TomPaine.com

A Gift of Flexibility For Our Moms

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 10 May 2007 13:56:00 -0400

This Sunday is Mother’s Day and many of us will be out this week buying gifts for our moms. That is the right thing for us to do. As a nation, one way for our country to say "thank you" to our moms is by giving them more flexibility to balance their work and family commitments through creative public policies that increase workplace flexibility.

The changing roles of mothers have been one of the most pronounced social trends seen in the last century. Today, more than 60 percent of families have two working parents. Moms are working harder than ever both at home and at work.

Many women with children find it especially challenging to balance their work and family commitments, and often risk being left on the sidelines of the American economy because they cannot find flexible jobs. Accordingly, many women today are forced to choose between their career and economic success, on the one hand, and adequately caring for their children and elderly parents, on the other. Family breakdowns have also placed particular burdens on single mothers.

Given the unprecedented pressures on families, workers and employers, mothers need more control over their time and more flexibility in their work. Businesses are recognizing that more moms need flexibility in the workplace and many are giving it. Businesses should be applauded for that and encouraged to do more in providing workplace flexibility. Many more industries and companies could offer workplace flexibility than are doing so today.

Workplace flexibility is about innovations in how work gets done. It includes flexibility in the scheduling of full-time hours, flexibility in the number of hours worked and the location of work, career flexibility with multiple points for exit and re-entry into the work force and the flexibility to address unexpected and ongoing personal and family needs.

The implementation of flexible workplaces can be achieved without sacrificing employers’ strategic business and organizational objectives. It does not have to mean businesses suffer. In fact, groups from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to Corporate Voices for Working Families maintain that flexible workplace arrangements can help businesses recruit and retain employees.

Well-implemented workplace flexibility policies increase organizational success by increasing employee commitment, engagement and job satisfaction. They promote innovations and management strategies that can lead to enhanced work outcomes, employee performance and morale, and help meet expanded employer needs in a global, competitive environment.

Workplace flexibility improves the lives of mothers by reducing tensions that arise from the dual obligations of work and family. It expands opportunities for working parents and those caring for aging relatives, for individuals transitioning careers and improving skills, for people with disabilities and for older workers looking to find meaningful work. It helps support child development and individual, family, community and environmental health.

As we look to honor our mothers this year, now is the time for creative public policy to develop ways to make the workplace more flexible in ways that work for employers and employees -- and that honor and support our mothers. This Mother’s Day, let’s provide our moms with the workplace flexibility they need and deserve.

Real Democracy... Or Dystopia?

Cecille Isidro — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:31:00 -0500

Imagine that it is Election Day 2016. Imagine yet another presidential election that boils down to the same two battleground states -- Ohio and Florida -- which is not unrealistic, given demographic trends.

Candidates will spend most of their time in these two states and perhaps a handful of other swing states, ignoring all others. Visits to our largest states like California, Texas and New York will be kept to fund-raising zip codes. Florida and Ohio electorates will be sliced and diced into bite-sized targets as TV viewers are bombarded with ads, most of them negative, making television virtually unwatchable for the final days of the campaign.

It’s a close race, and a well-known spoiler candidate threatens to wreck the majority mandate of the front-runners, haunting voters with a "lesser of two evils" dilemma: Do I vote my heart or my head? All campaign spin and hype is being directed toward the narrowest slices of voters, both the partisan base and undecided swing voters, which will determine the winner. Consequently, the nation’s most important election has been dumbed down to a handful of parochial issues, leaving most voters feeling as if they are spectators in the 44th row.

In this 2016 presidential election, unfortunately, we never fixed the problems with election administration and voting equipment, and so out of 120 million voters nationwide, a change of only a few thousand or perhaps even a few hundred votes in either Ohio or Florida -- whether by administrative miscues or fraud -- can alter the outcome. Some conservative organizations are using various tricks to disenfranchise minority voters. A few states even tried passing English-language requirements for voters, and nearly succeeded. The 2016 electoral season already has resulted in dozens of lawsuits in Florida, Ohio and across the nation, ensuring that no matter which side wins, the nation, once again, will lose.

Not only that, but in the 2016 congressional elections, only 10 out of 435 district races are even remotely competitive; most are one-party fiefdoms. Congress passed a national law in 2011 mandating independent redistricting commissions in all states, yet it had very little impact. Republican and Democratic voters have become so bunkered down into their own red and blue residential patterns -- liberals living in the cities, conservatives in the country -- that the line-drawing process has become largely inconsequential. To counteract that, reformers managed to pass clean money/full public financing in a dozen states by 2014, a tremendous accomplishment. Yet with so many red and blue winner-take-all districts, that has also made little difference in who gets elected (though it has introduced new candidates and badly needed political debate into our brain-dead elections).

The House finally passed legislation guaranteeing health care for all Americans, but senators representing a mere 15 percent of the nation’s population killed it. The senators from these conservative, low-population red states were concerned about an expansion of “big government,” even though their own states are heavily subsidized by the federal government, receiving twice as many federal tax dollars as they pay out.

On Election Day 2016, disgusted by the partisan sandbox play and a government out of touch with the concerns of average Americans, voters continued their trend of staying home. The fact is, most voters no longer need to show up since most races are decided well in advance of Election Day, and so they don’t bother -- voter turnout for congressional races plunged to barely a quarter of eligible voters in 2014, and in various cities voter turnout has plunged to single digits.

