of an important newspaper, a prominent feminist calls for a drastic increase in women editors and columnists.
On Sunday, the Washington Post offered, on the front page of its opinion section, two featured essays under a shared headline, “Women vs. Women.” One of those essays was penned by Charlotte Allen, a well-known opponent of feminism, who proclaimed that women were essentially inferior to men in nearly all categories she deemed meaningful, which include driving skills, spatial relations and math (and did not include verbal skills or multitasking).
The torrent of anger that answered the Post’s publication of Allen’s piece was predictable, and perhaps even welcomed by a Web site looking to up its page views. Into this fray stepped Katha Pollitt, the resident feminist columnist at The Nation, who, in her rebuttal today on the Post’s Web site, asked the question we have been begging for some time: If women were more equitably represented on the opinion page editorial staffs of major papers, and as columnists within those pages, would a piece like the Allen essay ever had seen the light of day. From Pollitt’s rebuttal:
UPDATE: Incidents like this one reminds me is why our Women's Monitor project is so important. We're looking for volunteers interested in tracking their paper's op-ed columns.
On Sunday, the Washington Post offered, on the front page of its opinion section, two featured essays under a shared headline, “Women vs. Women.” One of those essays was penned by Charlotte Allen, a well-known opponent of feminism, who proclaimed that women were essentially inferior to men in nearly all categories she deemed meaningful, which include driving skills, spatial relations and math (and did not include verbal skills or multitasking).
The torrent of anger that answered the Post’s publication of Allen’s piece was predictable, and perhaps even welcomed by a Web site looking to up its page views. Into this fray stepped Katha Pollitt, the resident feminist columnist at The Nation, who, in her rebuttal today on the Post’s Web site, asked the question we have been begging for some time: If women were more equitably represented on the opinion page editorial staffs of major papers, and as columnists within those pages, would a piece like the Allen essay ever had seen the light of day. From Pollitt’s rebuttal:
Here's a thought. Maybe there's another thing women can do besides fluff up their husbands' pillows: Fill more important jobs at The Washington Post. We should be half the assigning editors, half the writers, and half the regular columnists too (current roster of op-ed columnists: 16 men, two women). We've got those superior verbal skills, remember? Drastically increasing the presence of women isn't a foolproof recipe for gender fairness -- Allen is far from alone in her dislike of her sex -- but I have to believe a gender-balanced paper would reflect a broader view of women than The Post does at present.In addition, Laura Rozen offers this savvy take on her blog, War and Piece, and Ann Friedman puts forth an excellent send-up at Feministing.
UPDATE: Incidents like this one reminds me is why our Women's Monitor project is so important. We're looking for volunteers interested in tracking their paper's op-ed columns.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
From Prison to Work and Not Back Again
By Rep. Helen Miller and Roger L. BaysdenThere are over 2 million people behind bars in America and the numbers continue to grow. That’s more than the entire populations of Vermont, North Dakota and Alaska combined.
While major strides have been made in our country to better understand the needs of offenders, the United States still remains the single largest warehouser of inmates in the world. Far too little discussion is occurring on how to best address the needs of the 1.8 million offenders that will be released from our penal system and return to the communities from which they have come.
The education field argues that offenders need to earn their GED; the treatment corner of corrections argues that treatment is the most important element to a successful re-entry. From the religious community, we hear that focusing on the kinder and gentler side of people will help in their transformation. Others say it is family intervention that is sorely needed.
However, there is one common thread that runs through all of the disciplines that will assure a successful re-entry into the community and serve as the spring board of the escape from the past. What is that? A paycheck.
It is the only thing that will ultimately set the offender free. It is the nucleus for all other things; it is the freedom that allows for the good things to emerge from the offender. Without money in his or her own pocket, offenders are destined to return to a life of crime, just to satisfy the basic needs of life -- food and shelter. To an offender or any one, a paycheck offers hope, and work serves as an esteem builder. The combination of a paycheck and a job is the very bedrock of our society. There is no greater help or training that we can offer an offender than the freedom to be successful, thus enabling them to declare their independence of crime.
