Single Mothers in America: Demographics

Read more here.

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

It's All About Lilly: Join Women for Obama

Probably one of the best campaign videos I have ever seen. Of course, they had an amazing subject in the great Lilly Ledbetter.



The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Great Rant about the Asshattery in Wisconsin

Friends, I'm sure you have also been watching the events as they unfold in Wisconsin. It's democracy at work, and much is at stake. I am so frustrated, because the unions have agreed to the benefit cuts so long as they can keep their collective bargaining rights. However, the new asshat of a governor has said he will not negotiate. How crazy. That's not democracy, and he's not a dictator. Other rallies are happening across the country. You can also sign this petition for fair pay and workers rights, that will go to all 50 state legislators. Please do. This fight will affect us all, and it's headed to your state next.



Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Help Batgirl Fight For Equal Pay: Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act

Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Research Career Choices at Least as Much as You Would Research a House or a Car!

U.S. employment is expected to go up 10 percent in the next decade, but there are some professions that are expected to see their ranks shrink. The reasons vary –- from outsourcing, to technology and the economy.

As high school seniors start scoping out colleges and thinking about what they want to be when they grow up, it’s a good idea to take a look at the broader jobs landscape –- what the Fastest-Growing Jobs are, but also what jobs may be disappearing, what they pay, and what some of the alternatives for a degree in that field.

Before students and their parents drop $30,000 to $100,000 or more on college, it’s important to think about what that investment will buy you: a job with good prospects or a ticket to the unemployment line?

You would spend time researching a major purchase like a house or car –- and it’s even more important to research your career and your college. You know, the thing that will actually pay for the house, car and other lifestyle choices.

Here are Nine Disappearing Jobs for those with bachelor’s degrees, according to the Labor Department.

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Young Women Now Less Likely to Work in Same Jobs as Men Wage Gap Continues Due to Occupational Segregation

WASHINGTON, DC - A new briefing paper from the Institute for Women's Policy Research charts occupational segregation since the early 1970s. Women continue to enter some high paying male-dominated professions, for example, rising from 4.0 percent to 32.2 percent of lawyers between 1972 and 2009, yet overall progress has stalled since 1996, according to one common measure, the Index of Dissimilarity. Slowing progress, women continue to dominate professions traditionally done by women, which typically pay less, accounting for over 95 percent of all kindergarten teachers, librarians, dental assistants and registered nurses in 2009.

A few occupations have witnessed a sharp reversal in desegregation, with women's share falling from over one-third to less than 21 percent of computer programmers since the late 1980s, and women's share of civil engineering declining from 13 percent in 2005 to just over 7 percent in 2009. Most troubling, young women experience more segregation today than they did a decade ago; since 2002, their Index has worsened by 6 percent, erasing nearly one-fifth of the improvement since 1968.

IWPR's Briefing Paper "Separate and Not Equal? Gender Segregation in the Labor Market and the Gender Wage Gap" analyzes data from the Current Population Survey on women's share of occupations from 1972 to 2009. Based on 2009 earnings data, it examines the relationship between median earnings and the gender composition of occupations, differentiating between occupations that are predominantly male, have a relatively even gender balance, and are predominantly female -- for low-skilled, medium-skilled and high-skilled fields.

“It is very likely that the stalled progress in integrating the labor market is contributing to the failure of the wage gap to close,” says Heidi Hartmann, President of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Working in traditional female occupations can come at a steep price. Women are now proportionately more likely than men to have some years of post-secondary education. Yet, whether an occupation requires college level education or medium-level skills or is low-skilled, typically occupations that are predominantly held by women have lower median earnings than occupations with a more even gender balance or occupations predominantly held by men. There are important exceptions, particularly among medium-skilled occupations: dental hygienists, an occupation almost exclusively held by women, have higher weekly median earnings ($956) than occupations almost exclusively held by men such as electricians ($856) or carpenters ($665). Yet, while over 80 percent of dental hygienists have at least an associate degree, only one in five electricians, and even fewer carpenters, have similar levels of education. To achieve similar earnings, women have to acquire more formal education than do men.

"All workers are likely to do better if they have at least some post-secondary school qualifications. Yet while it is still possible without college to earn a decent wage in some male-dominated occupations, the same is not true in female-dominated occupations," says Ariane Hegewisch, a Study Director at the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Almost as important as getting a qualification, however, is the field in which you qualify. A speech language pathologist--an occupation that is predominantly female--on average makes $1,153 per week, compared with a pharmacist--an occupation nearly half female--who receives median earnings of $1,841, a difference of close to $700 for a week of full-time work."

The difference in median earnings is not as big in absolute dollar terms for workers in low-skilled occupations. Yet working in a female-dominated, low-skilled occupation (the Bureau of Labor Statistics identifies nursing and psychiatric aides, maids and housekeepers and cleaners, and personal and home care aides as the largest occupations in this group) is much more likely to result in earnings close to the poverty threshold than working in low-skilled male dominated occupations (such as truck drivers, laborers and ground maintenance workers). Median weekly earnings in low-skilled, male-dominated occupations were $553 in 2009, compared with $408 in female-dominated occupations.

"Policy makers need to pay attention to the stalled progress in gender desegregation," says Robert Drago, Research Director for the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Occupational segregation carries costs for the economy and employers by exacerbating skill shortages and causing reduced productivity. It also costs working families. Particularly in low-skilled jobs, working in an occupation predominantly held by women instead of one held by men, may be the difference between earning a poverty wage and earning a family supporting wage."

IWPR's research on occupational segregation and earnings is supported by the Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) conducts rigorous research and disseminates its findings to address the needs of women and their families, promote public dialogue, and strengthen communities and societies. The Institute works with policymakers, scholars, and public interest groups to design, execute, and disseminate research that illuminates economic and social policy issues affecting women and their families, and to build a network of individuals and organizations that conduct and use women-oriented policy research. IWPR's work is supported by foundation grants, government grants and contracts, donations from individuals, and contributions from organizations and corporations. IWPR is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt organization that also works in affiliation with the women's studies and public policy programs at The George Washington University.

Women's Careers: The More Things Change, the More Things Stay the Same

It's 2010. These days, girls and women can be whatever they want, do whatever they want -- the world is our oyster. Right? Equal opportunity is ours, doors have been flung open, and career and family choices are no longer constrained by gender-based stereotypes.

If you believe that, I have a bridge in a certain NYC borough with your name on it.