Some pundits have begun to wonder out loud on talking head shows: Do elections even matter any more? In fact, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which has raised a public ruckus over the cost of elections where so few voters show up, has begun collecting signatures on a California initiative that will cancel elections except for one election every eight years. In essence, the Howard Jarvisites are asking the few remaining voters to permanently cancel most elections. If passed, this will transmogrify the U.S. into a "ratification" democracy with occasional elections and referendums, more like the plutocratic Roman Republic than a participatory democratic republic. Polls show the ballot measure has a good chance of passing.

By 2016, the trajectory of America’s shattered democracy has moved us a giant step closer to a Silvio Berlusconi-type figure lurking on the horizon -- a media magnate who has bought Fox News and is using it as a springboard for his own political career. This candidate is strongly playing the national security card, and his polling numbers quickly surge into the low 40s, making him the frontrunner and throwing all calculations about the race out of whack.

On Election Day 2016, America takes a big gulp and prepares for a grim outcome, bedeviled by bitter partisanship and antiquated 18th century political institutions. The rest of the world can only watch and shake their heads in disbelief.

****

Instead of that gloomy future of post-democracy, another future is possible: renewed democracy.

Imagine a different election in 2016, one where all 190 million eligible voters, including the millions of minority and young voters, have been automatically registered to vote as a result of a federal law passed in 2014 enacting universal voter registration. Imagine that law also signed up the United States into the ranks of other advanced democracies that have lifted all barriers to participation, including allowing prisoners as well as residents of our nation’s capital to fully participate, and allowing our poorest citizens to vote on equipment as good as that in the wealthy county next door. This federal law enfranchising all of these new voters amounted to the greatest civil rights advance since 1965.

Imagine that, in 2011, Congress finally passed a law ensuring that voting equipment and election administration would be overseen by a national elections commission that rigorously tests and produces the best voting equipment and election administrative practices. Election officials are now trained and certified professionals, with expertise in computer technology, databases, election logistics and public relations.

By the 2016 presidential election, 24 states have signed on to the National Popular Vote compact, which awards 100 percent of each state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, enough that the election has become a de facto direct election for president. The candidates no longer can confine their campaigns to a handful of battleground states, especially the bigger ones like Ohio and Florida. Instead the candidates crisscross the nation, ignoring practically no one, trying to pick up every single vote they can. It’s going to be a close race, just as it has been in every presidential election since 2000, and no one knows whether the decisive votes will come from Wyoming, North Dakota, California or some other state. This in turn leads to a massive mobilization of voters, old and new, who suddenly aren’t being ignored because they live in the wrong state.

These 24 states as well as several others also have decided to use instant runoff voting (IRV) so voters can rank their candidates and guarantee majority winners in a single election. Now the presence of independent and third-party candidates not only does not spoil the race, but injects fresh faces and new ideas into the debate. Voters are excited to hear a range of candidates directly addressing their concerns. And they can vote for these candidates without fear of contributing to their least favorite candidate winning. The net effect of this national direct IRV election is that voter turnout surges across the nation to a phenomenal 77 percent of eligible voters, the highest turnout in a 120 years.

But that’s not all. By 2016, imagine that 19 states have scrapped their antiquated winner-take-all elections and adopted proportional voting for electing their state legislatures and members of Congress. As a result, multiparty democracies have sprouted, giving voters a broad range of choices. Democrats and Republicans, but also a Libertarian Party, Green Party, Working Families Party and a centrist Ross Perot-type New America Party are all vying for legislative seats. The candidates are funded by public financing and free media time, so even the smaller parties have sufficient resources for TV and radio ads to reach voters. For the first time, millions of voters are seeing real competition and hearing a genuine debate with real political choices. As a result, voter turnout for legislative elections has doubled to 70 percent of eligible voters, almost as high as other nations.

With broader representation in Congress from the right, left and center, policy adjusts so that it aligns more closely with the opinions of most Americans. Congress finally enforces Big Media’s legal mandate “to serve the public interest,” including adequate political coverage and free air time for all candidates. Public broadcasting has been granted robust funding via a $15 mandatory monthly fee paid by all households, which for years has funded the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The cumulative effect of all these changes is that, by Election Day 2016, whether in the legislatures, the executive branch or on the air waves, a new form of consensual democracy is emerging where multiple points of view compete against each other in a vibrant democratic process, crafting compromises and solutions for the good of the nation. With legislative chambers functioning more as pragmatic, deliberative, problem-solving bodies instead of mud-wrestling pits of partisan warfare, Americans are no longer frustrated by paralyzed politics. Government acquires a better reputation. All of this ushers in a new era of good feeling among Americans.

****

These are two very different alternative futures, founded on two very different philosophies regarding representative democracy -- elite rule vs. popular sovereignty. Down one path lies a renewal of American democracy that will create a nation that works for all of us, instead of some of us. Down the other path -- which is the current path relying on antiquated, 18th century institutions and practices -- lies a downward spiral into post-democracy, turning our nation into one that works for only a handful of us, instead of all of us.

We are standing at a fork in the road, and the choice is ours.

This essay is based on an excerpt from Hill's book, 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy.

Election Security 2006

Cecille Isidro — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:20:00 -0400

Will your vote count on Tuesday? As we head into another election season -- with control of Congress potentially up for grabs -- ongoing concerns about voting equipment and election administration continue to worry fair elections advocates. Recent headlines have added to previous fears, but there are also signs that effective advocacy is paying off.

Last month, The New York Times and other news media reported on a new security glitch uncovered in election equipment manufacturer Diebold Election System's ATM-like touch-screen voting machines. Voting technology experts have called it the "worst security flaw ever" -- any person with basic knowledge and a minute or two of access to a Diebold touch screen could load virtually any software into the machine and disable it, redistribute votes or alter its performance in myriad ways without being detected.

