May 24, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for Economics

From the WSJ: “The Magnitude of the Mess We’re In.”

September 18, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Simply put, the mess is far greater than you think.

Suppose you were offered the job of Treasury secretary a few months from now. Would you accept? You would confront problems that are so daunting even Alexander Hamilton would have trouble preserving the full faith and credit of the United States. Our first Treasury secretary famously argued that one of a nation’s greatest assets is its ability to issue debt, especially in a crisis. We needed to honor our Revolutionary War debt, he said, because the debt “foreign and domestic, was the price of liberty.”

History has reconfirmed Hamilton’s wisdom. As historian John Steele Gordon has written, our nation’s ability to issue debt helped preserve the Union in the 1860s and defeat totalitarian governments in the 1940s. Today, government officials are issuing debt to finance pet projects and payoffs to interest groups, not some vital, let alone existential, national purpose.

Read the entire (longish) piece by George P. Shultz, Michael J. Boskin, John F. Cogan, Allan H. Meltzer and John B. Taylor at the Wall Street Journal online here.

[WSJ]

Related articles
Filed Under: Fiscal Reform, The Economy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hitting the Limit: A Financial Argument for Limiting Government [Contributor]

August 9, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Tyler Lees is a conservative engineer and train nerd from Midvale, Utah.You can follow him on Twitter as @ThePacificSlope. After he and I discussed on Twitter the necessity of establishing priorities for government in order to cut spending, I invited Tyler to share his view on the topic in a format longer than Twitter’s 140 characters. The following are his thoughts.

_____________________

taxes

taxes (Photo credit: 401(K) 2012)

I believe that there is a practical limit to how big government can get, irrespective of ideological points of view. Let me explain.

There is a real limit on how much a government can permanently spend. Taxes can only be raised so much and only so much debt can be incurred before the amount of revenue a government can raise tapers off. Where those points are can often be determined only after they have been reached. Just because we want something more, does not mean we can have it.

Taxes can only be raised to a certain point before the increases cease to yield significant gains in revenue. (This is the much-debated, much maligned, but holding firm concept known as the Laffer curve.) The reason for this is that taxes pull money out of private hands and place that money in the public till. The money will not go to expansion of business, repayment of debt, investment in new equipment or research and development,or, on the personal level, to where you—the individual taxpayer–want to spend it. The more taxes rise, the less cash businesses and individuals have to spend on their priorities, and with the effect that economic growth is reduced.

Debt is the second way governments can raise cash for their needs, but the amount of debt a government can accrue is also limited – in much the same you and I are. You can only borrow as much money as someone is willing to lend you. And that debt has to be paid back, eventually. The financial problems we are seeing in Europe is due to the loss of creditors confidence (and in the case of Greece, confirmation) that the Euro zone nations can honor their debts.

How about an example to demonstrate – what if a nation finds itself in an emergency (such as a war or natural disaster), and has to spend more than it can bring in? Looking at the United States in World War Two, the national debt rose  to the equivalent of over 110% of GDP by 1945 as the nation mobilized for war and put ten percent of the population in uniform. This,despite rates of taxation that might have seen communists up in arms. However, there was little, if any, protest because, and this is the key,the emergency ended, along with the high levels of borrowing. The need for budget-busting expenditures ended with the war, and taxes remained at high levels only long enough to pay down the national debt. A gross oversimplification, perhaps, but not inaccurate

In 2011, the United States national debt again exceeded 100% of GDP. The difference is that only a small portion of the debt over-run can be classed as temporary – most are a permanent part of the budget, items that will not end with an emergency or a cease-fire.

When our future obligations to Medicare, Social Security, and national health insurance (aka “Obamacare”) are factored in, expenditures will continue to grow.  As the baby boomers retire those expenses will grow faster than our ability to tax and borrow.

The budget will have to be cut, and we will have to make major changes to Social Security, Medicare, and the national health insurance plan to stay viable. This will happen – we can either do so voluntarily, now, or have it forced upon us when no one will let us borrow any more. “Austerity” will seem kind compared to the choices that will be forced upon us when the money runs out.

Our beliefs and principles can only guide what our priorities should be going forward.

Filed Under: Entitlement Reform, Fiscal Reform Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

What does Econ 101 teach us about UTOPIA?