Work and skill development embraced by offenders will contribute more to the ultimate success of a released offender than any other single solution that an individual incurs in or out of prison. This includes life skills support while incarcerated and after their release. Moreover, we know that offenders can be and are highly productive people in work programs, thus reducing idleness in the prison and preparing offenders for jobs in the community upon release.
Supporting this contention, that work is the prime component for a successful re-entry into society, we need to look no further than a three-year study on what reduces recidivism.
The University of Baltimore via a federal grant, studied offenders who were discharged from Iowa prisons between 2000 and 2003. The prime measure of success in the community was their contributions to social security, or payroll deductions. This allowed the research group to determine any interruptions of pay for work, the frequency of the interruption, and the duration. Additionally, offenders were broken into two categories, those who work in prison industries or private sector programs verses those who did not have exposure to hands on training by either of these work programs. Inmates who mowed grass, worked in the kitchens, laundries or other housekeeping areas were categorized as non-industry work.
Not surprising, prison industry (private sector) trained offenders, had the lowest recidivism rate in each of the five states that were studied. In Iowa, offenders who worked in industries after three years had a 4.9 percent recidivism rate verses a 35 percent recidivism rate for those who worked for Iowa Department of Corrections. Another startling statistic is that since 1992, Iowa inmates have paid over $23 million in family support, taxes, restitution, victim’s compensation and room and board. Nationally, the figure is over $434, million since the inception of these programs.
The challenge of the courts, corrections, and society at large is how do we balance the safety of the public with punishment that fits the crime? If we ask the public what they want to happen to those who are in our prisons, they will quickly tell us either to fix them or keep them.
The U.S. population is growing older and there is a dire need for workers across the United States. Now is the time to focus on work as the primary means of self reliance and fulfillment upon release and to begin the journey of work-focused training as a top priority for our offenders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller is a State Representative (D-District 49). Baysden is the director of industries for the Iowa Department of Corrections.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Moving Women From Benchwarmers to Captains
By Linda Tarr-WhelanSometimes progress is measured by half-court movements. When I was in school, girls played basketball by different rules than the boys. We played on a half-court and could only dribble three times before passing the ball. Girls were regarded as too fragile to run the distance. Now, tell that to the women in the WNBA.
It's good to measure positive change, like women’s full court professional basketball. Recognizing these changes is what we celebrate in March as Women's History Month. But I'm done with simply celebrating where we've been. Instead, it's time to look at March as more a celebration of our future: let’s call it “Women Making History Month.”
Old stereotypes still stand in our way. Even today, only two-thirds of adults in this country think a woman could be president, according to a CNN/Opinion Research survey. Meanwhile, state legislatures -- the farm teams for future leaders -- have only one-quarter representation by women, a pitiful ratio that has remained unchanged for a decade. The U.S. ranks 69th in the world for women's legislative representation with only 16 percent women in Congress.
We’re missing a lot and it doesn't have to be this way. The leaders of some countries have realized that it really does matter who makes the decisions. They see what our leaders have not yet recognized: having more women at the top is good business and smart politics. For example, in Norway, women make up 36 percent of the members on corporate boards, while in the U.S. progress seems stalled at not quite 15 percent. How did Norway they do it? In 2003, Norway passed a tough law that requires all public companies to ensure that their boards are 40 percent women. By 2007, 85 percent of their public companies met the mark.
Smart leaders in Norway and other countries that focus on tapping the talents of women realize that the talent base of the future is at least half women. In an increasingly competitive world, no business or nation that fails to tap that talent is likely to succeed. We need to play catch-up and focus on women's advancement as a key part of our competitiveness. The World Economic Forum ranks women’s advancement by country, the U.S. has now fallen to 31st.
What an irony, then, that in the U.S., the talent pipeline is filled with women. By 2010, women are expected to hold 60 percent of the nation's wealth. Since 1996, a higher proportion of women than men have graduated from college, and the trend-line is only expected to accelerate. But we'll continue to waste a lot of that talent unless we transform our outmoded model of "only men need apply" leadership.