"This [security flaw] is worse than any of the others I've seen. It's more fundamental," said Douglas Jones, a University of Iowa computer scientist and veteran voting system examiner for the state of Iowa. "In the other ones, we've been arguing about the security of the locks on the front door. Now we find that there's no back door."

Incredibly, media reports withheld some details of the vulnerability at the request of elections officials and scientists, partly because exploiting the security hole is so easy that providing details would give a roadmap to a potential hacker.

Elections officials in several states scrambled to limit the risk. In Pennsylvania, respected state elections chief Michael Shamos, previously a supporter of touch-screen voting, ordered the sequestering of all Diebold touch-screens. California and other states invoked emergency procedures. Meanwhile, problems with voting equipment sold by Diebold's main competitors, Sequoia Voting Systems and Election Systems and Software, popped up in numerous states, including Oregon, Texas, Colorado, Illinois, Florida, New Jersey, Washington and New Mexico.

Election Data Services estimates that, while some states are still in the process of buying voting equipment, touch-screen machines will be used by 34 percent of counties in 2006, up from 10 percent in 2000. But only seven states will use devices that print a paper receipt of electronic votes from touch-screen machines -- known as a "voter verified paper audit trail" or VVPAT -- with more than a dozen states still pushing legislation to require paper records. This trend is extremely worrying to election security advocates. Some cause for comfort is that 50.2 percent of counties will use optical-scan machines that read hand-marked paper ballots (up from 41 percent in the 2000 election), since at least optical scan systems have a VVPAT -- a paper ballot that was marked with a pen before being scanned by the machine.

Traditional paper ballots marked by pen and counted by hand, which some touch-screen opponents nostalgically hearken back to, will account for only 5.7 percent of counties in 2006, down from 11.7 percent of counties six years ago. But on the positive side, use of punch-card voting equipment, which was badly discredited during the 2000 presidential vote count in Florida, has declined from 18 percent of counties in 2000 to just under 4 percent.

Two steps forward, one step back? It's hard to say whether we are making progress or not, mostly because the powers-that-be appear uncertain about what actually represents progress. This was painfully obvious at the Voting Systems Testing Summit in November 2005, which marked the first time that representatives from all the different camps involved with or concerned about election administration -- top federal regulators, vendors, testing laboratories, state and local election administrators, computer scientists and fair elections advocates -- came together in one place. Most striking was that no one could articulate a comprehensive inventory of the many problems, much less a blueprint for the solutions. Instead, there was a lot of finger-pointing and excuses.

At the summit, one expert made the staggering claim -- which no one bothered to dispute -- that the U.S. provides more security, testing, and oversight of slot machines and the gaming industry than to our nation's voting equipment or election administration. Clearly, the biggest threat to the integrity of our elections is that no one seems to be steering the ship. There is no central brain or team that has a handle on all aspects, developing best practices or a roadmap that states and counties can follow. Tragically, while Congress has appropriated $3 billion for buying new voting equipment, the money is arriving before the necessary standards to ensure that it isn't wasted are in place. This hardly resembles the world's greatest democracy in action.

Looking at the bigger picture it's clear that the entire regimen of public-private infrastructure for running elections in the United States, where for-profit vendors sell proprietary equipment to counties and states in a quasi-regulated market, is going through yet another round of convulsions. It's like watching an antiquated bridge creaking and groaning under the strain of traffic, wondering when it will give way next. Any sensible person favoring the fairness and integrity of our elections should be concerned. Yet that concern also must be kept in perspective lest it spiral into a paralyzing paranoia.

There are a number of positives to point to in an admittedly chaotic situation. Election security activists are more mobilized than ever and they are having an impact in a myriad of ways. They have raised the profile of these issues to the point of a national crisis. Their efforts, once considered the actions of fanatical gadflies, are being increasingly cited and even joined by respected election bureaucrats like Pennsylvania's Michael Shamos. Former President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State James A. Baker III -- yes, that James Baker, the Bush family's consigliore in the disputed 2000 presidential election -- were co-chairs of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform which warned in their 2005 final report that "software can be modified maliciously before being installed into individual voting machines. There is no reason to trust insiders in the election industry any more than in other industries."

Advocates' increased credibility has resulted in real action, with two governors deciding to take matters into their own hands. New Mexico's Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson pushed through legislation mandating paper ballots throughout the state. Maryland's Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich in February called for change after a Johns Hopkins University study found Diebold's software was open to attacks from hackers, followed by seeing a 10-fold jump in the cost of maintaining and storing the sensitive electronic machines.

In another sign of progress, election security advocates led by Voter Action, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, have found the necessary resources to begin filing lawsuits as a way to block state and election officials' efforts to use touch-screen equipment. So far, lawsuits in nine states have been filed, with the embattled terrain becoming tenser and increasingly high-stakes. Diebold lawyers are not taking this lying down. They have retaliated against whistleblower Stephen Heller, pressuring law enforcement officials in Los Angeles to send him to jail for allegedly leaking documents exposing that Diebold was using illegal, uncertified software in their California voting machines.

As a result of all this furious activity, a consensus is emerging from top to bottom that the system is broken, even if there is not yet a consensus about what to do about it. But increasingly even the more mainstream experts acknowledge that for the 2006 election, the creaky bridge continues on a shaky foundation.

