Tag Archives: regulation

Black Hair Haters: Are Proposed Military Grooming Standards Discriminatory Toward Black Women With Natural Hair?

This is some bullish… Army Grooming Standards Ban Most Natural Hairstyles Black women enlist in the armed forces at a higher rate than any other demographic and represent a third of the U.S. armed forces but black women are not really feeling the love in return from the U.S. army, largely because of a new regulation 670-1 which hasn’t yet been made official or public, but was approved on March 6. The new rules aren’t sitting well with many enlisted black women, especially those with natural hair and there’s been a huge public outcry since slides from the Powerpoint presentation associated with the regulation leaked on March 20. Here are some details via AJA’s The Stream blog : Unauthorized hairstyles now include twists, dreadlocks, Afros and braids that are more than a quarter-inch thick – styles commonly worn by many African-American women. After the new measures take effect, soldiers who wear these hairstyles will have to remove them or cover them with wigs or extensions if they do not want to face administrative discipline. Army veteran “Tonya” [name has been changed to protect identity], who has dreadlocks, spoke to The Stream about her opposition to the new rules, which she called “deliberate.” “It’s very targeted because we all know who they’re talking about even though they never explicitly say the world ‘black’ or ‘African-American.’ We all know who typically wears these types of hairstyles and then they went as far as to include pictures of black women in the PowerPoint.” The updates to grooming regulations were approved on March 6 by Secretary of the Army John McHugh. The Stream reached out to the Army with questions regarding the new grooming guidelines, and was referred to previous statements made by Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond F. Chandler. “We’ve gone through a series of revisions and briefings to try to find something that’s reasonable, affordable and feasible within the Army that aligns itself with our professional responsibilities,” said Chandler’s statement. Some soldiers have pointed to what they say are inconsistencies in how grooming rules are applied. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense released regulations allowing turbans, headscarves and beards to be worn while in uniform to ensure protection of religious freedom for service members of diverse faiths. Definitely seems like the Army needs to reconsider this regulation and fortunately there is something we can all do about it… A Whitehouse.gov petition has been posted calling for the Obama administration to reconsider the guidelines: More than 30% of females serving in the military are of a race other than white. As of 2011, 36% of females in the U.S. stated that they are natural, or refrain from chemically processing their hair. Females with natural hair take strides to style their natural hair in a professional manner when necessary; however, changes to AR 670-1 offer little to no options for females with natural hair. In the proposed changes, unauthorized hairstyles include twists, both flat twists as well as two strand twists; as well as dreadlocks, which are defined as “any matted or locked coils or ropes of hair.” These new changes are racially biased and the lack of regard for ethnic hair is apparent. This policy needs to be reviewed prior to publishing to allow for neat and maintained natural hairstyles. The petition has already amassed nearly 5,000 signatures in just ten days. Do you agree that this regulation is discriminatory toward black women with natural hair? We can’t understand how dreadlocks would be banned but extensions would be approved — what sense does that make?

Read the original here:
Black Hair Haters: Are Proposed Military Grooming Standards Discriminatory Toward Black Women With Natural Hair?

Random Lawsuits: New York Inmates Sue County Of Westchester For $500 Million Over Dental Floss

Wow. These inmates these days are not playing about their oral hygiene!!! According to USA Today: Nearly a dozen jail inmates in New York state are suing the county for $500 million, claiming that the jail’s refusal to let them use dental floss has ruined their teeth, The (Westchester) Journal News reports. Santiago Gomez, 26, who is being held on a gun charges, is lead plaintiff for 11 inmates in the federal suit filed in Manhattan, writes Journal News reporter Jorge Fitz-Gibbon. “We feel that the Westchester County Department of Corrections is depriving inmates of the use of dental floss, which is causing us cavities,” Gomez tells The Journal News by phone. “They recognize the importance of it, that you have to floss, in the regulation manual. They clearly state if you don’t floss you’re going to get cavities.” Westchester Deputy Correction Commissioner Justin Pruyne tells the newspaper that he cannot discuss details of the lawsuit, but notes that the jail is not required under state regulations to provide dental floss to prisoners. SMH. $500 Million though???