One way to tap our wellspring of female talent is to have a critical mass of women in decision-making positions. They bring new ideas and networks to reach the new talent; that offers the promise of no more excuses about a lack of “qualified women." When women decision-makers join the ranks of men in similar positions, the bottom-line results improve for shareholders and stakeholders.
More women at the table and in the corner offices helps to shape the future; a modernized policy agenda emerges to address lagging issues like the wage gap and supports for working families. One major payoff to society is the stronger families that result from a cultural shift to a definition of personal success that encompasses earning, caring and care-taking. Ultimately, more women joining the ranks of decision-makers will make us more competitive as we leave the past behind and utilize the creativity, energy and skill of more of our citizens.
How do we move into a better future? Decision-makers must ensure that there are women in every pool of candidates for every position from supervisor to CEO. Political parties and public officials must develop goals and timetables to get more women into political office; 101 other countries in the world already do it. Women who have made it need to unapologetically wedge the door open for other qualified women, particularly younger ones.
This March, it is not enough to look backwards. Women in the United States have plenty more to accomplish; we plan to make history, in the best sense of that phrase. But the mindset that "American women are doing fine, thank you" clouds the reality that we need more women at the top to make the tough calls.
Playing by different rules that undervalue women's contributions has no place in basketball, business or politics.
Women's future and the country's future are the same. Let's celebrate that -- and go make some history.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarr-Whelan is a senior fellow at Demos, a think tank and a former Ambassador to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
When Uncle Sam Plays Cupid
By Jean Hardisty(Click here to listen to a Public Service Announcement distributed by American Forum, denouncing marriage promotion as an approach to fight poverty.)
Romance and marriage proposals are in the air on Valentine's Day. Unfortunately, cupid isn’t the only matchmaker hard at work this season. An increasing number of low-income women find themselves pushed to the altar -- not by their relations or suitors, but by the federal government.
“The Department of Health and Human Services is not going to run a dating service,” declared Wade Horn in the early days of the George W. Bush administration. But Horn, a leader of the rightist “fatherhood movement” during the 1990s, introduced policies promoting marriage as a cure for poverty while running HHS’ Administration for Children and Families from 2001 to 2007. Despite his “dating service” denial, Horn saw to it that government grants powered a multimillion-dollar marriage industry made up of secular and faith-based groups which encourage low-income women -- especially welfare recipients -- to marry and bring a father into their families. Needless to say, the administration applies only the most narrow and traditional definition of “family”.
Grants made to marriage promotion programs have ballooned while at the same time federal benefits have been cut for all low-income families and those unable to meet their own needs
The scale of government funding for this inane and completely unproven bit of social experimentation is alarming. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act allocated $100 million annually for marriage promotion programs and $50 million for fatherhood programs over fiscal years 2006 - 2010, or a total of $750 million. The administration’s Charitable Choice Fund -- which in 2004 had a budget of $2 billion -- also makes grants to promote marriage, as does its $30 million Compassion Capital Fund. Many of these millions serve to fuel the expansion of conservative evangelical organizations.
Why is HHS in the marriage business? The conservatives who run administration policy falsely imply that welfare recipients are young African American women of loose sexual morals, who can be saved from their poverty and sin only through the restoration of the traditional father-headed nuclear family. Given the inaccurate and offensive stereotypes that undergird these policies, it should perhaps come as no surprise that there is no solid evidence from the social sciences that marriage results in a higher income for poor women. Indeed, contrary to the administration’s assumptions, marriage is not a magic bullet that will raise a low-income woman and her children out of poverty. Given the individual circumstances of their lives, marriage may actually be an unwise choice for many poor women. That is why most of the programs funded by government grants fail to produce the desired results; they are based on ideology rather than sound social policy.
When it comes to Bush marriage promotion programs, reducing poverty is just a smokescreen for constructing conservative -- and anti-feminist -- family structures. The administration has worked hard to eliminate those few anti-poverty programs that remain standing after the conservative revolution that began with Ronald Reagan. Proven methods, such as subsidized housing, education stipends, health care, day care, and job training programs, have all been cut under the Bush administration. Even the federal implementation of the Violence Against Women Act would be cut by $120 million under President George W. Bush’s 2009 budget proposal.