Heading into the 2006 election, fair election advocates need to remain vigilant, particularly in the handful of close races where a swing of a small number of votes could change an election outcome. Longer term, activists must turn their efforts to a more visionary agenda that will ensure fair, free, safe and secure elections in the 21st century.

Roses, Relaxation And Real Reform

Cecille Isidro — Fri, 06 May 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Being a mom is stressful. Who knew? And if this morning's toddler tantrum and missed conference call isn't proof enough, we have a chorus of writers, self-help gurus and well-intentioned neighbors to help remind us that we are not alone. From Judith Warner's Perfect Madness to a host of New Age strategies designed to help us find our "authentic" selves, there is finally universal acceptance that stress and motherhood are a bad combination. So while we would never say "no" to a facial or a yoga class, we have a much more practical solution to help American mothers relax. And this year, instead of respite from our busy lives, we're asking the government for the ultimate Mother's Day gift: policies that truly support our children and families.

Quality, affordable child care: It's hard for mothers (and fathers) to make a living without child care they can trust. But even if you can find a quality program or provider, child care can cost as much as college tuition. High-quality, affordable child care solutions would help families navigate work and family responsibilities and ensure quality settings to help all children get a solid academic and developmental start on the skills they need to succeed as adults.

Marriage support for the real world: Who doesn't want a healthy marriage? The real question is the role the government should play in making that happen. The administration is proposing a series of marriage education efforts designed to change attitudes on divorce and marriage. But if we are really serious about supporting healthy marriages and improving children's lives, we should also include policies that reduce the economic stress on parents so they can nurture each other as well as their children.

Paid sick leave: All parents need a break when their children are sick, and working moms are no exception. Yet nearly 47 percent of all workers don't have any paid sick leave to look after their own health or the health of their children. The recently introduced Healthy Families Act would guarantee moms (and dads) at least seven days of paid sick leave each year and offer a promising prescription for healthier families and saner mothers.

Paid parental leave: A study just released by the National Partnership for Women and Families, Expecting Better, reports that pregnant women are working longer hours with fewer benefits, working later into their pregnancies and returning to work faster after the birth of their children. With only 12 percent of American companies offering paid maternity leave, federal laws such as the Family and Medical Leave Act should be expanded to give all American working mothers and fathers the economic supports they need to spend time with their children.

Good schools and after-school programs: Getting a quality education too often depends on the size of a parent's pocketbook. The federal government needs to go beyond a myopic focus on test results to fix school financing and address the inequalities in the nation's public schools. Moms also need access to comprehensive after-school programs that meet the demands and schedules of today's working parents and provide quality, safe environments for their children long after the last bell rings.

Equal pay: Let's face it: Moms need a pay raise. Today, working mothers earn only 73 percent of men's salaries, all else being equal. Passing pay equity laws would help to address the pay differential and ensure that moms have the resources they need to care for their families and themselves.

Support for second-time-around mothers: More than 2.4 million grandparents -- the majority of them women -- have stepped up to raise six million children whose parents are struggling with substance abuse, incarceration, abuse and neglect, domestic violence and unemployment. Because many of these grandmothers lack legal authority over the children they are raising, tasks as simple as enrolling children in school, authorizing basic medical care and staying in public housing can become insurmountable barriers. Government policies are needed to provide financial, legal and other supports to these grandparents and the other relatives who provide a vital safety net for children -- and save the government billions of dollars in the process.

Flexibility at work: Working moms are run ragged by work and family demands -- so much so that they lose the equivalent of one night's sleep every week. Helping mothers gain flexibility at work would go a long way toward providing them with what they really want: time with their families without paying a huge penalty on the job. Government should support prorated pay and benefits for part-time work, flexible start and end times, compressed work weeks and telecommuting for working parents.

Health insurance coverage: Right now, there are more than 45 million uninsured Americans. To guarantee the well-being of mothers and families, we need to focus on universal access to appropriate health care and prescription drug coverage. Without quality health insurance coverage for themselves or for their children, mothers not only risk their family's physical well-being, but their economic security, too, as missed work days bring missed paychecks and, in some cases, lost jobs.

A better budget: When it comes to children and families, Congress just passed one of the most irresponsible budget resolutions in modern memory. With a narrow passage in both the House and the Senate, the budget slashes $35 billion from a range of children and family programs, including $10 billion from the Medicaid program, a health insurance program for lower-income children and families. Because the budget caps domestic discretionary spending, an additional $24 million will have to be cut from the already restricted budgets for nutrition programs, Head Start, education and housing programs. Tight fiscal times require tough decisions, but mothers and children shouldn't be the ones to pay the price.

Fighting Poverty: Aspiring For Ownership

Cecille Isidro — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:00:00 -0500

The onset of a debate over Social Security's future offers Democrats a chance to articulate what they're for -- not just what they're against. President Bush has provided them an opening. He's laid out a rhetorical message that works -- the Ownership Society -- but has failed to provide the means to make it happen. The reason it works is that it evokes the most promising path to security: being able to save, invest and build up a reserve of assets. Yet the challenge of any meaningful Ownership Society policy agenda is to ensure that as many people as possible are given the chance to get in the game. Proactive policies are required that create opportunities for those without resources to save and build wealth. One promising idea worth fighting for is the formation of a universal children's savings account system.

Under such a program, every newborn child would be given an account and a modest endowment to create a platform from which future savings can occur. These accounts would be supplemented with savings incentives in the form of progressive matches for children in families with fewer resources. The key is to make sure that everybody is included and those who are in need are given a boost. This kind of "progressive universalism" has been used with success in the United Kingdom -- where Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are debuting their own accounts-at-birth program this spring.