August 7, 2012 by 3 Comments

One of the many enlightening concepts I picked up in Econ 101 as an undergraduate was the concept of “sunk cost.”

Investopedia defines sunk cost as

A cost that has already been incurred and thus cannot be recovered. A sunk cost differs from other, future costs that a business may face, such as inventory costs or R&D expenses, because it has already happened. Sunks costs are independent of any event that may occur in the future.

Further,

When making business or investment decisions, individuals and organizations typically look at the future costs that they may incur, by following a certain strategy. A company that has spent $5 million building a factory that is not yet complete, has to consider the $5 million sunk, since it cannot get the money back. It must decide whether continuing construction to complete the project will help the company regain the sunk cost, or whether it should walk away from the incomplete project.

In other words: is it worth it to keep throwing money at a project if the project cannot recover that cost?

That’s the dilemma that UTOPIA’s management is facing. After a legislative audit last week came back with less than stellar results, questions are swirling about whether cities should keep throwing “good money after bad,” or if they should just pull the plug and cut loses.

Even the Salt Lake Tribune is questioning the project:

But the biggest question about UTOPIA isn’t operational. It’s whether its business model can ever turn a profit. So far, that hasn’t happened. The audit suggests that providing broadband infrastructure at wholesale to independent content providers may never work, but it stops short of drawing a final conclusion. It does say that the question may be answered in places like Centerville, where the agency is making a new push to market itself.

But if the plan doesn’t work there, and the business continues to show a negative cash flow, then what happens? (The system lost $18.8 million in 2011.) Should the sponsoring cities pull the plug by refusing to underwrite any more debt?

The cities haven’t done that so far because they know that a fire sale of the system’s assets would bring only pennies on the dollar, and cities still would be left with bond payments on the existing debt. So they keep nursing UTOPIA along in the hope that its high-speed broadband service eventually will catch fire in the market.[...]

The original 11 cities include Tremonton, Perry, Brigham City, Layton, Centerville, West Valley City, Murray, Midvale, Lindon, Orem and Payson. Together, they will pay nearly $13 million next year to service the agency’s bonds. With the reduction in sales-tax revenues due to the slow economy, some cities have begun to raise property taxes to keep their municipal services whole while making UTOPIA payments.

Any economist will tell you that sunk cost is just that: sunk. If you can’t recover the cost, the economical thing to do is cut your losses and move on.  Maybe it’s time for UTOPIA to do the same.

Filed Under: Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , , ,

John Dougall for Utah State Auditor

June 20, 2012 by 6 Comments

Growing up the oldest of eleven, it’s no surprise that John Dougall (campaign site here) has a frugal streak to him. In fact, it’s more than a campaign slogan, says his sister Julie.

In fact, family legend has it that John has worn the same shoes since his mission, she says. “they are so old, they’ve come back in style… Since they are quite beat up, he just wears them like house slippers, but he still wears them, all the time.”

For a guy who has made the auditor’s race interesting for the first time in decades–if it ever was before–it’s believable. With the help of his wife, Sandy, whose creativity Dougall says  responsible for the funny and creative campaign material his campaign has produced, John has put together what is arguably both the most interesting and the most policy heavy campaign this year. If you haven’t noticed, then you’ve been living under a rock somewhere.

Whether it’s his radio ads that riff off the Dos Equis meme (“John Dougall is the most frugal man in the world…his car not only stops on a dime, it picks it up, too”) or creative posters and pictures featuring tough looking dogs hunting for waste (because Dougall will be a “watch dog” with the tax payers dollars…) or the Geico gecko telling how Dougall will save money.

Speaking of the gecko, if John Dougall has his way then your fifteen minutes voting for him at the ballot box will save our state money, too.

All slogans and advertising aside, John has a solid campaign, strong support from legislative leaders like Speaker Becky Lockhart and Senate President Michael Waddoups (and every CPA in the legislature), and a plan that really could transform how the auditors office does business.

______________________________

Recently, I asked John why he was running for state auditor. First, he said, he wants people to know that we have a state auditor.

Under the state constitution, the Utah state Auditor is supposed perform financial post audits and any other duties ascribed under statute.