View original post here:
Random Lawsuits: New York Inmates Sue County Of Westchester For $500 Million Over Dental Floss

FCC Commissioner Calls For Greater Regulation of News Media

In a Wednesday interview on BBC World News America, liberal FCC Commissioner Michael Copps told correspondent Katty Kay: “I think American media has a bad case of substance abuse right now ….we are going to be pretty close to denying our citizens the essential news and information that they need to have in order to make intelligent decisions about the future direction of their country.” As TVNewser reported on Thursday, after Kay asked about instituting a “Public Value Test” of media outlets, Copps replied: “What we've had in recent years is an aberration where we have had no oversight of the media. For years and years we had some public interest guidelines…they agreed to serve the public interest and that public interest to me right now is crying 'news and information, news and information, news and information.'” read more

More:
FCC Commissioner Calls For Greater Regulation of News Media

Newsweek Mocks GOP Congressman’s Religious Beliefs with ‘Creation of Adam’ Photoshop

Apparently the sophomoric folks at Newsweek are getting a bit giddy during the short work week leading up to Thanksgiving. To accompany David Graham's November 23 The Gaggle blog post , Newsweek editors included a photo manipulation featuring the face of Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) on the body of Adam in Michelangelo's “The Creation of Adam” The photoshop was inspired by a March 2009 comment Shimkus made that reflects his religious beliefs, a comment that Graham apparently finds suitable for mockery and as evidence that Shimkus would be a poor choice to chair a committee that might deal with climate change-related issues and legislation: read more

See the rest here:
Newsweek Mocks GOP Congressman’s Religious Beliefs with ‘Creation of Adam’ Photoshop

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Pleads for Government to Force Environmentalism

During Monday's12PM ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Contessa Brewer helped promote the network's “Green is Progress” week by demanding greater government intervention to force people to follow an environmentalist agenda: “Until government says these are the standards that everyone has to aspire to, we're not really making progress.” Brewer made the comments while interviewing Practically Green CEO Susan Hunt Stevens and introduced the segment by touting the latest poll numbers on environmental awareness: “87% of Americans say they personally care about protecting the environment. 75% of Americans believe projects that protect the environment could also give us an economic boost….38% say the government should be most responsible for protecting the environment.” However, she fretted people weren't making enough sacrifices: “…everybody says in a survey, 'oh, do you want to live greener? Do you personally care about the environment?' Yes. 'Are you willing to spend 25 cents extra in a federal gas tax that would definitely help improve the use of fuel?' Not so much.” View video below read more

Here is the original post:
MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Pleads for Government to Force Environmentalism