Creating a system of personal accounts, offered at birth, makes a strong statement. Not only does it represent the country's commitment to invest in every child, but it also sends the message that each child has a stake in the broader society. For those who feel left out of the economic mainstream, owning assets can change their orientation and behavior; it can help them save for their future, plan to go to college or purchase a home. In our America today, too many feel they don't have a vested interest in society as a whole. We need to find ways to ensure everybody is included as a stakeholder. With children's savings accounts, kids will grow up knowing that they have a pool of resources at their disposal to help them succeed. Perhaps more significantly, these accounts can serve as teaching vehicles to facilitate the delivery of financial education -- a vital skill set for the 21st century. Over time, these accounts could evolve into a universal system through which all Americans would meet their lifelong asset needs, helping them accumulate the resources necessary to secure their future.

This past year, a bipartisan coalition of legislators introduced a bill in both houses of Congress to build just such a program. The America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement and Education Act ("The ASPIRE Act") would create a universal system of "KIDS Accounts," supported by progressive savings incentives. Account resources would be restricted to asset-building purchases, such as post-secondary education, first-time homeownership or retirement security. While there are many different ways in which to structure a children's savings account proposal, the ASPIRE Act could serve as the vehicle around which future discussions are focused. For low-income Americans, these accounts provide a means to save and build assets for their children -- an opportunity not offered by existing public policy.

As with all accounts or investment instruments, there is market risk. But this risk can be managed and somewhat minimized through a system of index funds, similar to the federal government's Thrift Savings Plan retirement program, where employees are offered choice among a limited set of funds managed by a private-sector firm. Furthermore, these accounts are not designed to ensure retirement security, but to help Americans save so they are better equipped to make productive investments throughout their lives. Policymakers might consider sanctioning a closer connection to retirement by mandating that a portion of each account, perhaps the initial contributions and subsequent earnings, be walled off exclusively for retirement uses. In this sense, these accounts would contribute to the pre-funding of retirement security as an add-on to Social Security, and that program can remain focused on providing a defined benefit guarantee.

In the current budget environment, it makes good policy sense to pay for this proposal. The cost of the ASPIRE Act is estimated at $37.5 billion over 10 years. This could be more than paid for by maintaining the estate tax, so each generation helps seed the prosperity of the next. Yet children's savings accounts should be conceptualized as an investment strategy in and of itself, with large multiplier effects for the entire economy. For starters, the increase in national savings and the enhancement of financial literacy are primary national policy objectives. Perhaps more significantly, the initial investments can grow, and with responsible stewardship provide a means of ensuring that everyone is afforded opportunities to succeed through higher educational attainment, increased home purchases and greater retirement security.

The profusion of individual accounts over the last three decades, including the advent of 401(k) s, IRAs and Section 529 College Savings Accounts, represents a shift toward asset-based policy. But the distribution of benefits from these accounts, as delivered through the tax code, has been considerably more regressive than the proceeding social insurance and means-tested transfer programs developed after the New Deal. To date, the incentives simply don't work for those who would benefit from them the most.

A better idea is to construct an inclusive system, one that is capable of targeting support and helping Americans chart a path that expands opportunity and ownership by encouraging savings and investment. American history is marked by a series of major policy initiatives that have successfully done just that. The Homestead Act of 1862, The GI Bill of 1944, and the creation of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in 1934 each expanded access to important elements of wealth creation and produced tangible results. These efforts were grounded in the twin objectives of ownership and opportunity -- the underlying assumption being that ownership creates stakeholders and expanding opportunities for people to accumulate productive assets has broad social and economic benefits. It's such a good idea that we should start it at birth.

Race And Social Security: Cynical Politics

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0500

You have to admire the Republican Party's nerve. There was George Bush in late January, surrounded by 22 black people, arguing for Social Security privatization on the grounds that the current system is unfair to blacks because we don't live long enough to collect much by way of benefits. A couple of days earlier, House Ways chair William Thomas, R-Calif., was suggesting that Social Security benefits might be adjusted so that people with short lifespans -- black people -- get their due from the system.

This sort of shameless public theater is testimony to the deep contempt that Republicans have for black people, as well as the chutzpah of the right in their fight to win political warfare. It is breathtaking to see right-wing politicians who not long ago castigated black people as a lazy, dumb and immoral race of mindless welfare queens and street hoods suddenly champion Social Security in the name of racial justice. This would be funny -- were it not so revolting.

Black people die sooner than whites because we are poorer than whites. Every thinking adult in this country knows why black people are poorer than whites, and why white conservatives have played such an important role in keeping black people in poverty. Millions of black children go to lousy schools, receive mediocre schooling, and are unable to compete for high-paying jobs or buy decent housing, health care or much else when they grow up. When black people turn to government for help, they are abused by conservatives for seeking a handout rather than pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps.

The vast majority of black adults hate Republicans because the GOP has turned the denigration of black people into a fine political art, winning election after election by promising white Americans that they are tough enough to keep black hands out of the public till. What would cause Republicans to pretend that they care about people whom they have castigated for fun and political profit since the days of Ronald Reagan?

There is a subtle and awful political game conservatives are playing. The Republicans are crystal clear about their intention to smash the last bits of the liberals' program for equality to smithereens. There is no way that conservatives will use government to promote real equal opportunity in any area of American life, so black people had better get used to the fact that our lives as second-class workers in the American economy is a more or less permanent condition so long as the right is in power.