Over the years, those duties have changed (in 1996 and 2003, for example) and have largely expanded over the years.  John believes that the auditor’s office should “step-up”  compliance and performance audits to assure government is working the way it’s supposed to.  ”The state auditor is supposed to be [an] independent, early warning system,” says Dougall.  The expansion from performing merely financial post audits to a compliance and performance is because “more and more elected officials have wanted it to be that officer” who keeps an eye on government.

While John Dougall is not a CPA, he is quick to point out that he is an MBA, and that not only are most state auditors MBAs, but there’s a good reason to have an MBA running the office over a CPA. The Auditor’s position is one of management, in addition to audit, and Dougall’s degree covers both.

While he acknowledges that government is not business, Dougall argues that auditing principles are the same.  In business, “managerial accounting” is a very important function of auditors. It’s a highly competitive market, and it should be same with government. “When there is concern about fiscal matters, we gotta figure out how to save money,” says Dougall.

And the current auditor is not keeping the office competitive?

“To be blunt,” he says, “the running joke is that he has been retired in office for ten years. Austin Johnson put it this way recently in Tooele: ‘the heavily lifting is done; we’re in maintenance mode.’ His philosophy is now to just  ’mow the lawn and trim the bushes.’ On the contrary, the heavy lifting in defense of the taxpayer is never done.”

______________________________

 If the heavy lifting for the taxpayer is never done, then, what will John do to keep the load lifted?  Dougall says he has both short-term and longer term objectives.

Short-term objectives:

  1. Rebuild a relationship with elected officials. The auditors’ office has been damaged over recent years due to failures the legislature sees stemming largely from lax oversight during Austin Johnson’s terms in office. For example, the scandal that recently rocked the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control could have been avoided. The auditor’s office wrote a memo on the problems–15 years ago– but nothing else. 1995. John says he would have come back after 90 days to re-audit. to see if the problem had been solved.
  2. Institute an office policy of re-auditing when a report shows a problem. After ninety days, come back and check again. “Nip a problem in the bud instead of allowing it to fest and become a serious issue,” says Dougall.
  3. Training for local officials and government employees. In the past, training is offered at conferences, but it’s not always timely.  Dougall would put training online, test trainees, and raise competancy before habits are formed.

Long term objectives:

  1. Do a better job assessing risk to taxpayers. Dougall says that the auditor’s office needs to perform more compliance audits to determine whether there is serious risk and then prioritize resources accordingly.
  2. Institute performance (aka “efficiency”) audits. The legislature is “begging for more data upon which to make decisions,” says Dougall. “It’s also the reason so many legislators, and every CPA in the legislature, supports.” He chuckles. “They call me a budget proctologist over there.”
  3. Leverage technology to help improve audit oversight and performance. For example, Dougall says, take purchase cards. Right now the state looks at usage six to nine months ago to determine performance. We should institute a real-time, algorithm to watch how things are being used and allow for continuous, automated audit.
  4. Map data for the public to follow and watch. Make it more transparent.
  5. Share accounting systems with interested cities. Identify whether there opportunities for cities to share accounting systems. Voluntary, it would make better accounting software available through the pooling of resources.
______________________________

My take?

For a race that is usually quiet and uncompetitive, John Dougall has proven to be a disruptive element that may lead to positive change. Elections are voters only opportunity to weigh-in directly on elected officials’ performance, and the auditor’s office has managed to dodge that bullet for too long. Austin Johnson has never really had another perspective than his office. Before he was appointed and then reelected successively to his position for 17 years, he was an employee of the state auditor’s office. All told, he’s worked in the Auditor’s office his entire career.  It’s hard to expect anything new from a career bureaucrat with no incentive to innovate or improve his performance.

What galls me most is his attitude that “the heavy lifting is done.”  When more than ever citizens are examining the role and cost of big government, our elected officials should be actively doing the same. Now is not the time to set Utah on cruise control.

It’s time for a new look at how business is done. It’s time for John Dougall for Utah State Auditor.

 

Related articles
Filed Under: Fiscal Reform, Government Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

When the government picks winners, the applicants might already be losers

June 14, 2012 by 2 Comments

By the time lobbyists in Washington, D.C. (or at any of the state capitols  or local city governments across the country) convince lawmakers that a subsidy is needed for a particular industry, it might just be that the company is already taking a turn for the worse, says a new study.

The researchers looked at some $5 billion in spending from 1998 to 2008 in their study that will be published in the fall. Their findings showed that on average, the more a company shelled out for government affairs and political interests at the federal level, the worse it performed financially.