Thomas Friedman Bashes Tea Party, Wants Better More ‘Centrist’ Movement

New York Times correspondent Thomas Friedman is clearly unhappy about the Tea Party, so much so that he considers the movement “not that important.” Instead, he envisions another group, “which stretches from centrist Republicans to independents right through to centrist Democrats,” sitting silently out there in America waiting for the right leader to emerge. So wrote Friedman Wednesday in his ” The Tea Kettle Movement “: The Tea Party that has gotten all the attention, the amorphous, self-generated protest against the growth in government and the deficit, is what I’d actually call the “Tea Kettle movement” – because all it’s doing is letting off steam. That is not to say that the energy behind it is not authentic (it clearly is) or that it won’t be electorally impactful (it clearly might be). But affecting elections and affecting America’s future are two different things. Based on all I’ve heard from this movement, it feels to me like it’s all steam and no engine. It has no plan to restore America to greatness. The Tea Kettle movement can’t have a positive impact on the country because it has both misdiagnosed America’s main problem and hasn’t even offered a credible solution for the problem it has identified. How can you take a movement seriously that says it wants to cut government spending by billions of dollars but won’t identify the specific defense programs, Social Security, Medicare or other services it’s ready to cut – let alone explain how this will make us more competitive and grow the economy? Friedman like so many on the left seems ignorant of history, not just the American version but also the world’s. Important political movements on this planet since the dawn of time begin with protest. A small group decides it’s being treated unfairly and begins expressing such sentiments. As it grows, those in power become fearful and either implement changes to assuage the anger developing in their population or are eventually overthrown. If the latter occurs, those doing the conquering don’t initially have a clear platform to enact once they attain power. That comes later. Did our Founding Fathers know what form of government the United States would be when colonists first began protesting the edicts of the King of England? Of course not. That didn’t come until years later. That Friedman and so many media members complaining about the lack of specific ideas in the Tea Party don’t understand this is either the height of stupidity or dishonesty. But Friedman wasn’t done, for he next threw out the same tired line about this movement not being credible because it wasn’t complaining about out of control spending when George W. Bush was president. Once again, this is either ignorant or an intentional misrepresentation, as one of the reasons Democrats did so well at the polls in 2006 was because so many of today’s Tea Party members refused to vote for Republicans that year.  The anger on the Right was first manifested in an election boycott that continued in 2008 when many conservatives couldn’t bring themselves to vote for John McCain. As such, there was plenty of anger being expressed towards establishment Republicans prior to Barack Obama’s inauguration, but it was taking forms that weren’t apparent to liberal media elites like Friedman. That said, having discredited the movement that is currently having more impact on America than the two major parties are, Friedman spoke about another: The issues that upset the Tea Kettle movement – debt and bloated government – are actually symptoms of our real problem, not causes. They are symptoms of a country in a state of incremental decline and losing its competitive edge, because our politics has become just another form of sports entertainment, our Congress a forum for legalized bribery and our main lawmaking institutions divided by toxic partisanship to the point of paralysis. The important Tea Party movement, which stretches from centrist Republicans to independents right through to centrist Democrats, understands this at a gut level and is looking for a leader with three characteristics. Leadership today is about how the U.S. government attracts and educates more of that talent and then enacts the laws, regulations and budgets that empower that talent to take its products and services to scale, sell them around the world – and create good jobs here in the process. Without that, we can’t afford the health care or defense we need. Here’s what Friedman believes “the real Tea Party” wants: To implement it would require us to actually raise some taxes – on, say, gasoline – and cut others – like payroll taxes and corporate taxes. It would require us to overhaul our immigration laws so we can better control our borders, let in more knowledge workers and retain those skilled foreigners going to college here. And it would require us to reduce some services – like Social Security – while expanding others, like education and research for a 21st-century economy. I’m not kidding. Friedman actually thinks that despite the current economic malaise strangling this nation – 9.6 percent unemployment occurring at the same time the government has exploded in size – there is a groundswell of support for raising some taxes and expanding some services. Yes, history has certainly shown homo sapiens willing to die for higher taxes! Methinks Mr. Friedman needs to spend less time in Greenwich Village and Berkeley to test his liberal theory in what know-it-all elites like him call “Flyover Country.” Unfortunately, that will never happen for these folk only care about the opinions of those residing in a handful of places on the coasts. Maybe they’ll broaden their horizons on November 3.

See the rest here:
Thomas Friedman Bashes Tea Party, Wants Better More ‘Centrist’ Movement