According to the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor, the 16 most prevalent occupations for employed women in 2009 were as follows:


Secretaries and administrative assistants: 3,074,000
Registered nurses: 2,612,000
Elementary and middle school teachers: 2,343,000
Cashiers: 2,273,000
Nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides: 1,770,000
Retail salespersons: 1,650,000
First-line supervisors of retail sales workers: 1,459,000
Waiters and waitresses: 1,434,000
Maids and housekeeping cleaners: 1,282,000
Customer service representatives: 1,263,000
Child care workers: 1,228,000
Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks: 1,205,000
Receptionists and information clerks: 1,168,000
First-line supervisors of office & admin support workers: 1,163,000
Managers, all other: 1,106,000
Accountants and auditors: 1,084,000

Do these occupations look barrier breaking to you? Lots of them likely don't pay living wages and are unlikely to have health insurance, paid sick days, vacation, and retirement plans. They also are distressingly, well, typical. That is not to say its not respectable work. What I mean is that women are still very much constrained to career paths that are extensions of their traditional roles in the home. But we know when women get good career counseling that covers the range of options -- including typical pay and benefits -- they often make different choices. These pink collar jobs are often a low-paying self-fulfilling prophecy. The majority of women might now be in the workplace, we still have a ways to go for true equal opportunity. The more things change, the more they stay the same.


Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

President Obama Strongly Urges the Senate to Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act

Below is a press release from the Obama Administration. Yes, they support this bill. Then-Sen. Obama was a co-sponsor. But the heavy push a year and a half after the House passed the bill might have something to do with this recent poll.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release

July 20, 2010

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON EQUAL PAY

In America today, women make up half of the workforce, and two-thirds of American families with children rely on a woman’s wages as a significant portion of their families’ income.

Yet, even in 2010, women make only 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. The gap is even more significant for working women of color, and it affects women across all education levels. As Vice President Biden and the Middle Class Task Force will discuss today, this is not just a question of fairness for hard-working women. Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income. And with so many families depending on women's wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole. In difficult economic times like these, we simply cannot afford this discriminatory burden.

My Administration has already begun to address this problem. In my first week in office, I signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which helps women who face wage discrimination recover their lost wages, and in my State of the Union Address, I promised to crack down on violations of equal pay laws. Today the Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force will present its recommendations, which include ways to better coordinate among enforcement agencies and inform employees about their rights. These steps support women, and they also support businesses that are doing the right thing and paying their employees what they deserve.

We cannot do this work alone. So today, I thank the House for its work on this issue and encourage the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, a common-sense bill that will help ensure that men and women who do equal work receive the equal pay that they and their families deserve. Passing this bill is one of the Task Force’s key recommendations, and I hope Congress will act swiftly so that I can sign it into law.

###

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Great Gifts for Mother's Day: Video Stardom and $10,622

Mother's Day is just a few days away. This year, give your mom something she needs and deserves: equal pay. MomsRising.org has developed a great Mother's Day video that you can customize and send to your mom and all the moms you know. Each mom you send the video to will see her name appear in a faux news story about them winning the "Mother of the Decade" award and will be lauded by Michelle Obama and Hollywood celebrities. Celebrating the achievements of mothers everywhere, this short, funny video also educates folks about economic issues facing all women.

Honor all the women in your life this Mother's Day by urging your senators to support the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 182) and bring the bill to the floor for a vote. Imagine how happy your mom would be when she opened your gift: a giant check for $10,622, the gap between the median yearly earnings of men and women. Just think of all the things she could do with this! From paying for groceries and health care to investing in an education and saving for retirement, equal pay is the best gift that you could give the women in your life.

By supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act, you'll also be giving your mom -- and everyone who has a mom -- the gift of workplace fairness. Mom deserves the right to ask about her employer's wage practices and discuss her wages with coworkers without the fear of being fired. In addition, you'll give her the tools she needs to negotiate for fair pay and the protection of stronger federal enforcement efforts. Since her economic security throughout her lifespan is largely determined by her earnings, this truly is the gift that keeps on giving.

This recession makes pay equity even more important. With women now making up half of the workforce and more and more families dependent upon a woman's paycheck to make ends meet, ensuring that women are paid fairly is even more critical. Equal pay for equal work is not only crucial to most families' economic security, it's crucial to our nation's economic recovery. That's why it's so imperative that these tough economic times aren't used as an excuse to ignore pay discrimination.

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

WPI's 111th Congress, First Session At-A-Glance: Legislative Action Affecting Women and Families

Women’s Policy, Inc. has produced an excellent summary of legislative action affecting women and their families in the first session of the 111th Congress (2009).

Read this wonderful recap for the latest substantive legislation action on the following issues:

Adoption
Appropriations
Breast Cancer
Federal budget
Child Support
Children’s Health Insurance
Domestic violence
Early childhood education
Employment
Equal Pay
Family and Medical Leave
Hate crimes
Health Care Reform
HIV/AIDS
Housing
Indian Health
Infant Mortality
International Women’s Day
Juvenile Justice
Microloans made to women-owned small businesses
Military families
Missing children
National Domestic Violence Awareness Month
National Women’s History Month
Nutrition programs
Ovarian cancer
Paid sick days
Postpartum Depression
Science, Techonolgy, Engineering and mathematics education
Sexual Assault
Small Business
Stalking
Teen Dating Violence
Violence against women
Women and business


Copyright 2009 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Why There's Still A Wage Gap (With Apologies To Peggy Olson)

Blog reposted in part, with permission from author Doree Shafrir. Originally posted on Jezebel.

A couple weeks ago on Mad Men, Peggy got recruited to go to another, much larger ad agency. Instead of saying yes right away, she went into Don Draper's office to see if she could get a raise.

She's a copywriter, but she gets paid much less than the other copywriters, all of whom happen to be male. And so she invokes the recently passed Equal Pay Act. "It's a law now," she says. "Equal pay for equal work." Don looks at her as though she's speaking another language. "Peggy, it's not a good time," he tells her. Then he asks her if she wants a drink.

When Peggy confronts Don, it's 1963, and the median annual income for women was around 60 percent of men's. Today, it's around 77 percent—a gain, to be sure, but hardly anything to be thrilled about. While some of the so-called gender gap can be explained by the fact that women tend to work in lower-paying fields—such as education and child care (I'm going to bracket the debate about whether these deserve to be lower-paying fields at all)—there's still a five percent wage gap for male and female college graduates, even after controlling for things like age, race and ethnicity, region, marital status, children, occupation, industry, and hours worked, according to testimony given in April to the United States Joint Economic Committee. The conclusion? "It is reasonable to assume that this difference is the product of discrimination."