Taking up the cause of black people in the Social Security fight serves three purposes. First, it makes a deeply racist political party look more moderate to some of its queasy supporters who like low taxes and small government but who are unhappy about racial inequality. Second, this playacting offers black people a break in a world that is otherwise quite indifferent to their needs. Third, the Republicans can throw down a challenge to Democrats whose lack of power means they have nothing to offer black people.

This last reason is the most important. The majority of black people in the American economy are trapped between a global economy that has ever less need for their labor and a hostile right-wing political movement that uses its power to inflict ever greater injury upon them. The Democrats do not have a clue about how to improve the well-being of working-class and poor people, nor do they seem likely to retake power anytime soon. When the Republicans throw black people chump change -- whether private accounts in Social Security or school vouchers -- and the Democrats have nothing to offer, they hope to show up their opponents as impotent complainers.

This is brilliant, cynical, hate-filled politics. It is also ugly testimony about the uses of racial inequality by conservatives as they try to turn black people into a cudgel to smash the legacy of the New Deal. This sort of thing will go on as long as liberals and progressives fail to craft a new politics of equal opportunity and fairness in a technology-driven global economy. Until that time comes, the new conservative race card will be a hideous thing indeed.

The good news is that a new progressive agenda is in the works, and has been for some time. The bad news is that we will have to win a long, low-level civil war against the right to restore social justice in this country. Time to stop whining and start fighting.

Beyond Latchkey Kids

Cecille Isidro — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Time is money, and these days there doesn't seem to be enough of either to go around. The new reality in today's 24/7 economy is that the demands on workers continue to grow, but compensation, benefits and flexibility fail to keep up. Unfortunately, it is not just workers that pay a high price. In this game of long hours, shrinking benefits and stagnating wages, the biggest losers are workers' children and families.

Let's get to the heart of the issue: Between 1970 and 2001, the percentage of mothers in the workforce rose from 38 to 67 percent. Compared to 30 years ago, today's dual-income parents put in one additional month of full-time work each year. So what are the realities that parents and their children face when it comes to balancing work and family?

Well, one in five employees work most of their hours in the evenings, during nights or weekends or on a rotating or highly variable schedule. Nearly 60 percent of wage and salaried employees lack the flexibility they need in their jobs to meet both work and family responsibilities. Being able to control work start and end times, working from home or working part-time with benefits are simply not options for most.

When it comes to a family illness, a school meeting or a snow day at school, many parents wind up paying a financial and personal price to meet their family obligations. Too many parents lack paid time off -- including sick leave, vacation time or personal days. A recent study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research confirms that 49 percent of workers lack basic paid sick leave for themselves. Even fewer workers can get time off to care for sick children. Our pro-family Family and Medical Leave Act has its limitations -- only 45 percent of parents working in the private sector are eligible to take this unpaid leave, and as few as 5 percent of parents have access to a job that offers paid parental leave.

These trends and the way work is done in America have exacted a steep toll on families and children. What are the costs? Maternal depression -- found to significantly harm children's development -- has been linked to the lack of flexibility in the workplace. Studies suggest that children of mothers who were unable to take an extended maternity leave have lower cognitive scores than children whose mothers spent a longer time on leave. Long hours at work have been linked to children's behavior problems and are tied to poor parenting behavior. For example, a study found that fathers who worked long hours and felt overloaded were less accepting and had less positive relationships with their children.

Children whose parents work nonstandard schedules are worse off than children whose parents work regular hours. For example, studies confirm that children with parents who work nights or evenings have lower reading and math test scores, and adolescents with parents who work nonstandard hours experience more behavioral problems.

Work during nonstandard hours has serious repercussions on another key factor affecting children's development: marriage. When fathers work nights, separation or divorce is about six times higher than for fathers who work standard hours. When mothers work nights, separation or divorce is three times higher.

Finally, children often suffer from poor-quality child care. As most parents can attest, finding and paying for high-quality child care is a Herculean task. Unfortunately, more than half of all child care settings have been deemed to be of poor or mediocre quality. For another 3.3 million children between the ages of 6 and 12, there is no caregiver at all. They are left home alone while parents work.

Workplaces and public policy have not caught up to these new realities. The burden to adjust and adapt to an inflexible workplace has fallen squarely on the backs of working parents. And the true costs of our outdated employment system are borne by children. If, in fact, policymakers want to address the needs of families and improve outcomes for children, then a package of new policy approaches is critically needed. By promoting better policies on sick leave, parental leave, child care and workplace flexibility, policymakers will go a long way to help families realize a fundamental tenet of the American dream: to be both a good worker and a good parent.

Hope and Despair on King Day

Cecille Isidro — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0500

A holiday in honor of Martin Luther King is a painful and bitter thing in these times of war and growing inequality. For some, King is a symbol of the nation's painful yet ultimately successful struggle to end segregation as public policy. For others, including a growing number of black Americans, King is a failed prophet whose movement for justice and equality has lost to the political heirs of those who were indifferent to racial oppression or fought to hold onto American apartheid.

One senses great despair about the future among black Americans. We are anxious for our kids, too many of whom are barred from a chance at a good life because we are too poor and too black to live in communities with good schools. We are poorer than our white counterparts because we were not given access to decent schools, and our kids will be forced to inherit our deficits in a viciously competitive global economic environment. Housing, health and safety are less available to us than our white counterparts because we are poorer than they are.

Some of our problems are, to be sure, made worse by our own self-destructive ways. We are sicker than other Americans because we have lousy eating habits and treat our bodies quite badly. We are less safe than we might be because we hurt and kill each other out of anger or spite. Too many of our well-off kids do not achieve in schools because they do not take the academic enterprise seriously. In these and other ways, we disgrace the memory of King and ourselves by not seizing the opportunities made possible by his work and ultimate sacrifice.

But our primary problem is that our country has turned its back on King's message of justice and equality. When black folks meet and talk politics these days, they lament the long "winter in America" that has reigned in the 25 years since Ronald Reagan came to office. The doors to good schools and hospitals remain closed to so many of us because conservatives resist real equal opportunity in the name of small government and low taxes. We live in a time where good public education is a privilege for those who can buy into the right community, instead of a right for all kids -- just as health care is a disappearing job benefit instead of a basic social good.

The conservatives who rule the country despise most blacks, which is not surprising given their forebears and their current public. But the liberals have also abandoned King by concluding that the fight for justice can only be waged when they run the government. The liberals forget King's most basic lesson: Justice is alive when we treat each other with great love, respect and care. Justice is a collective achievement of people committed to each other's well-being. Without that commitment, justice is nothing more than an election-day slogan or a pleasant, maybe desperate daydream.

Government is a limited tool for realizing real freedom and therefore justice. Too many liberals believe that income redistribution is the substance of justice and equality, not realizing that justice begins with solidarity -- real intimacy and trust in daily life -- so that all persons see themselves as harmed when any of their countrymen are threatened by fear, deprivation or violence. When the political tide turned against the liberals, too many gave up the fight for justice because they couldn't win elections, not understanding that the fight for justice is first about erasing the dividing lines that keep us penned in our little ghettos. King, the radical Christian voice for social justice, shriveled to Martin Luther King, liberal Democratic mascot.

King's day is a sad day, in part because we know that the political forces that control the government are driven by deep animus toward black people and poor people. But King's day can be a great day if we remember that the battle for justice is far more than a contest for power or political advantage. The fight for justice is, in the end, a struggle to tear down the barriers that split us from each other, and from our better selves. Governmental power is always less important than the community of men and women who commit themselves to each other's well-being, and fight for each other's freedom. If we remember King's lessons about solidarity as the basis for justice, we will be ready to do battle with our conservative nemeses, despite their great wealth and numbers.

Milton Friedman: Liberal Role Model

Cecille Isidro — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0500

It is time for all good liberals and progressives to stop crying in their beer and raise a glass to Milton Friedman. That's right, Milton Friedman: Nobel laureate in economics, polemicist without peer among the academic scribblers, the real -- and only -- brains of the American right.

Why should we praise this guy? Because sly old Milton Friedman, unbeknownst to himself, perhaps, is about to make America safe for strong, self-confident liberalism.

How has Uncle Milton assured a liberal renaissance? By reminding us that America is always ready for radical ideas that meet the people's needs. Just think of it: in 1962, when liberals were running everything in this country, Uncle Milton wrote a smart little book, Capitalism and Freedom, proposing all sorts of crazy ideas. That capitalism is first and foremost about freedom; that free markets, left to themselves, will gradually squeeze out racial discrimination because the profit motive is more powerful than irrational prejudice; that markets will do a better job providing education than governments; that licensing is just a way for a bunch of people to prevent competition from making important goods available to all at reasonable prices; that Social Security should be held in private accounts.

Friedman proposed these things in 1962. 1962! That means that the American right hasn't had an original thought in more than 40 years. Remember the Contract with America? Warmed-over Friedman. Bush's Social Security weirdness? Leftover, warmed-over Friedman. Not that everything Uncle Milton wants is all bad. The earned income tax credit (EITC)? A riff on Friedman's negative income tax that liberals could hijack in the name of economic justice.

It is clear that the conservatives are running on empty. Sure, they know how to win elections: by scaring the heck out of people and by making bold -- and now old -- proposals to solve problems. But the right has been working on creating its own anti-New Deal for more than 40 years, ever since Friedman laid out the blueprint.

There's very good news in all of this. When conservatives were getting stomped by liberals, Uncle Milton put his ideas out there for the world to see. He told everyone why capitalism was about freedom, why the liberals were wrong, and why radical ideas were the way to go. Economics professors in college used to laugh at Milton -- the liberals out of contempt, the conservatives out of embarrassment. But Friedman stuck to his guns. He said that his ideas are logical, rooted in sound economics, and based on a specific idea of freedom that is better than what liberals offer. It took time, but the country came around because liberalism ran out of gas and Capitalism and Freedom had been around for a long time.

Friedman said that freedom is the point of public policy. His idea of freedom is narrow and kind of vicious: You are free to do what you want to do, if you have the means; otherwise, you are free to starve and die, preferably out of his line of sight. Uncle Milton was no bleeding heart: He was not about to give you money just because you were poor, though he would give you a chance to earn enough to survive, maybe.

Friedman was right about freedom being the point of policy, but was dead wrong about what freedom is all about. Liberals know that freedom requires means. Liberal freedom is the right and the capacity to make responsible choices. You can't be free in the United States if you can't read, write and count; if you can't get a job because you don't have useful skills; if you aren't treated fairly by the courts and police; if you are harassed, beaten or killed because of your race, or gender or sexual preference; if free markets stick it to you by making everything cost more than it should -- especially things you need, like health care, housing and schools. You cannot be free if you have the bad luck to be born to poor or incompetent parents, if you live in a city with lousy schools, if your neighborhood is full of angry and depressed people who react to life's troubles by hurting and killing each other and maybe you, too.