Marriage is a highly personal decision, not the business of government. Would middle class women and men tolerate this kind of government interference in their personal lives? Not for a minute. Do you solemnly swear to resist this illegitimate intrusion into the intimate lives of our fellow citizens? I do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardisty, a political scientist, is senior scholar at The Wellesley Centers for Women at Wellesley College, President Emerita of Political Research Associates, and author of PRA’s new report, Pushed to the Altar: The Right Wing Roots of Marriage Promotion.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Abstinence-Only Defies Voters’ Priorities
By Dr. Charles Jaynes and Margery Engel LoebA year ago, Governor Rick Perry showed great leadership when he issued an executive order requiring the state's sixth grade girls to get the HPV vaccine, to prevent cervical cancer. It was a bold move for a state that is conflicted about how best to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
But, if Gov. Perry truly wants to stop the spread of STDs, he will change the state's policy that allows teaching abstinence-only sex education. Recent studies have revealed that an abstinence-only plan won't stop the spread of STDs or decrease the rates of teen pregnancy.
Texas teenagers lead the nation in birth rates, and, as new figures from the National Center for Health Statistics show, after 14 years of steady decline, teen pregnancy rates went up 3 percent across the country in 2006. To many public health officials and educators, the cause for the increases in pregnancy was apparent: since 1996 the only federal funding available to states for sex education is for "abstinence-only" curricula.
Meanwhile, not only have teen pregnancy rates gone up but so have instances of STDs. Lubbock, for example, for 10 years led the nation in the number of Chlamydia and gonorrhea infections, one-third of which came from 15 to 19 year olds. Sexually active teenagers are no longer provided with information on how to prevent pregnancy or the spread of STDs. A rash of studies have also shown that the programs do not succeed in stopping or even significantly delaying teen sex. Despite this, Congress extended funding for "abstinence-only" sex education for another six months.
But a growing number of states have drawn a line on continuing with "abstinence-only" sex education. This year alone 18 states chose to forgo federal funding, and send a message to Washington that we only want to spend our money on effective programs that really protect our children. Texas also needs to voice our concerns to Washington.
While Texas law offers the option of teaching an “abstinence plus” curriculum -- which would include some lessons on birth control -- few schools use this option because the federal dollars are restricted for the abstinence-only lessons, and the money for the “plus” part has to be raised separately.
The criteria for "abstinence-only" programs demand great sins of omission; the only means of pregnancy prevention taught is that of abstaining from sexual activity. Ditto for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
Some of the lesson plans, in their zeal to support abstinence, actually disparage the usefulness of other form of protection, planning or prevention. We need to help our teens learn how to make responsible decisions by arming them with complete information that they will use for the rest of their lives.
Most parents agree it's simply unrealistic to believe that you can stop all teens from having sex by telling them "not to do it," especially when studies report that 60 to 70 percent of teens are sexually active by age 19. That's why 88 percent of voters, according to recent research commissioned by the Women Donors Network, together with Communications Consortium Media Center, agree that "comprehensive sex education should be taught in schools that includes information about abstinence, contraception, and how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS." Eighty-one percent of voters surveyed support a much broader discussion on health issues.
The hard-core activists who push the abstinence-only agenda -- even in light of new evidence that it is not effective in reducing sexual activity, unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections -- comprise fewer than 10 percent of voters. Why should they alone get to make educational decisions that could have grave consequences for other people's children?
The reasonable majority of parents who want their children to receive an appropriate and informative form of sex education can no longer afford to stay silent on the issue. States are pushing for change because they would rather put money into programs that work, and not be forced by the federal government into funding unsuccessful plans.
It is crucial for parents to speak to their elected officials and school boards about the need for comprehensive health and sex education. If parents want their children to be presented with accurate health information so that they can make responsible choices about important life decisions -- like when to become a parent -- then that reasonable majority of parents needs to make themselves heard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaynes is a practicing obstetrician gynecologist in Victoria, Texas. Loeb is a board member of the Women Donors Network and leads their project on reproductive and other health issues.