But it's slightly more complicated, I think, and it raises uncomfortable questions about the differences between men and women—whether they're socially determined or not. A couple years ago, there was another study that focused on men vs. women in negotiations; men, it showed, will take the initiative and ask for things like more money or a promotion, while women will wait to be asked.

It's hard not to look at these studies and think about anecdotal evidence from my own life. At my first job out of college, I was offered just that salary: $25,000 a year. I didn't even think about negotiating. Sure, you could argue that I wasn't exactly coming from a position of strength, as a 22-year-old college graduate with little experience who was desperate for a job. But over the years, I saw how certain people—and nearly all of them were men—were able to ask for things that I wouldn't even have thought of to ask for: Extra vacation days. Bonuses. When I was in graduate school, better teaching schedules (and better professor assignments). A few years later, I was offered another job at what I now considered a laughable salary, $35,000 a year. I countered at $65,000. We settled on $57,000, with a guaranteed raise to $60,000 after three months. And I came up with a new motto: "You don't ask, you don't get."


Read the full blog and comments here.

It's time to update the Equal Pay Act, untouched since its passage in 1963. Go here for more information and to write a letter to your Senator -- The Paycheck Fairness Act has passed the House, but is stuck in the Senate and needs your voice.

FLOTUS Wows with Speech on Women and Health Care Reform

Finally, the health insurance reform debate turned its focus -- albeit briefly -- on women and girls. About time. Women make most of the health care decisions in American families, and because of our longevity we tend to use more health care services as well. Further, because a persistent wage gap deprives many women of fair pay, women also have a harder time paying for health care and health insurance. And, to add insult to injury, insurance is typically more expensive for women. Without commonsense reform, insurance companies could continue the discriminatory practice of gender rating, and women could continue to pay monthly premiums ranging from four percent to 48 percent higher for individually-purchased health care plans than men. FLOTUS Michelle Obama's first foray into the health care debate was quite welcome, and could not have come at a better time.

Enjoy a clip, and read the full text below.



REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY
ON WHAT HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM MEANS
FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES

September 18, 2009
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Room 450

11:33 A.M. EDT

MRS. OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you all. Please, sit. Rest. (Laughter.) First of all, good morning. I am so thrilled to see so many of you here this morning at the White House. Welcome. And that’s including my good friend, Dr. Dorothy Height. (Applause.) You know, she is always there, for the past eight months and before. If there was a big event, an important event, she finds a way to be here. She is my inspiration, and it is wonderful to see you again today. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
�
Thank you all for joining us today for the outstanding work you’re doing every day on behalf of women and families all across this country. I have to thank our extraordinary Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, for taking the time to be here. (Applause.) And for her tireless efforts to keep our nation healthy. And that includes not just pushing for health insurance reform but preparing us for H1N1, pursuing cutting-edge research to find treatments and cures for tomorrow. Clearly this is not the easiest portfolio she could have, but she is doing a terrific job, and we are grateful for her leadership.

And I also want to thank Tina Tchen, who you all know, for emceeing today. (Applause.) She, too, is doing a fabulous job as Director of our Office of Public Engagement, and she played a critical role in pulling together today’s event — not just as an emcee but as a key figurehead, making sure that we’re all aware of what’s going on.

And finally, I want to thank the three women behind me — to Debi, Easter, and Roxi. (Applause.) It is not easy to come here and tell your story. And these stories aren’t new. You know, these stories are happening all over this country, not just for thousands of women — for millions of them. For two years on the campaign trail, this was what I heard from women, that they were being crushed, crushed by the current structure of our health care. Crushed. But these stories that we’ve heard today, and all of us — if we’re not experiencing it, we know someone who is. These are the stories that remind us about what’s at stake in this debate. This is really all that matters. This is why we are fighting so hard for health insurance reform. This is it. This is the face of the fight.

And that’s why I’d like to talk to you today. That’s why I’m here. That’s why reform is so critical in this country — not tomorrow, not in a few years, but right now. People are hurting in this country right now.

But there is also a reason why I invited this particular group to talk today. There’s a reason why we’ve invited the leaders not only from family advocacy groups and health care advocacy groups, but for so many organizations that have been fighting for decades for empowerment for women. And that’s because when it comes to health care, as the Secretary said, as we all know, women play a unique and increasingly significant role in our families. We know the pain, because we are usually the ones dealing with it.

Eight in 10 women, mothers, report that they’re the ones responsible for choosing their children’s doctor, for getting them to their checkups, for managing that follow-up care. Women are the ones to do it. Mothers are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses. (Laughter.) And more than 10 percent of women in this country are currently caring for a sick or elderly relative. It’s often a parent, but it could a grandparent, or a mother — or a relative of some sort — but it’s often a parent. So they’re making critical health care decisions for those family members as well.

In other words, being part of the sandwich generation, is what we are now finding, raising kids while caring for a sick or elderly parent, that’s not just a work/family balance issue anymore. It’s not just an economic issue anymore. More and more it is a health care issue. It’s something that I have thought a great deal about as a mother.

I will never forget the time eight years ago when Sasha was four months that she would not stop crying. And she was not a crier, so we knew something was wrong. So we fortunately were able to take her to our pediatrician that next morning. He examined her and same something’s wrong. We didn’t know what. But he told us that she could have meningitis. So we were terrified. He said, get to the emergency room right away.

And fortunately for us, things worked out, because she is now the Sasha that we all know and love today — (laughter) — who is causing me great — excitement. (Laughter.)

But it is that moment in our lives that flashes through my head every time we engage in this health insurance conversation. It’s that moment in my life. Because I think about what on earth would we have done if we had not had insurance. What would have happened to that beautiful little girl if we hadn’t been able to get to a pediatrician who was able to get us to an emergency room? The consequences I can’t even imagine. She could have lost her hearing. She could have lost her life if we had had to wait because of insurance.

And it was also fortunate that we happened to have good insurance, right? Because if we hadn’t had good insurance, like many of the panelists up here, we would have been saddled with costs for covering that emergency room visit for her two days in the hospital. We would have still been paying off those bills.

And this issue isn’t something that I’ve thought about as a mother. I think about it as a daughter. As many of you know, my father had multiple sclerosis. He contracted it in his twenties. And as you all know, my father was a rock. He was able to get up and go to work every day, even though it got harder for him as he got sicker and more debilitated. And I find myself thinking, what would we have done as a family on the South Side of Chicago if my father hadn’t had insurance, if he hadn’t been able to cover his treatments? What would it have done to him to think that his illness could have put his entire family into bankruptcy? And what if he had lost his job, which fortunately he never did? What if his company had changed insurance, which fortunately never happened, and we became one of the millions of Americans, families, who can’t get insurance because of a preexisting condition?