Liberals need to create policies to realize their vision of freedom, just like Friedman. It's time to talk about freedom first, policies second. No more laundry list of stuff with the associated price tags, because we sound like the class nerd who always ate his brussels sprouts. If we have the good sense to learn Uncle Milton's greatest lesson -- how to be consistent, funny, tough and smart freedom-obsessed radicals who propose real solutions to people's problems -- then we will be ready to step in after the next right-wing crackup.

In fact, we should toast Uncle Milton, architect of the American right and the brains of the Republican Party (that curious Klan-conservative alliance) for making America safe for radical ideas. Goodbye to the center, and hello to ideas. This may sound weird, Uncle Milton, but thanks for showing us how to be radicals in America.

America: Restoring Democracy

Cecille Isidro — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:00:00 -0500

The day following Election 2004, retiring NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw indicated the need for strong national standards in how we count the votes. In an unusually serious interview with David Letterman, Brokaw said point blank, "We've gotta fix the election system in this country."

In a message to supporters, former presidential candidate John Kerry echoed this sentiment, calling for new "national standards" for elections and saying "It's unacceptable that people still don't have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process." In Ohio, Reverend Jesse Jackson also called for reform, emphasizing the need for a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote, a right guaranteed by most established democracies. Every returning member of the Congressional Black Caucus has signed onto Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s HJR 28 to provide a constitutional right to vote.

The 2004 elections underscore the urgent demand to modernize our elections and bring them in line with international norms. Without such modernization, we will fail to establish a vital democracy and remain vulnerable to electoral breakdowns.

Consider these reforms:

1) Non-partisan election officials. At the top of the list must be nonpartisan election officials. It hardly matters whether the method of voting is with paper and pen or open-source computerized equipment if election administrators are not trustworthy. The secretaries of state overseeing elections in three battleground states -- Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan -- were co-chairs of their state's George Bush reelection campaigns. In Missouri, that Secretary of State was running for governor -- he oversaw elections for his own race! A highly partisan Republican Secretary of State ran elections in Florida, as did a partisan Democrat in New Mexico. A Mexican observer of the 2004 election commented, "That looks an awful lot like the old Mexican PRI to me." Election administrators should be civil servants who have a demonstrated proficiency with technology, running elections and making the electoral process transparent and secure.

2) National elections commission. The U.S. leaves election administration to administrators in over 3,000 counties scattered across the nation with too few standards or uniformity. This is a formula for unfair elections. Most established democracies use national elections commissions to establish minimum national standards and uniformity, and to partner with state and local election officials to ensure pre-election and post-election accountability for their election plans. The Elections Assistance Commission established recently by the Help America Vote Act is a pale version of this and should be strengthened greatly.

3) Universal voter registration. We lack a system of universal voter registration in which citizens who turn 18 years of age automatically are registered to vote by election authorities. This is the practice used by most established democracies, giving them voter rolls far more complete and clean than ours -- in fact, a higher percentage of Iraqi adults are registered to vote than American adults. Universal voter registration in the U.S. is now possible as a result of the Help America Vote Act which mandated that all states must establish statewide voter databases by 2006. It would add 50 million voters to the rolls, a disproportionate share being young people and people of color.

4) "Public Interest" voting equipment. Currently voting equipment is suspect, undermining confidence in our elections. The proprietary software and hardware are created by shadowy companies with partisan ties who sell equipment by wining and dining election administrators with little knowledge of voting technology. The government should oversee the development of publicly-owned software and hardware, contracting with the sharpest minds in the private sector. And then that open-source voting equipment should be deployed throughout the nation to ensure that every county -- and every voter -- is using the best equipment. Other nations already do this with positive results.

5) Holiday/weekend elections. We vote on a busy workday instead of on a national holiday or weekend (like most other nations do), creating a barrier for 9 to 5 workers and also leading to a shortage of poll workers and polling places. Puerto Rico typically has the highest voter turnout in the United States, and makes Election Day a holiday.

6) Ending redistricting shenanigans by adopting full representation. Most legislators choose their voters during the redistricting process, long before those voters get to choose them. Ninety-eight percent of U.S. House incumbents again won re-election, and 95% of all races were won by noncompetitive margins. The driving factor is not campaign finance inequities but winner-take-all elections compounded by rigged legislative district lines. As a start, redistricting must be non-partisan, driven by nonpolitical criteria. But by far the best solution is full representation electoral systems which make voters far more important than district lines.

7) Abolish the Electoral College. The Electoral College enables presidential campaigns to almost completely ignore most states. It allows a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states to decide the presidency, inviting corruption and partisan election administration. It can deny the presidency to the candidate with the most votes. We need to support Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s HR 109, to institute direct election of the president with a majority victory threshold.

8) Pry open our democracy. Our "highest vote-getter wins" method of electing executive offices creates incentives to keep third-party candidates off the ballot as potential spoilers. Battles over Ralph Nader's ballot access demonstrated that our system is not designed to accommodate three or more choices, yet important policy areas can be completely ignored by major party candidates. Most modern democracies accommodate voter choice through two-round runoff or instant runoff elections for executive offices, and full representation electoral systems for legislatures. Instant runoff voting had a great first election in San Francisco this November and passed in other places like Burlington, Vermont and Ferndale, Michigan.

A number of organizations are highlighting reform packages, among them Progressive Democrats of America and Common Cause. We can't win all these reforms at once, but we can make advances if we keep our eye on the prize and pursue opportunities that emerge. We urge people to visit FairVote's website at www.fairvote.org to find out how to get involved. Whether you're a Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian or independent, you can be part of one big party: the "Better Democracy" party.