Learning Starts At Birth
By June St. Clair Atkinson and Stephanie FanjulTo truly prevent the dropouts of tomorrow, our work begins at the very start: the day a child is born. Why? Because children are born learning, and if we wait until third or first grade or even kindergarten to pay attention to what they've missed, it's already late in the game.
Research tells us that at least half of the educational achievement gaps between poor and non-poor children already exist by the time they start kindergarten. A child's brain works on a "use it or lose it" principle, and synapses not stimulated early on will be discarded and more difficult to reconstruct later. Like starting five spaces behind the starting line, the bigger the gap when children start school the harder it becomes to close in the intervening years.
Recognizing this, North Carolina educators and policymakers had the foresight to launch Smart Start, an early child hood program and More at Four, a high-quality pre-k program that serves 4-year-old children who are at risk. The two programs work together to ensure that, from birth, children have the developmental opportunities they need to be successful in school. But now we need to go a step further.
We have brought together early childhood and school leaders, parents and communities to take this next step forward, launching the NC Ready Schools Initiative. This is part of a national initiative that focuses on the early years that span from age three to grade three.
Last June the State Board of Education adopted the Ready Schools definition and endorsed the recommendation that all elementary schools link with a community planning team to conduct a ready schools assessment as part of their School Improvement Planning process. It endorsed the North Carolina Association for the Education of Young Children "Power of K" position paper clarifying what kindergartens should be like -- not the pushed-down academic structures often resulting from the pressures of accountability and No Child Left Behind.
Research from states where Ready Schools' programs are further along shows that such programs are helping to increase reading scores significantly -- from 49 to 70 percent passing rates for African American first graders in Montgomery County, MD -- and to decrease proficiency gaps based on race and ethnicity. In addition, more careful consideration is going into who serves in a principal's role in the elementary grades. If that person does not have training in child development and the early years, pilot participants are providing professional development in those areas.
An emphasis on the crucial learning period from birth through the early grades can also help ensure the success of existing programs such as No Child Left Behind, which have a heavy focus on academics and accountability.
It is imperative for educators to understand that they can teach academic content in developmentally appropriate ways for young children. We also know, that as critical as pre-K for at-risk students is, without sustained focus and appropriate instruction, these children may experience "fade out" -- or a loss of learning gains -- by grade three. Thus, the notion of "book-ending" education -- focusing on children of high school age and very young children -- is important to our ultimate goal of success for all students.
North Carolinians can be proud of their history as educational innovators -- from opening the first public university in the nation to starting the first Governor's School to pioneering school-based accountability. But given all of this effort what can citizens make of the state's continual problem with school dropouts and a high school graduation rate that still shows approximately one-third of all ninth graders failing to graduate from high school within five years?
With the introduction of the NC Ready Schools Initiative, combined with our existing efforts through Smart Start and Governor Easley's More at Four Program to enhance early childhood education, North Carolina has an excellent chance of reversing those high school dropout numbers and continuing to reduce the achievement gap. We can't start soon enough -- because when it comes to educating North Carolina's children, this is one test we cannot afford to fail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolinians can be proud of their history as educational innovators -- from opening the first public university in the nation to starting the first Governor's School to pioneering school-based accountability. But given all of this effort what can citizens make of the state's continual problem with school dropouts and a high school graduation rate that still shows approximately one-third of all ninth graders failing to graduate from high school within five years?
With the introduction of the NC Ready Schools Initiative, combined with our existing efforts through Smart Start and Governor Easley's More at Four Program to enhance early childhood education, North Carolina has an excellent chance of reversing those high school dropout numbers and continuing to reduce the achievement gap. We can't start soon enough -- because when it comes to educating North Carolina's children, this is one test we cannot afford to fail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Clair Atkinson Ed.D., is the state superintendent of North Carolina. Fanjul is president of The North Carolina Partnership for Children, Inc.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
What’s the Next Step for Health Care
By Lydia Pendley
There is a small window of opportunity for New Mexico to take the next important step toward real health care reform that will lead to a rational, affordable system of health coverage and health care for all people living in the state.