So these are the thoughts that run through my mind as I watch this debate and hope that we get it right.

But let’s be clear: Women aren’t just disproportionately affected by this issue because of the roles that we play in families. As Tina and Kathleen mentioned, women are affected because of the jobs that we do in this economy. We all know that women are more likely to work part-time, or to work in small companies or businesses that don’t provide any insurance at all.

Women are affected because, as we heard, in many states, insurance companies can still discriminate because of gender. And this is still shocking to me. These are the kind of facts that still wake me up at night; that women in this country have been denied coverage because of preexisting conditions like having a C-section or having had a baby. In some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she’s been the victim of domestic violence.

And a recent study showed that 25-year-old women are charged up to 45 percent more for insurance than 25-year-old men for the exact same coverage. And as the age goes up, you get to 40, that disparity increases to 48 percent — 48 percent difference for women for the exact same coverage in this country.

But it’s not just women without insurance, as we’ve heard, as we know who are affected. Plenty of women have insurance. But it doesn’t cover basic women’s health services like maternity care or preventative care like mammograms or pap smears, which we all know we have to have. We can’t go without these basic services. But many insurance policies don’t even cover it.

Or policies cap the amount of coverage that you can receive, as you’ve heard, or it drops coverage when people get sick and they really need the care. Or maybe people have coverage but they’re worried about losing it if they lose their jobs or if they change jobs or if the company changes insurance carriers. Out-of-pocket costs get higher and higher. It’s hard to be able to plan your monthly bills when you don’t know what your premiums are going to be. So a lot of people find they have to drop their insurance because they can no longer afford it.

Just think about it. Many women are being charged more in health care coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men — to a man. So it’s not exactly surprising when we hear statistics that more than half of women report putting off needed medical care simply because they can’t afford it.

Now, we have trouble putting ourselves first when we have the resources — just making the appointment when you have insurance to get your regular screenings, to take care of those illnesses, those bumps and lumps and pains that we tend to ignore. But then not to be able to do it because you can’t have insurance, you don’t have insurance — it’s not surprising that so many millions of women around this country are simply going without insurance at all.

See, and the thing that we all know is that the current state — this current situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. (Applause.) No one in this country should be treated that way. It’s not fair. It’s not right. And these are hard-working people we’re talking about, right? People who care about their kids, care about their lives. And these circumstances could happen to any of us. This is one of those, “There but for the grace of God go I” kind of situations. None of us are exempt — ever.

So I think it’s clear that health insurance reform and what it means for our families is very much a women’s issue. It is very much a women’s issue.

And if we want to achieve true equality for women, if that is our goal; if we want to ensure that women have opportunities that they deserve, if that is our goal; if we want women to be able to care for their families and pursue things that they could never imagine, then we have to reform the system. We have to reform the system. The status quo is unacceptable. It is holding women and families back, and we know it.

Fortunately, that is exactly what my husband’s plan proposes to do, and it’s important for us to understand some of the basic principles of that plan. Under his plan, if you don’t have insurance now, or you lose your insurance at some point in the future, you’ll be able to purchase affordable coverage through an insurance exchange — a marketplace with a variety of options that will let you compare prices and benefits. This is exactly the approach that is used to provide members of Congress with insurance. So the thought is that if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it should be good enough for the people who vote them in. (Applause.)

And this is also an important part of the plan. If you already have insurance — and it seems that there are a lot of people who are worried that they’ll lose what they have under this plan — but under this plan, if you already have insurance, you’re set. Nothing changes. You keep your insurance, you keep your doctors — and you’re blessed. (Laughter.) This plan just puts in place some basic rules of the road to protect you from the kinds of abuses and unfair practices that we’ve heard.

Under this plan, insurance companies will never again be allowed to deny people like Debi and her son coverage for preexisting conditions. Sounds like a good thing. So whether you have breast cancer, diabetes, asthma, or hypertension — or even just had a C-section, or some mental health treatment that you had in your past — none of that will be a reason to refuse you coverage under the plan that my husband is proposing. Because when you’re fighting an illness, he believes that you shouldn’t also have to be in the process of fighting the insurance companies at the same time. (Applause.) It’s a basic idea.

Under this plan, insurance companies will no longer be able to drop your coverage when you get too sick, or refuse to pay for the care that you need, or to set a cap on the amount of coverage that you can get. And it will limit how much they can charge you for out-of-pocket expenses, because getting sick in this country shouldn’t mean that you go bankrupt. That’s a basic principle of this plan.

And finally, this plan will require insurance companies to cover basic preventative care. Seems simple. (Applause.) From routine checkups, to mammograms, to pap smears — and this would come at no extra charge to the patient, so folks like Roxi can get the chance to get the kind of screenings that she needs to save her life, because we already know that if we catch diseases like cancer early — we know this — it’s much less costly to treat, and we might just be able to save some lives. We know this.

So, under this plan, we can save lives and we can save money. It’s not just good medicine but it’s good economics as well.

So I think this is a pretty reasonable plan. I don’t know about you. (Applause.) But I know many of you believe it’s a good plan as well. And I know that many of the groups that you represent believe that what we’re doing here, this fight, is important. It’s important to this country, it’s important to women, it’s important to families that we succeed.

And now more than ever, as Tina said, as Secretary Sebelius said, we need to act. No longer can we sit by and watch the debate take on a life of its own. It is up to us to get involved, because what we have to remember is that now more than ever, we have to channel our passions into change.

That’s nothing that you all haven’t done before, right? (Laughter.) You all have been the driving force behind so many of our greatest health care achievements, whether it’s been children’s health insurance; to funding breast cancer research, stem cell research; to passing the Family Medical Leave Act. The folks in this room, you’re the ones that made those phone calls, right? That you wrote those letters, you knocked on those doors. You’re the ones that helped make that happen.

And that’s exactly what we need you to do today for health insurance reform. We are going to need you over the next few weeks to mobilize like you’ve never mobilized before. We need you to educate your members about what the plan really is and what it isn’t, because education is the key to understanding, and it’s going to take phone calls to explain, to talk things through, to make sure that people understand not just what’s at stake but what this all means.

And we know there will be all sorts of myths and misconceptions about what the plan is and isn’t, so it’s so important that you make sure that people know the facts, and at least they make their decisions based on the truth of what this plan is and isn’t. We need you to make your voices heard right here in Washington. And you all know how to do that. (Laughter.)