“If you look at most of the literature on business management and strategy, the implication is that these investments really pay off,” Doug Schuler, study co-author and professor of business and public policy at Rice, told Reuters.

“But we found a really persistent negative relationship” between political activity and market performance, he said.

The research also found that in terms of return on sales, higher political spending on average had either marginally negative, or statistically insignificant impacts.

The only exception? About 10 percent of the companies surveyed did better only when they were already highly regulated.

This isn’t just a problem for the federal government, either. When local and state governments shell out money to prop up a “pet industry,” the government must, of necessity, take from Peter to give to Paul. Every RDA, loan guarantee, or special tax treatment is just another way of propping up a private company at tax payer’s expense. It’s called “picking winners,” because the government is essentially guessing that this company is going to work, pay back the money, and the government will come out on top.

Unfortunately, more often than not (if not nine times out of ten) the government–city, state, or federal–picks that winner not based on market success but on lobbyist donations. As a result, often dubious enterprises are propped up beyond their useful life by taxpayer money, money that is frequently lost from productive use.

Want an example? The most glaring is Solyndra, mentioned above. Touted as a green energy company, in 2009 the Obama Administration provided it with $535 million in loan guarantees. Additionally, the California government gave it $25.1 million in tax breaks. Then, on August 31, 2011, Solyndra declared bankruptcy, laying off 1100 workers. Ouch.

Closer to home, you might look at UTOPIA, a consortium of 11 Utah cities that have formed to compete with the private sector to provide telecom services and a dubious project that, if it worked, would provide very high-speed internet to participating customers in participating cities across Utah. While not a company, it acts as one and has been set up by government to compete with private companies. There are those, such as myself, who do not believe government should subsidize competition with the private sector.  Further UTOPIA’s ongoing problem is that it requires participant cities to foot the initial cost of building the network until sufficient customers can be attracted to repay the costs. So far, the project has run over budget and has been unable to attract enough customers to meet targets. In fact, from 2010 to 2011, it started to lose customers. The cost was just too high for people to pay when sufficient internet bandwidth is available from private companies.

Inability to gain customers is one thing, and there are those that argue that UTOPIA has begun to gain customers, but regardless  UTOPIA has consistently been required to rely upon taxpayers to balance its budget when it has failed to meet its stated goals.  As the Utah Taxpayer’s Association  argues, after so many repeated failures to meet promises, perhaps local governments would face up and end the pain:

UTOPIA, and its enablers on the city councils in UTOPIA’s member cities, have heard these concerns repeatedly. Many even agree that these arguments should have persuaded their predecessors in the city  governments to not venture down this path at all. However, they feel compelled to pony up more money, to make sure taxpayers don’t lose the money already committed to back UTOPIA’s bonds. Unfortunately, that money is already gone.

Rather than cut their losses, though, and move on, cities continue to throw good money after bad.  Take West Valley City, for example. In 2010, to match its obligations to UTOPIA and help cover UTOPIA’s shortfall, In the 2011 budget year,

To cover their $3.5 million UTOPIA bill, West Valley City is proposing an 18% property tax increase. While West Valley City officials insist that the property tax increase is unrelated to the UTOPIA bill, it is no coincidence that the exact amount of revenue generated from the property tax increase is $3.5 million.

The tax increase would amount to $70.44 on the average home valued at $185,000 and $128.16 for businesses of the same value. West Valley City already has the second highest property tax burden in the state.

That budget passed, and West Valley residents, whether they use UTOPIA or not, saw an 18% increase in their taxes.  And guess what–UTOPIA seems to fit all the characteristics of a subsidized company that the market wouldn’t support otherwise.

Maybe it’s time to choose leaders who won’t subsidize private business and use the government to compete with the market?  Even the Chinese can make a city look good by pouring enough money into it. Just look at the Olympics. That doesn’t mean the economy will do better because of it.

Helping a company, or competing with a company using taxpayer dollars, only removes from the market resources that the market would have otherwise, and more efficiently, used to create more competitive products.

In Solyndra’s case, the Obama Administration picked the company they thought would last. They were wrong.

In UTOPIA’s case, eleven cities have opted to create a product that the private sector was unwilling to support on it’s own. If the private sector won’t support it, why should the government?