9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush

Despite unemployment at 9.5 percent and millions of people having lost their jobs since Barack Obama was elected, Chris Matthews just doesn’t understand why anyone would miss George W. Bush. Without naming this week’s PPP poll finding Ohioans would vote for Bush over Obama by the tally of 50 to 42 percent if a presidential election was held today, Matthews in the first segment of “Hardball” asked his guests, “Why would you want that back?” When Time’s Michael Scherer tried to explain logically why voters are disappointed with what Obama has done since Inauguration Day, Matthews wasn’t having any of it (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Here`s the point. Why are the voters now in these polls — now, some of the polls are robocall polls. They`re not the most reliable polls. But I`m seeing enough evidence to think there`s something going on. When people say — independent voters say they`d rather have Bush back — MICHAEL SCHERER, TIME: That`s right. MATTHEWS: — after Iraq and taking this economy — doubling the national debt, bringing the deficit out of nowhere, when Clinton left it with a big, fat surplus, why would you want that back? SCHERER: Take — MATTHEWS: What`s your reporting tell you? SCHERER: What a lot of these voters are voting for — these are independent voters. You know, the miracle of Obama in 2008 wasn`t that he got elected, it was that he got elected in a lot of states like Indiana and North Carolina that didn`t go Democrat very often. He did that by grabbing independent voters who were sick of President Bush, who thought the country was going in the wrong direction, and he offered a broad promise of hope and change that hasn`t been delivered. That`s what he`s suffering for. And I think in a place like Ohio, where you`re talking about that poll, what people are saying is, “Look, you know, we weren`t being treated well with the last guy. We`re not treated being well with this guy. We`ll take whatever we can get.” Exactly. Matthews either forgot or was dishonestly ignoring that this is why the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008: the country was unhappy with Republicans and just wanted to vote “D”. Now, the country is unhappy with the Ds: DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: There has been a message problem out of the White House. When you have polls showing that people don`t believe the stimulus has created jobs or saved jobs and you have Republicans echoing and — and reemphasizing that particular lie, and it sets in, well, that`s something that actually, I think, is within the realm of control for the White House. MATTHEWS: There are two choices when you vote, D or R. If the people push R, does your reporting tell that they know they`re voting for more lackadaisical administration, like Katrina, more hawkishness and neo- conservative fighting of wars that are wars of choice, not necessity? Do they know they`re voting for that kind of thing? And they`re voting for a guy who was so sloppy on fiscal policy, refused to veto a single spending bill, that we doubled the national debt? Do they know that that`s what R means when they vote R this November? SCHERER: When I was in Indiana — I was in South Bend, Elkhart, Joe Donnelly, very tough reelecting, won with 67 percent — MATTHEWS: Yes. SCHERER: — of the vote — MATTHEWS: I liked that part. SCHERER: — a couple years ago — he is dealing with voters who were telling me Barack Obama`s not the guy I voted for. I thought he was going to turn the economy around. He didn`t turn the economy around. I didn`t know he was going to do this health care thing. I thought he was going to change Washington (INAUDIBLE) Washington change. That`s what they were voting for. It has nothing to do with the wars, the other — MATTHEWS: Well, that`s the reelection talk, right. SCHERER: No, but these are independent voters. These are people — you know, they`re not high-information voters — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: When Obama was running for reelection or running for election, the economy wasn`t in the tank. It went in the tank during the transition. Doesn`t anybody remember that? It was the last quarter of the Bush administration that everything went to hell. Once again, it’s tough to determine whether Matthews’ memory is suffering or he’s just dishonest. The recession officially began in December 2007, and the financial crisis started in September 2008 – the THIRD quarter almost two full months BEFORE Election Day: SCHERER: Obama went to Elkhart, Indiana, in February of 2009, couple weeks after he gets in office, he says, I`m going to pass the stimulus. It`s going to help you. I`m going to keep my promise — MATTHEWS: Right. SCHERER: — to Elkhart. Elkhart`s unemployment now is over 13 percent and it`s been rising again this summer. MATTHEWS: Because it was rising when he came in. SCHERER: It was rising — (CROSSTALK) CORN: — probably would be higher now if Obama hadn`t — (CROSSTALK) CORN: And you know, this is — this is the administration`s obligation, and Democrats on the Hill are livid because they don`t think the White House is living up to this obligation of making a stronger case – – MATTHEWS: There`s so much — CORN: — making the case that you just made! MATTHEWS: Let`s make the points through the numbers. Unemployment when Bush came in was 4.2 percent. When he left office, it was up to 7.6 percent, way up from where he came in. When Bush came into office, we had a $281 billion Clinton-led surplus. When he left, we had a $1.2 trillion deficit. And he doubled the national debt. Those are the facts on the table. Yes, but unemployment is now at 9.5 percent and likely climbing. There are currently 3.3 million fewer people on non-farm payrolls than in January 2009 making today’s labor markets FAR WORSE than they were when Obama took office. But that’s only half the story, for the Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007. As this is a Congressional election, it is a referendum on what the Party controlling the House and the Senate have done since they took over. Here, the numbers are even more glaring, as the unemployment rate that month was 4.6 percent. Over 7 million people have lost their jobs since the Democrats took over Congress. As for fiscal policy, the last budget created by the Republican-controlled Congress had a deficit of $160 billion. This year, with Obama and Democrats controlling everything, we’re on pace for close to a $1.6 trillion deficit, or TEN TIMES 2007’s shortfall. But Matthews doesn’t want to share those numbers with his viewers:  MATTHEWS: Let`s go back to the politics again. The voter out there, he can only choose between what he had and what he has. You`re saying he`s going to choose what he had in Elkhart, Indiana. SCHERER: They`re not voting for Bush in Elkhart. They`re voting — they`re voting because they`re — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Their memory of what? SCHERER: No, they`re disappointed with what they have. Indeed, because no matter how you slice it, in most parts of the country, things are worse today than they were when Obama was inaugurated and FAR WORSE than when the Democrats took over Congress. But don’t expect a shill like Chris Matthews to report that in an election year.