And no, it won’t be easy, because there are always folks who are a little afraid of change. We all understand that. We talked about this all during the campaign. Change is hard. Sometimes the status quo, even if it isn’t right, feels comfortable because it’s what we know. So it is understandable that people are cautious about moving into a new place in this society. There will always be folks who will want things to stay just the way they are, to settle for the world as it is. We talked about that so much. This is one of those times.

But look, I am here today, standing before you as the First Lady of the United States of America, because you all didn’t settle for the world as it is, right? (Applause.) You refused to settle. And as a result of many of your efforts, as a young girl, I was able to dream in ways that I could have never imagined, that my mother could never have imagined, that my grandmother could never have imagined. And thanks to so many of you, I am raising these beautiful young women, you know — (applause) — who are going to be able to think so differently about their place in the world because of the work that you’ve done.
�
Health care reform is part of that movement. Health insurance reform is the next step. So we’re going to need you all, focused and clear, picking up the phones, talking, calling, writing your congressmen and women, making this something that is the highest priority for all of us, so that we can make sure that every single family in this country can move forward as we hope that they can; that they don’t have to worry about whether they can insure themselves. They don’t have to worry about whether their kids are going to break an arm. That’s what kids do, they break stuff. (Laughter.)

So I am grateful for all of you, for the work that you’ve done, and for what I know that we can do together over the next several weeks. But we have to be, what, fired up and what?

AUDIENCE: Ready to go!

MRS. OBAMA: And ready to go. A little fired up and ready to go. So thank you so much. God bless you all, and God bless America. (Applause.)



Copyright 2009. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Fabulous Obama Campaign Ad Focusing on Real Women, Real Issues

This Obama for President ad first aired during Gov. Sarah Palin's (R-AK) much anticipated appearance on Saturday Night Live last weekend. In the ad, real women talk about their distrust of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), touching on some of the most critical issues that women voters are keying in on this year -- pay equity, health care, retirement security, etc.

The ad also features Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) support for women's reproductive rights. This is particularly notable since the choice issue has more often sent Democrats running for cover -- but in an election year that is breaking all the rules, reproductive rights are back in vogue again and helping pro-choice candidates nationwide. Perhaps people are thinking about the Supreme Court -- about time.



Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Just What Every Woman Needs: A Wild Cherry Steam Thing

In this critical election year, women will most likely be the deciding vote. It's quite a responsibility, really -- the direction, indeed the future of a nation rests in our hands. As such, women are more engaged than ever -- 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling don't lie; neither does the fact that pay equity is front and center this election season.

In many ways, this decision-making power rests well with women. We're comfortable with it. We have long been the primary family economic and social decision makers -- whether it's buying the family home, choosing a car, when to go to the doctor, or what laundry detergent or mustard to buy. Marketers have long known this, and therefore target women directly. Unfortunately, their advertising has not necessarily caught up with women's key roles and critical decision-making positions. Take this ad... "A woman has needs. And right now I need this wild cherry steam thing." All this shit happening in the world today, and all they think women can think about is a snappy new red washer/dryer set? Now, as you all know, I am not without humor, and I appreciate clean clothes as much as the next person -- perhaps more. But this ad is whacked. All I could think when I read it was "Huh? WTF?"


Personally, I think women have more important needs. In fact, I am quite confident we do. Let me enumerate -- for the benefit of the manufacturers of the LG steam washer and dryer and their marketing "gurus" -- just a few of the things that I need, in no particular order.

1) Got equal pay? Um, no. Well, women did just get a one cent raise -- the average went from 77 cents on the male dollar to 78 cents. Woo Hoo. So let's start there -- pay us fairly, and I can buy your fancy appliances.

2) How about a fair and balanced judiciary? So the precious few civil rights and liberties women do have are protected. And so when I sue your ass for sexual harassment and pay discrimination, I have a better than 5 percent chance of winning -- which are the current odds, by the way.

3) While I'm on the subject of the judiciary, hands off my reproductive rights, okay? And let's make them real -- ensure docs are trained in abortion techniques and women's health; make sure hospitals have to offer emergency contraception (even the Catholic hospitals); ensure Rx drug plans cover birth control, especially if they cover Viagra; teach comprehensive, age-appropriate comprehensive sex education in our schools; repeal the global gag rule and increase national and international family planning funding. Course, the more kids I have the more I'm gonna want your fancy washing machine, I guess.

4) How about a basic guarantee of paid family and medical leave, and paid sick days while I'm at it. Yes, we have a federal FMLA law now, but lots of folks don't take advantage of the protections because it's unpaid. If you work in a job with no vacation or paid sick time, then you're shit outta luck. This country's work/family policies are the joke of the developed world -- hell, lots of "underdeveloped" countries do better than we do. Gimme some time off, and I can do my laundry in your super dupper machines.

5) Can you say health care? I knew you could. We need comprehensive, universal, affordable, high quality health care. End of story. 'Nuf said.

6) How about the best public schools on the planet? And affordable colleges so that everyone can explore and reach their full potential. This isn't just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do -- it's about global competitiveness and national security. You want smart workers who can build your washing machines? Then we need to do a lot better by our K-12 system and make college more accessible. Oh, wait, you probably outsourced those factory jobs overseas, didn't you? Made in China? Or maybe you just outsourced your advertising efforts -- which would explain your piss-poor ability to relate to American women in this particular ad.

7) Stop violence against women and children -- rape, incest, domestic violence. We need better enforcement of current laws, more funding for prevention and victim support programs, and fundamental social change that tips in favor of simply not tolerating this crap. Can your washing machine, which you seem to think is what women really long for, take care of that problem, please?

8) I hope your cherry red washer/dryer set is energy efficient, 'cuz our environment is in a world of hurt. We need more research and federal support for alternative energy sources, more recycling, environmental education in the schools, better public transportation, etc.


Okay, so I'm on a rant, but damn! These ridiculous ads make me a little crazy. So tell me, what do you really need this election season? Do tell....


Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

A Good Week with Women Voters for the Democrats: The Face of Pay Equity Endorses Obama

Barack Obama has just had a particularly good week with the ladies. In fact, it was a noticeably big week for women's endorsements for the Obama campaign. Can you say "gender gap?" I knew you could. :) In a week that saw Republican VEEP candidate Sarah Palin's approval rating drop precipitously, these actvities aimed at women voters well timed.

First, a group of women's organizations -- those few that have PACs and thus can endorse without jeopardizing their precious non-profit status -- endorsed the junior senator from Illinois. Prominently featured was the still-not-as-happy-as-they-could-be NOW, who joined their shero Hillary Clinton in saying "no way, no how, no McCain." Other groups included the Feminist Majority with the ever colorful Ellie Smeal, the Business & Professional Women/USA, the National Congress of Black Women, and the National Association of Social Workers. Watch portions of the press event here:



But the real coup de grace in my mind was this week's Obama endorsement from Lilly Ledbetter. The plaintiff of Ledbetter v. Goodyear fame headlined the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and on September 18 made it official -- she's for Obama, in a big way. Ledbetter made the announcement at a series of events in the critical state of Virginia, and was treated like a rock star by adoring crowds. The New York Times has referred to Ledbetter as "the Democrats secret weapon," and they may be right.

Take a look at this ad featuring Ledbetter, below, just released this past week -- she's a humble grandmother from Alabama who packs a punch, and women nationwide are cheering her on. Why? Because her experiences are so familiar, so universal to us all, and she's speaking up and trying to change things for future generations -- despite the fact that her own case is closed. Now, the Democratic Senate needs to do the right thing by Ledbetter's vocal support and national advocacy and pass the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The House has already passed this critical bill that would right the Supreme Court's FUBAR handling of the Ledbetter case. However, the legislation is currently stuck in a defacto Senate filibuster on the more pompous, ponderous side of the Hill. But if we can get more Dems elected to the Senate -- and inch our way closer to that magic number of 60 -- I predict the Ledbetter bill will be one of the first bills signed by an Obama Administration.



The Democratic women of Congress also had a press conference cheering on Obama this week, touting an earlier equal pay ad put out by the Obama campaign (below). Pay equity champion Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) is especially worth a listen at this particular dog and pony show, although the women members also talk about critical issues such as health care and retirement security.



The Democrats have finally gotten religion on the pay equity issue -- and about time, too. I'm sure the fact that the issue is a vote driver for women helps a lot -- but that touch of cynicism aside, the Democratic party is the only party that is collectively and actively working to improve women's economic equity -- that, in fact, recognizes the problem of pay equity at all. That, my friends, is just one of a million reasons why Obama's the better candidate for women and their families.




Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Scenes from the Democratic Convention

Hey Folks --

Yes, I was in Denver. Pretty amazing. I was, however, in town earning a paycheck -- you know, the day job. I had hoped to blog from the Mile High City, and I did -- but for work, not for ZR, much to my disappointment. I plan to do a blog about my experiences there, hopefully, but in the meantime I thought these photos would give you a taste of the truly historic 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Enjoy!!

Celebrities were all over Denver. Actress Eva Longoria talked to the DNC's Women's Caucus about the importance of turning out the Latino vote.








Actress Fran Drescher of "The Nanny" told the Women's Caucus, "A black man is running for president and women and Latinos are the deciding vote. It's a world gone mad -- and it's about time!"









Hillary Clinton addresses her biggest fans at Tuesday's enormous EMILY's List after noon reception -- it was sold out and the hottest ticket in town that day.







Michelle Obama pays homage to the women of EMILY's List, the largest Political Action Committee in the country, period. She's new to the List, but they loved her. The fact that she kicked serious ass on Monday night at the Pepsi Center didn't hurt, either.







The party faithful at the Pepsi Center welcome Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night. They needed to be revived after the deadly dull keynote from former Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA), now a Senate candidate. Actually, it was Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) who was the MVP -- he stole the show until Hillary walked out. Warner was a dumb choice from the beginning.



Hillary hits it out of the ballpark, with a speech that takes care of the business of party unity and delights the crowd waving signs with her distinctive signature. I know it was hard, girlfriend, but you did it well.







Bill Clinton rocked the house on Wednesday night. While he called himself the warm up act for VEEP nominee Joe Biden, the Man from Hope is never a sideshow. He went well over his 10 minutes and speakers had to be bumped to the next night, but who gives a crap??




Joe Biden officially accepts the Democratic vice presidential nomination. He talked about how he'd been bullied as a kid, and how his mom would send him back out to "bloody their noses so I could walk down the street the next day." The screenshot of his mom saying to her neighbor, "That's true! I did!" was priceless.





Howard Dean pays homage to the second Women's Caucus meeting on Thursday morning. As well he should, given how much the Democrats rely on women's votes to win elections. Dean talked about how pleased he was with how Wednesday night had went. "Even John Kerry did well," said Dean. Gee, Howard, still chewing on those sour grapes? Course, if Kerry had been has fiery four years ago as he was in Denver, history might have been different.




Longtime progressive women's advocate Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) brought down the house at Thursday's Women's Caucus. On Tuesday, by the way, it was Donna Brazile who was the caucus MVP -- best speech I've ever heard Donna give; she announced that she had signed the petition putting Clinton's name into nomination. Brazile said she did it for Shirley Chisholm, for Barbara Jordan, and for Stephanie Tubbs-Jones -- the Cleveland-based representative and vocal Hillary supporter who just died last week.


John Oliver of "The Daily Show" was on hand at Invesco Field on Thursday afternoon, working the crowd and gathering all the "hard" news for John Stewart. :)

Various musical guests played at Invesco Field between the political speechmaking. It really felt like one massive pep rally. Sheryl Crow, Micheal McDonald, and John Legend and Will.I.Am singing "Yes We Can."
It had been rumored that Springsteen would play that night but, alas, those rumors were false.

The feeling at Invesco Field was electric. Flags, signs, face paint, dancing and music. Despite 3-4 hours in line to make it through three rings of security, the crowd was primed for the main event.




Sen. Barack Obama officially accepts the Democratic nomination to be President of the United States, with a speech that was both accessible about his plans and more sharply critical of his opponent than in the past -- which I, for one, welcomed. No swiftboating allowed this time without an equal response, dammit.




Confetti and fireworks flew over Invesco Field at the conclusion of Obama's speech. Since it was outdoor, the obligatory balloon drop was out. It was the cap to a festive and historic night. Forty-five after MLK's famous "I have a Dream" speech, the first black candidate of a major political party accepted the nomination in front of the largest crowd to ever witness such an event.








Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Ledbetter Update: Test Vote Fails But More Votes to Come

So, once again, the Senate is the place where all good bills go to die -- for now. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act faced a tough cloture vote tonight, which fell just shy of the needed 60 votes to move on to final passage. The final vote was 56-42. All the Democrats stayed in line, which needless to say is a pleasant change of pace.

Some Republicans also saw the light: the enlightened included the two original co-sponsors, Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME) and Arlen Specter (PA), as well as a few folks in tough re-election races -- Susan Collins (ME), Gordon Smith (OR), Norm Coleman (MN) and the biggest surprise of the night, John Sununu (NH). These senators received the full court press from both advocates back home as well as DC-based lobbyists, and it paid off.

Of course, the business interests pushed just as hard, and were able to get enough Republicans to toe the line to block the measure. Aside from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), only one other senator didn't bother to vote at all: Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was apparently in the bathroom -- or somehow otherwise occupied -- when the critical civil rights bill came to the floor.

Both Democratic presidential candidates came to town for the vote, and spoke on the floor -- in fact, the vote was moved from Tuesday to Wednesday in order to get them back to DC and improve the chances for passage. Both Clinton and Obama also had photo ops with Lilly Ledbetter herself (above), who spent the evening in the Senate gallery and the Senate reception area, pigeon-holing senators as they walked in to vote. Trust me, it's hard to look this woman in the eye, hear her story, and not be moved.

McCain did not bother to come back to town for the vote, though his front desk staff was helpful enough to tell constituent callers that A) not only would he not be present for the vote, but B) he would not vote for it even if he was. Gee, thanks, Maverick. Reporters asked McCain about the legislation on the campaign trail, and AP wrote stories with headlines like "McCain Opposes Equal Pay Bill in the Senate" and "Senate Republicans Kill Pay Disparity Bill." This coverage is good for Big Blue, especially since recent polls show women -- especially young women -- really care about pay equity this election season. With the economy tanking and gas prices soaring, it's no wonder fair wages are on women's minds.

It should be noted that the pure vote on the cloture motion was 57-41, but in a procedural move Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote to "no." This allows him to bring up the vote again at a later date. And Reid, as well as lead sponsor Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and women's and civil rights advocates, have vowed that they will bring this vote up again.

It's not over. The pay equity issue is too important, and the Supreme Court's decision in the Ledbetter case was just too damn dumb to let stand. And, oh yeah, it's an election year -- so this issue is another good way to hold elected officials' feet to the fire come November. No doubt that the Ledbetter vote will be showing up in a lot of congressional voting records very soon -- on both the right and left.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Something Clinton and Obama (and their supporters) Can Agree On: Fair Pay

In an unusual show of good timing, this week -- the week of Equal Pay Day -- the Senate takes up the House-passed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 2831). It's only been sitting at the desk since July 2007, but better late than never. They'll debate the bipartisan bill, and the make-or-break cloture vote is scheduled for Wednesday (4/23) afternoon -- hopefully at a time when both Clinton and Obama, both original sponsors of the legislation, can get back to town for the critical vote. This civil rights legislation corrects one of the latest missteps of the Roberts Supreme Court – this one coming last May via their controversial split decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.

Color me surprised – the Court’s new majority got it wrong? You mean, they took the first available opportunity to turn a decades old civil rights law on its head? Gee, whoda thunk? (Sorry, I’m still a bit bitter after fighting so hard against the Bush nominees -- only to see the Senate Dems roll over and play dead.) Now, we all get to reap what President Bush and the Senate Democrats have sown by putting Roberts and Alito on the bench for life -- and we're faced with the cheery prospect of cleaning up the mess, decision by decision.

But I digress. Here’s the gist about the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. For more than 40 years, the courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have followed the same precedents and policies when interpreting the statute of limitations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This practice became known as the paycheck accrual rule, and is the simple principle that each paycheck – itself tainted by a prior discriminatory pay decision – is in and of itself another discriminatory act. Thus, a tainted paycheck can restart Title VII’s 180 day clock.

But last spring, the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision turned decades of legal precedent on its head and created a new standard: if an employee doesn’t know they’re being discriminated against in the first 180 days, and doesn’t file a pay discrimination claim in that period, then they’re shit outta luck – and the employer is forever immunized from any responsibility for that discriminatory pay decision. Yes, you read that right. The employer can then knowingly – even openly -- continue to pay the employer a less than fair wage, because the 180-day charge period has passed without the employee finding out and filing a charge about the inequitable pay decision. Welcome to civil rights on the Roberts Court.

This new, impractical standard makes it almost impossible for workers to seek justice for pay discrimination. Why? Think about it. The first six months on the job, most folks don’t exactly hang around the water cooler asking their co-workers the intimate details of their pay stubs. It often takes time for this kind of insidious discrimination to make itself known – particularly since so many employers still tell employees they're not allowed to discuss wage issues at work.

That’s exactly what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. She worked for Goodyear in Gadsden, Alabama, as a shift supervisor. Not long before she retired, Lilly discovered that all the other shift supervisors – all male, most of whom hadn’t worked there nearly as long as she had – were making a lot more money than she was. Her bosses wouldn’t talk to her about it, so on her first day off she went to the nearest EEOC office in Montgomery, and filed a claim. It progressed painfully from there – such lawsuits are never a cakewalk – but the system as it was then worked for Lilly. A jury of her peers in that company town decided Lilly had been discriminated against, and awarded her two years back pay (the limit under the statute) and a large punitive award, which was immediately reduced to $300,000 – the statutory cap for sex-based discrimination under Title VII. Lilly was vindicated.

But wait. Goodyear decided to appeal – oh, not based on the facts of the case. They admitted the discrimination – 20 years worth. Goodyear simply said Lilly Ledbetter had filed her claim too late, and thus had no recourse whatsoever -- tough luck. No matter that Goodyear forbade Lilly and the rest of its employees to talk about their salaries. No matter that Lilly worked for over 20 years before she first discovered the inequities that had begun decades before -- via an anonymous note in her mailbox, of all things.

The purpose of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is to correct the Supreme Court’s blunder in Ledbetter, and return to the earlier, long established practices in employment law. This is, in fact, what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg asked Congress to do in her stinging dissent in Ledbetter -- a dissent she felt compelled to read from the bench to the Court, an unusual action that is a telling barometer of her ire. Critics such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Business are throwing around all kinds of distortions, and lobby hard to block the bill. This despite the fact that the paycheck accrual rule wasn't something business groups were clamoring to change prior to Ledbetter. In fact, the issue wasn't even on their radar screen -- the precedent was that established -- but now they don't want to let this unexpectedly juicy plum go.

But don’t let anyone fool you. This bill is a reasonable, narrow fix. Truthfully, advocates could have gone after a bigger bite of the apple – we could have asked for language to increase the 2-year limit on back pay, for example, or to lift the caps on punitive damages. But when you're working in an environment where the Senate has become the place where all good bills go to die -- where it's 60 or bust -- advocates chose to literally just go after a bill that simply turns back the clock. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a time warp of sorts, taking us back to the practices and precedents as they were the day before the Ledbetter decision – no more, no less.

The vote also provides a good gauge of a legislator's position on pay equity issues this election year -- a year when several moderates are running scared of being scored on such votes. A year when pay equity is a top priority for women voters. This issue also is yet another illustration of the importance of judicial nominations and getting a Democrat into the White House. Advocates and Democrats are pretty close to getting the 60 votes we need to move to a final vote on the bill -- close enough to make the Republicans sweat. But it's touch and go, and several moderate and independent-minded Republicans are up for grabs. Also, more conservative Democrats always need shoring up.

What can you do? Take a moment and call your senators. Urge them to vote yes on the Ledbetter cloture vote, and yes on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 2831). Call this toll-free number (866-338-1015) to get the Capitol Hill operator, and you can ask for a senator's office. And then, speak your mind for pay equity – it’s Equal Pay Day (4/22), and there's no better day to do it.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

It's STILL the Economy, Stupid: Middle Class Dream Slipping Away

Here's a scary stat. Only 1 in 4 people in working families have a good job -- one that pays at least $17 an hour, and comes equipped with employer-sponsored health insurance and a pension.

No wonder at least 48 million Americans in working families lack the where-with-all needed to do a chin-up to the middle class. This dismal but not surprising news comes from a new report, released Thursday (2/21) by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

So let's break this down a little further. A total of 48 million -- that works out to about one in five working Americans struggling to make ends meet on incomes that are below a basic, minimum middle class budget for their community. And a full-time job at $17 bucks an hour adds up to an annual income of just over $35k. No one's living high on the hog on that paycheck -- and they aren't likely to be buying homes, paying for college, or saving for retirement either.

Movin' On Up: Reforming America's Social Contract to Provide a Bridge to the Middle Class, takes a look at recent research by CEPR in various sectors -- such as job quality, economic security, and unionization -- then outlines a set of nationwide policy reforms that would make it possible for more struggling families to live the middle class dream. Here's the gist of the report's recommendations:

• Labor market standards and institutions must be strengthened
• Access to post-secondary education and training must be expanded
• The system of public and private health care benefits must be reformed

And, here's another "newsflash" that most working Americans could tell any government bureaucrat willing to listen: the country's current poverty standards do not accurately reflect the number of working families who are holding on to the middle class by their fingernails, or who cannot maintain a middle class lifestyle at all. Gee, ya' think? But of course, the government will disavow the military-industrial complex before they actually recalculate the poverty guidelines to mesh with the economic realities of everyday life. Even though, according to the report (and trust me, the good folks at CEPR are not the first to show such findings), almost half of all working families living below a middle class standard of living actually have incomes that put them above the official federal poverty line. This is not hard when the poverty threshold for a family of four is set at the unbelievable, wholly unrealistic level of $21,200.

CEPR rightly concludes that steps must be taken to bring some balance back to the economy and ensure everyone can take part in our nation's economic prosperity. Said co-author Shawn Fremstad:

"Tremendous increases in economic growth and workers' education levels over the last few decades should have moved millions of Americans into the middle class, but didn't because of policy choices that increased inequality. We must update America's social contract to make sure that the economy is working for all Americans."

The CEPR report dovetails quite well with an insightful New York Times op-ed by former labor secretary Robert Reich. He believes, like many of us, that we are sliding headlong into a recession -- hair-splitting terms like "stagflation" aside.

"The underlying problem has been building for decades. America’s median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Most of what’s been earned in America since then has gone to the richest 5 percent."

"Yet the rich devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us because, after all, they’re rich. They already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, and thus stimulating the American economy, the rich are more likely to invest their earnings... The problem has been masked for years as middle- and lower-income Americans found ways to live beyond their paychecks... We’re finally reaping the whirlwind of widening inequality and ever more concentrated wealth. The only way to keep the economy going over the long run is to increase the wages of the bottom two-thirds of Americans."

And Reich has a similar formula to address this growing income inequality: better schools (including pre-K), stronger unions and government protections, and wage replacement programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit that allow poorer people to keep more of their income. One thing's for sure: we need to begin to look at these problems systematically, and come up with a nexus of solutions. For the first time ever, we have a generation of adults (Generation NEXT) who believe they will fare worse than their parents. That is the saddest commentary of all, and may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy if we don't act collectively to address it. This next President, whoever they are, had better be the "Economy President."

The Real Price of Economic Stimulus

As an early valentine to the entire nation, George W. Bush recently signed a $168 billion economic stimulus package. About $110 billion of that payout will go to individuals and families, in the hopes that folks will go on a patriotic shopping spree with their surprise buckage. So, courtesy of Congress (and your tax dollars), millions of working Americans will be the recipients of hundreds of dollars in tax rebates right around Mother's Day.

But, really, how is this fiscal package going to affect us? And can it really provide a much needed boost to our faltering economy? My friends at OMB Watch have boiled down all the particulars into a user-friendly chart that will help everyone figure out if they should expect a check and just how fat that windfall might be.

The economic stimulus measure represents the largest legislative package ever passed in an effort stem an economic slowdown. Much political energy and capital was spent to push the measure through. Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even put down their dukes long enough to agree on this one. But can the bill really deliver on all that it promises? According to OMB Watch, the weighted value of the package comes out to about $160.4 billion, or $7.6 billion less than the actual cost of the total package. As a result, in OMB-Watch-ese, the "package can be expected to yield slightly less in short-term consumer purchases than it removes from the economy in the long-run in terms of additional debt, and considerably less when interest expense is factored in."

Ugh. In other words, or Zaftig-ese, not only does the economic stimulus package not do the trick in terms of stimulating the economy, it's going to cost us in the long run. Why? Because we have to borrow the money (from China?) to hand out all those checks, and pay the interest on the debt the nation incurred during its collective field trip to the mall.

For my money, as I wrote in an earlier blog, if you want long term economic stimulus, Congress should take a long, hard look at pay equity issues -- and remedies for the lack thereof. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act (S. 1843) -- a bill the House has already had the good sense to pass months ago -- is still languishing in the Senate. The bill rights the Supreme Court's wrongheaded, unrealistic -- okay, I'll just say it -- dumb ass decision in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. If you really want economic stimulus that sticks to your ribs, write your senator today and tell them it's time to pass this bill. Tell the Senate that then -- and only then -- will you spend your rebate check. Happy shopping, folks.


Some Additional Info from the IRS:

How to make sure you get your rebate check
Facts About the 2008 Stimulus Payments