There is still time in the 2008 legislative session for action, if our legislators have the political will to create the infrastructure that will lead to a sound, evidence-based plan for health care for all by the longer 2009 legislative session.
The proposal to create a New Mexico Health Care Authority is an appropriate and well-thought out next step. The Health Care Authority would be charged with conducting policy analysis and creating evidence-based information about health care financing, delivery systems, and overseeing and implementing health care reform in New Mexico.
It would incorporate the Health Policy Commission staff expertise and would build on the initial cost comparison of three health coverage models completed last summer by Mathematica. It would be charged to develop by January 2009 an action plan for the legislature to consider that would achieve affordable, quality health care for all people living in New Mexico.
A Health Care Authority will be an effective means to real health care reform if it is created in a way that ensures:
There are a variety of health care reform-related proposals before the legislature, and the debate and negotiation is intense with legislators, the governor, state government officials and advocates having a variety of opinions and supporting different options for getting us closer to health care for all New Mexicans.
The Health Care for All Campaign supports the creation of the New Mexico Health Care Authority as the best option to making progress toward real health care reform. We need to start with an entity that can work on these issues over the long term, independent from political or health care industry pressure and can draw on needed expertise from all sectors to develop, with strong public input, the best health care reform plan giving all people living in New Mexico access to affordable, quality health care.
The people of New Mexico must let their voices be heard. The state must provide a way forward with health care reform, out of the morass of political interests, confused messages and claims, and untested strategies for reform. Reform will not happen unless we raise our voices and demand that the broken system be fixed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pendley is a member of the Health Care for All Campaign and the co-group leader of RESULTS-Santa Fe.
There is a small window of opportunity for New Mexico to take the next important step toward real health care reform that will lead to a rational, affordable system of health coverage and health care for all people living in the state.
There is still time in the 2008 legislative session for action, if our legislators have the political will to create the infrastructure that will lead to a sound, evidence-based plan for health care for all by the longer 2009 legislative session.
The proposal to create a New Mexico Health Care Authority is an appropriate and well-thought out next step. The Health Care Authority would be charged with conducting policy analysis and creating evidence-based information about health care financing, delivery systems, and overseeing and implementing health care reform in New Mexico.
It would incorporate the Health Policy Commission staff expertise and would build on the initial cost comparison of three health coverage models completed last summer by Mathematica. It would be charged to develop by January 2009 an action plan for the legislature to consider that would achieve affordable, quality health care for all people living in New Mexico.
A Health Care Authority will be an effective means to real health care reform if it is created in a way that ensures:
- It is independent from control of any single branch of government;
- It is independent from control of health care industry financial interests;
- It has no presupposition that health insurance reform is an appropriate strategy for health care reform; and
- It is charged, through legislation, to address health care reform comprehensively, including provision of comprehensive benefits, funding mechanisms that assure affordability and cost containment, portability of coverage, consolidation of actuarial pools, impact of federal programs/regulations, transparency of health costs, health care data reporting and collection.
There are a variety of health care reform-related proposals before the legislature, and the debate and negotiation is intense with legislators, the governor, state government officials and advocates having a variety of opinions and supporting different options for getting us closer to health care for all New Mexicans.
The Health Care for All Campaign supports the creation of the New Mexico Health Care Authority as the best option to making progress toward real health care reform. We need to start with an entity that can work on these issues over the long term, independent from political or health care industry pressure and can draw on needed expertise from all sectors to develop, with strong public input, the best health care reform plan giving all people living in New Mexico access to affordable, quality health care.
The people of New Mexico must let their voices be heard. The state must provide a way forward with health care reform, out of the morass of political interests, confused messages and claims, and untested strategies for reform. Reform will not happen unless we raise our voices and demand that the broken system be fixed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pendley is a member of the Health Care for All Campaign and the co-group leader of RESULTS-Santa Fe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)