[MSN] [UTA]

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Fiscal Reform, Questionable Laws and Lawmakers, The Economy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Austerity? Europe never even got there.

May 10, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Just because France and Greece have decided, by majority vote, that they don’t want to cut down the welfare state does not mean that they can afford to continue spending. Nor does it mean, as Democrats would have you believe,  that cutting the deficit is a bad idea.

All it means is that a majority of voters in France (about 51.8%...not exactly a resounding mandate) picked Socialist Hollande and his promise to end “austerity.”  Meanwhile,  in Greece, where unemployment is well over 20%, Coalition for the Radical Left  leader Alexis Tsipras, when given the opportunity to form a governing majority, thumbed his nose at the holders of Greece’s debt and edged his country closer to national bankruptcy.

World markets responded accordingly…meaning, European stocks dropped when investors fled, taking their money to places where people actually face reality with seriousness.  Places that don’t rhyme with “syrup.”

None of this means, however, that “austerity” is wrong.

In fact, it’s not even clear that Europe has even entered the phase of “austerity” programs where austerity happens. Taxes have been raised on the wealthy, says Michael Tanner, but austerity programs won’t actually kick in for several years.

For example, France will raise its retirement age from 60 to 62, but not until 2017! A cap would also be put on government health-care spending, starting next year. It is a little hard, therefore, to discern whether it is budget cuts that may or may not happen some day in the future, rather than tax increases today, that have slowed French economic growth.

Or take Britain, where the Tory-Liberal coalition recently suffered a drubbing in local elections, in part as a reaction to so-called austerity measures. Among the Cameron government’s first “austerity” measures was to hike the personal income tax to 50 percent for those earning more than £150,000 a year. That measure managed to actually decrease income-tax revenues by £509 million. The U.K. did trim government payrolls and cut back on some government programs, but British government spending still consumes more than 49 percent of GDP. Government spending actually increased by £59.2 billion from 2009 to 2011.

It’s a “tax today and maybe we’ll cut entitlements in the distant future” type approach. There’s no austerity happening. Just promises austerity accompanied by immediate increases in tax rates on the wealthy and middle-class. Says Tanner

  • Spain: imposed a “wealth tax” on citizens with €700,000 of assets, and a 7 percent income tax on those earning more than €300,000 per year; capital-gains taxes were also hiked.
  • Italy: imposed a “Solidarity Tax” of 3 percent on all taxpayers who earn more than €300,000.
  • Greece: increased taxes by nearly twice as much as it cut spending, including a 5 percent surtax on the wealthy.
  • On the middle-class Europe-wide: VAT hikes,  as well as tax increases on fuel, alcohol, and tobacco.

Any wonder why European stocks dropped yesterday? No one wants to invest in a country–or a continent–where their investment isn’t going to grow and in fact faces a very real likelihood of being taken, too.

This shouldn’t be a debate over “raising taxes” and the “cutting taxes.” Rather, it should be about government spending less so that the tax burden on business is not so heavy. The way to growth is to make it easier, and cheaper, for businesses to grow, there by putting more money into the pockets of individuals to spend. You can’t with one hand run up big surpluses and with the other hand raise taxes or print more money. The result is a net loss, especially to those who can afford to save less.

Europe never stopped spending, at least not less than it taxed. Greece and France are going that reality really is non-negotiable. Especially when Germany, who holds the cards, tells them ‘no’ to new bailouts.

“Greece can rely on the solidarity of Europe, but if Greece does not help itself, there is nothing to be done,” German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told a news conference.

“Whether Greece is ready to do what is necessary – only the Greek people can decide.”

When it comes down to it, the Democrats in America can point to the votes in France and Greece as for why cutting government won’t put people back to work. At the end of the day, though, Democrats are wrong. Three years of spending has not brought about real change in our employment or our wealth creation. We are still at around 15% unemployed (when counting those who are underemployed or no longer seeking work).

 

[CBS] [CNBC] [Christian Science Monitor] [CATO]

Related articles
Filed Under: International Interest, The Economy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

What do women want?

April 20, 2012 by 2 Comments

I don’t know.  And I don’t  claim that I have a strong grasp of everything that women want or think (including on those occasions when my better-half asks me, to my horror, “what do you think?”).  I’m not a woman, and it would more than presumptuous to know what they want.