Read more here:
9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush

NYT’s Brooks Bashes Obamanomics, Praises Germany’s Far More Successful Fiscal Restraint

On the same day the Commerce Department dramatically revised down second quarter Gross Domestic Product estimates, New York Times columnist David Brooks published a stinging rebuke of Obama economic policies. “The American stimulus package was supposed to create a ‘summer of recovery,’ according to Obama administration officials,” wrote Brooks. “Job growth was supposed to be surging at up to 500,000 a month,” he continued. “Instead, the U.S. economy is scuffling along.” Scuffling is putting it mildly, for it was announced Friday that the GDP only grew by a pathetic 1.6 percent last quarter which was down from previous estimates of 2.4 percent. With this in mind, Brooks’ column was not only spot on, but a surprising indictment of everything the Obama administration has done since Inauguration Day: During the first half of this year, German and American political leaders engaged in an epic debate. American leaders argued that the economic crisis was so bad, governments should borrow billions to stimulate growth. German leaders argued that a little short-term stimulus was sensible, but anything more was near-sighted. What was needed was not more debt, but measures to balance budgets and restore confidence. The debate got pointed. American economists accused German policy makers of risking a long depression. The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, countered, “Governments should not become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand.” The two countries followed different policy paths. According to Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, the Americans borrowed an amount equal to 6 percent of G.D.P. in an attempt to stimulate growth. The Germans spent about 1.5 percent of G.D.P. on their stimulus. This divergence created a natural experiment. Who was right? The early returns suggest the Germans were. After sharing our dismal data, Brooks presented a stark comparison: The German economy, on the other hand, is growing at a sizzling (and obviously unsustainable) 9 percent annual rate. Unemployment in Germany has come down to pre-crisis levels. But the results do underline one essential truth: Stimulus size is not the key factor in determining how quickly a country emerges from recession. The U.S. tried big, but is emerging slowly. The Germans tried small, and are recovering nicely. Indeed. As the Wall Street Journal noted last week: In the second quarter, the German economy grew 2.2% compared to the previous three months, or more than 8% annualized-the best quarterly performance in decades. And while the American economy shed 130,000 jobs in July, resulting in an unemployment rate of 9.5%, German unemployment has fallen for 13 months straight and is now down to 7.6%, where it was at the start of the financial crisis. Imagine that: German unemployment is now down to where it was before the financial crisis began ! Not only is ours not even close to that, most economists expect U.S. unemployment to rise in the coming months. What might be the key according to the Journal? [O]ne thing that can be said for Chancellor Angela Merkel is that she has resisted the borrow-and-spend policy temptation. Earlier this year, she announced an €80 billion ($103 billion) deficit-reduction plan. Mrs. Merkel has followed a basic rule of economic policy: First do no harm. Her center-right government has failed to fulfill its pro-growth, tax-cutting campaign promises. But it has also largely refrained from worsening the country’s business conditions. While the U.S. debates whether, by how much and on whom to raise taxes in January, Berlin’s budget cuts have taken some of the uncertainty out of Germany’s fiscal future. In America, U.S. corporations are holding back on investments despite soaring profits. At the end of the first quarter, nonfinancial companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 had a record $837 billion in cash, apparently preferring to make almost no interest on the money instead of investing it in the face of uncertainty about taxes and regulation going forward. In other words, by the simple expedient of not frightening business, Berlin has made it easier for the country’s export-oriented industries to take advantage of the global recovery. German engineering is successful in emerging markets such as India and particularly China, where BMW, Audi and Daimler, posted record sales these past few months. Meanwhile, as American corporations sit on the sidelines waiting for the next shoe to drop from the Obama administration, our trade deficit continues to explode. Of course, regardless of the comparisons being made by Brooks and the Journal, folks on the Left are sure to blame the slowing economy on not enough federal spending. Almost on cue, Brooks’ colleague Paul Krugman wrote Friday: In the case of the Obama administration, officials seem loath to admit that the original stimulus was too small. True, it was enough to limit the depth of the slump – a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office says unemployment would probably be well into double digits now without the stimulus – but it wasn’t big enough to bring unemployment down significantly.   Amazing! Despite historical evidence during the Depression that governments can’t spend their way out of economic calamities, and the same being true when Japan couldn’t do it in the ’90s, Krugman and his ilk just want to continue with this failed policy. Maybe Brooks ought to take Obama and Krugman on a trip to Berlin so that Merkel can teach them a thing or two about the benefits of fiscal restraint and getting out of the way of the jobs creating private sector.   Alas, they probably still wouldn’t get it. Sigh.

See the original post here:
NYT’s Brooks Bashes Obamanomics, Praises Germany’s Far More Successful Fiscal Restraint

ABC Hides Identity of Liberal Activists Advocating for More Government Intervention in Business

Good Morning America’s Bianna Golodryga on Sunday featured a liberal activist arguing for more government intervention in the form of paid time off laws and “affordable” child care. The ABC host never identified Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner’s ideology or the fact that she’s a  Huffington Post contributor. Instead, Golodryga fretted about “bias” against women who have children. The Rowe-Finkbeiner interview and the preceding segment lamented the fact that women who have children often don’t end up making as much as men and also females who don’t have kids. Neither segment even hinted that there could be two sides to the story. Instead, Rowe-Finkbeiner was allowed to lobby, “We know that passing family-friendly policies and programs like paid family leave, like affordable child care, like access to paid sick days, like access to flexible work options, those things actually help lower the gap between women and men.” Rowe-Finkbeiner’s blogs on the Huffington Post have advocated for a number of left-wing causes, including attacking Arizona for its tough immigration law. The segment also featured a woman by the name of Kiki Peppard. Golodryga explained: “Kiki Peppard spent a decade as a successful bookkeeper before taking leave to spend more time with her kids. But, when she went to reenter the work force after a divorce, she found herself on the outside looking in.” An ABC graphic blandly identified that Kiki “had a hard time finding work.” However, according to MomsRising.org , where Rowe-Finkbeiner is the executive director, Peppard has ties to the organization dating back to 2006. Golodryga also skipped this fact. Instead, she wondered, ” So, we heard Kiki’s story. How common and widespread are stories like hers? ” Rowe-Finkbeiner played dumb: “You know, I hear from women like Kiki everyday. Kiki is definitely not alone.” ABC on Sunday went way beyond being one-sided. Not identifying either of these women, their agendas and their connections is incredibly misleading. A transcript of the August 22 segment, which aired at 8:40 am EDT, follows: BIANNA GOLODRYGA: In America’s Jobs this morning, we’re going to look at the pay gap. The disparity between what men and women make has been shrinking over the years. And while it’s still not exactly equal, it is getting better, except for one particular group of women. They’re some of the most accomplished women in the world. Supreme Court justices. A former secretary of state. Even the head of Homeland Security. But, despite their widely varying political differences, they all have one thing in common: These woman don’t have children. And experts say, that fact may contribute directly to their success. According to the University of Chicago, men and women right out of school had nearly identical incomes and hours worked. But, 15 Years later, the men made 75 percent more than the women in the group. The only exception to the room? A small group of women who never had children. Their pay equaled the men. KIKI PEPPARD: There is such a double standard. GOLODRYGA: Kiki Peppard spent a decade as a successful bookkeeper before taking leave to spend more time with her kids. But, when she went to reenter the work force after a divorce, she found herself on the outside looking in. PEPPARD: The very first question asked me was, “Are you married?” And the second question was, “Do you have any children? This went on for the first 18 job interviews. On my19th job interview, they did not ask me about my marital status. They did not ask if I had children and hired me. GOLODRYGA: It’s long been assumed women make less than men because they have more career disruptions. But the unequal pay disparity also pits moms against non-moms. Women with kids are 44 percent less likely to be hired than women without. And they’re paid $11,000 less. And in this economy, that bias can be devastating to many families just trying to get by. And joining me now from Seattle to talk more about this is Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, the co-founder and executive director of MomRising.org. Good morning. Thanks for joining us, Kristin. KRISTIN ROWE-FINKBEINER (executive director, Momsrising.org): Good morning. GOLODRYGA: So, we heard Kiki’s story. How common and widespread are stories like hers? ROWE-FINKBEINER: You know, I hear from women like Kiki everyday. Kiki is definitely not alone. One of the thing is that this problem is bigger than most people realized. In fact, the maternal wall standing in the way of the glass ceiling. And here’s what it looks like: Women without children make 90 cents to a man’s dollar. Women with children make only 73 cents to a man’s dollar. So, this is a big discrepancy. And we have a big issue with pay discrimination against mothers. GOLODRYGA: So, when we hear statistics like that, what can be done to level out the playing field in the workforce? ROWE-FINKBEINER: Well, we have a big issue to address. And that’s that we have a 1950s work policy structure but we have a modern labor force. We’re now more than 50 percent of the labor force are women for the first time in history. But, that doesn’t mean we’ve reached full equality as we just heard in the segment. Because, right now, women and mothers are struggling. Moms are working full time and can’t put food on the table. In fact, one in four children in our nation are experiencing food scarcity in their households because of economic limitations, according to the USDA. So, the solutions are there. We have solutions. We know that passing family-friendly policies and programs like paid family leave, like affordable child care, like access to paid sick days, like access to flexible work options , those things actually help lower the gap between women and men. And they raise all boats. Because, it’s not just moms who need the policies, but everybody needs those policies in order to excel in their life, in the workplace and with their families. GOLODRYGA: But, now of all times, with the economy being so bumpy, with jobs being even more difficult to find, what should moms who are planning on taking time off do to avoid falling behind? ROWE-FINKBEINER: Well, professional women who decide to take time out of the labor force need to do four things. One, and most importantly, they really need to keep up with their professional contacts. Maintain those contacts so they have smooth sailing when they move back into the labor force. Two, they need to make sure that their professional accreditations are up to date while their out of the labor force. Three, this is really important. They need to find a mentor. Somebody who has navigated this interesting seas before and can help them navigate through. And fourth, one thing that’s very important is to find volunteer positions that you can put on the resume while you’re out of the labor force to show that you were productive while you were staying home with kids. Not that staying home with kids isn’t an important job in and of itself. Because it is. One of the things, though that is critically important to understand is that because we have a 1950s work policy structure in our nation still, we haven’t updated our policies like most other countries have, that most women can’t stay out of the labor force. So, we have a huge problem where we, you know, don’t have paid family leave, like 177 other countries do. And because of that, we see the implications on kids with a quarter of families with young children living in poverty. So, it’s important to recognize that not that many people can stay out of the labor force. GOLODRYGA: That is true, indeed. Especially in these times.

More:
ABC Hides Identity of Liberal Activists Advocating for More Government Intervention in Business

WaPo’s Frank Ahrens Suggests Krugman, Kudlow as Potential Romer Replacements

Paul Krugman and Larry Kudlow – not exactly two guys you would associate with one another. However, they are two media figures Washington Post columnist Frank Ahrens thinks should be candidates for the same job. In his Aug. 15 column , Ahrens wrote about some of the people that should replace outgoing chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer. He named several candidates including Pepsi’s Indra Nooyi, James Sinegal, co-founder and chief executive of Costco, and Ford chief executive Alan Mulally. But he also named New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and CNBC’s “Kudlow Report” host Larry Kudlow . In his case for Krugman, Ahrens wondered that since Krugman can talk the talk, can he walk the walk as well. “Outside the academic world, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is best known for his New York Times columns arguing that the $787 billion, debt-busting stimulus bill was not enough, so even moderate Democrats — not to mention conservatives — might lose their minds with this pick. But maybe it’s time for Krugman to put his money where his mouth is,” Ahrens wrote. “You think government needs to spend more to get us out of this funk? Okay, Paul. Here’s the key to the car.”  In the case of Larry Kudlow, Ahrens wrote the CNBC host would be a wise choice because he can communicate economic policies clearly. “You might laugh at this one, but CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan administration before going to Wall Street to make his millions and subsequently flame out like a booze-and-drug-fueled Icarus, a low period he has discussed openly,” Ahrens wrote. “But Americans believe in second chances, and Kudlow’s been one-day-at-a-timing it for more than a decade. There is no more articulate spokesman for supply-side economics and tax-cut job creation. Yet, not even his legendary selection of suits and ties will likely win him admirers in the Obama White House.” Ahrens also appeared on CNBC’s “Street Signs” with Erin Burnett on Aug. 16 to argue for his suggestions, including making the case for Kudlow. Albeit unlikely, Ahrens says idea isn’t as crazy as one might think. “Larry Kudlow, great American,” Ahrens said. “I know you’re going to laugh or some of the viewers may laugh. But, look, the guy has been in this position before in previous administrations. He’s been on Wall Street. He knows about how to talk to folks in government. He knows about how the private markets work. And there’s no really more eloquent spokesman for supply-side job creation through tax cuts. Listen, you can know all you want about policy, but if you can’t explain yourself to the President, then that’s a real key thing, a real key element of this job. To get the President’s ear, you have to be able to explain yourself. It’s sort of fun, but it’s not as crazy as you might think.”

Continue reading here:
WaPo’s Frank Ahrens Suggests Krugman, Kudlow as Potential Romer Replacements