On that basis, I’ve found the made up “war on women” more than a little disingenuous. Whether it is Democrats attacking Republicans or Republicans attacking Democrats, both political parties are headed by men, have been for over a hundred years, and recently have even been bitten by awkward revelations and comments that seem to contradict what they say.

Democrats have criticized the Mitt Romney for not supporting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play act that extends the time that someone—ostensibly, women—may sue for equal pay treatment. And this is just one more piece of the criticism of Romney that he is conducting a “war on women” on issues ranging from maternal leave, contraception, and healthcare.

Ironically, it comes as Barack Obama’s White House was accused last week of paying female staffers 18% less than the men (and don’t start on the women in the White House working in lower level, and therefore lower paying, positions—it only begs the question why discriminatory hiring has put more men than women at the top).   Meanwhile, Hilary Rosen, a CNN pundit and Democratic strategist questioned whether Ann Romney, stay-at-home mom of five boys, had ever even worked a day in her life.

Listening to the tit-for-tat, one can’t help but suggest that perhaps both sides should “cast out the beam” from their own eyes…

Like I said, I don’t know what women do want, but I do know this: whether at home or in the workforce, women have more than proved their value to our society, many times over.

There are some things common to both men and women. We both want to be respected, honored for our choices, and appreciated for our work, whether in the home or out. We both want our children to have enough and grow up to be independent and productive members of society, we want to enjoy free time with our families, and we want  a little extra money to save:  for retirement, a vacation, a new car, or a down payment on a house with a bit more elbow room…or whatever.

And whether they are in the workforce or at home, women know this stuff just as well as men, if not better.

Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank

Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ask Muhammid Yunus.  In the mid-1970s, he pioneered a concept of using microloans to help impoverished villages in Bangladesh create economic development.  The loans had an incredibly high level of payback and low default rates, even compared to developed countries.  The institution Yunus founded—the Grameen Bank–actually worked to expand economic growth in the villages where they worked, especially among women.

One of the most interesting things Yunus found as the program grew was how effective the loans were at helping women take control of their future.   In fact, women were better borrowers than men. They would use the money to benefit their household to produce a steady stream of income, putting their children in school, and ending generations of poverty and ignorance.

And they paid off their loans on time, too.  Recognizing the power and the influence women had to transform their communities, the Grameen Bank, as of 2009, extended loans to 8 million borrowers, a whopping 97% of which are women.  In 2011, it was lending $100 million a month.

Lesson?  Women are reliable, they make smart decisions, and they understand economics.  Further, they know what they want and they don’t need men—whether in the White House or in the home, to tell them what it is they need.

All this is just prologue. When we come down to it, this is about how we—men, the government, and CNN pundits–get out-of-the-way and let women make the choices themselves. Whether it’s a husband, father, or government, women don’t need men to tell them what is right or what is wrong, how to spend their money or whether they should be working or not.  They know what is best for their families and they are perfectly adept at figuring it out without Uncle Sam telling them how.  They just need to be treated like their decisions—whether to stay-at-home and raise their children or to share the responsibility of providing with dad…or even, to not have children at all—matter and are respected.

That’s the reason why Hilary Rosen’s comments elicited so much ire last week, from all sides of the political spectrum.  From the stay-at-homes, it was a feeling that the elites of the world, the pundits and powers in Washington, don’t respect the work that a mom does at home. From the moms who work outside the home, it was a feeling that Ann Romney can’t understand how hard it is for those who must work to get by, or don’t have a man to share the load with them. For those of us who are neither (i.e. men), it was a collective feeling of recognition for what our mothers, wives and sisters have done to get us and themselves to where we are. To all of us,  it was offense that such an enormous sacrifice could be so blithely passed over.

Speaking as a man, women are our equals, if not our betters. Speaking as a member of the workforce, stay-at-home mothers are our equals, too.  Among other things, there is one thing we can do now to show our appreciation: let’s pay them fairly and equally when they are in the workforce, and encourage and support them in their choices when they opt to work in the home. It’s tough to be a mother—and no one should try to tell them that one political party or the other knows what’s best for them. They know best for themselves.

What do women want? They want to be treated equally and fairly in whatever choice they make.  They are smart, they understand the effects of their choices, and they move the economy.  Whether they choose to be in the workforce or at home, it’s time we treat them like they are the equals that they are.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Political Thought Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts