Kevin Drum, Mother Jones
Can the government provide healthcare more efficiently than the private market? There's no simple answer to that, but a couple of recent data points suggest the answer is yes.First there's Medicare. It's true that long-term Medicare costs remain our most critical budget problem, thanks to aging baby boomers and ever-expanding treatments for chronic illnesses and end-of-life care. But per-capita Medicare spending has been on a long downward trend, and that trend has been so steady and predictable that a recent study suggested that spending growth per beneficiary over the next...

After weeks of budget talks with no agreement in sight, Gov. Jan Brewer gave legislative leaders an ultimatum, telling them she would veto bills until work on the state’s spending plan is complete.

The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly True | Mitt Romney says Barack Obama's "suggested reduction in spending for next year" is zero

In an effort to relate the federal budget to a typical family’s budget, the Mitt Romney presidential campaign posted an explanatory graphic on April 17, 2012. It concludes with this claim "President Obama's suggested reduction in spending for next year: $0." We decided to see whether that’s accurate. As its source, the graphic pointed to Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2013. This document, produced annually, is usually considered an opening volley rather than a final set of numbers, particularly when the president and Congress are controlled by different parties. Congress ...

>> More

After a brief hiatus, "Parks & Recreation" (Thu., 9:30 p.m. ET on NBC) returned to a new time slot and the continuation of Leslie Knope's political campaign. This episode came with a nod to "The West Wing" as Bradley Whitford guest-starred as a councilman. Lelsie was trying to convince him to not cut the budget of the parks department.

Things got complicated when he agreed and instead cut funding from a local animal shelter, effectively shutting it down. This was a political disaster, as it showed Leslie playing favorites with her own department at the expense of innocent animals.

This problem brought April out of her shell, and saw her lead an adoption program. Of course, she wound up with more animals than she started. One dog got adopted, but another woman dropped off two cats and ran off. In the end, a solution was reached that gave an edge to Leslie's opponent. She proposed that he use his personal fortune to save the shelter.

Follow the campaign on "Parks & Recreation" Thursdays at 9:30 p.m. ET on NBC.

TV Replay scours the vast television landscape to find the most interesting, amusing, and, on a good day, amazing moments, and delivers them right to your browser.

WASHINGTON -- If Haley Barbour advised Mitt Romney about whom to pick for his running mate, the former Mississippi governor might repeat something he said in a book about his home state's politics: "Never make a political decision until you have to, for things could always change."

Romney's search for a running mate will be guided by a few factors, and the individual qualities and resumes of each potential pick will play an important role. But there will be another significant element: the situational dynamics of the presidential election four months from now, when the GOP convention in Tampa begins on Aug. 27.

Will Romney be trailing President Obama in the polls so much that he needs a jolt, a game changer, a boost of energy? Or will the race be neck and neck, in a dead heat? If so, he will likely be seeking a less risky choice, someone who will not affect the race significantly in either a positive or negative way.

"How that dynamic shakes out will have a lot to do with how a vice presidential pick is made," said Taylor Griffin, a Washington-based consultant who worked in the White House for President George W. Bush and on Republican Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign.

Interviews with GOP insiders and those involved with the Romney campaign underscore the conventional wisdom: Most people expect the presidential race to remain tight, as a new New York Times/CBS News poll showed it to be on Thursday morning. If that trend continues this summer, it would increase the likelihood of a do-no-harm pick by Romney and reduce the chances that this already cautious candidate with a risk-averse campaign would go out on a limb.

"You gotta be able to win, but the second question is, how are you going to govern together?" said Henry Barbour, a Republican operative in Mississippi and nephew of the former governor. "That's why George W. Bush picked Dick Cheney because they got along; they were compatible. It certainly was not a political pick. Dick Cheney was not a guy who loved going out and campaigning, but he loved governing."

Romney, 65, is known to value loyalty and compatibility.

"Compatibility is a big factor," Barbour said. "It should be obvious ... But if you just pick somebody because you think they're going to help you win some big state or draw big crowds, I think that's a mistake."

There is certainly some skepticism at Romney's Boston headquarters about the potential impact of a vice presidential pick -- at least on the positive side. The focus, according to campaign sources and Republicans who deal with Boston, appears to be on averting the potential of pick causing Romney any damage.

The safer picks are all white men: Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

The riskier picks are almost all women or minorities who are rising stars in the Republican Party but with less experience in national politics than a Portman or Daniels: This set includes Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

Two white men are on the riskier list: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whose weakness is that he might be so charismatic that he would outshine Romney, and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, whose budget plan is lauded by many conservatives but tough to defend in political sound-bite combat.

The one danger to Romney's taking the safe route is that the monochrome pairing of two older white men could itself pose a risk, since Romney will be trying to unseat the nation's first black president, who also happens to be, at age 50, from a younger generation.

Perhaps the only minority candidate with a substantial enough record to avoid the charge of not be prepared, should he be thrust into the Oval Office, is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

"Daniels and Jindal would be so steady but they wouldn't overshadow him, and they wouldn't have any interest in overshadowing Romney," Barbour said. "It's not their style."

Two other outliers are former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

Here are the pros and cons for each choice:

ROB PORTMAN
Pros: He is a 56-year-old former White House budget director (from 2006 to 2007) and successful member of Congress who remained popular with constituents during seven terms from 1993 to 2005. He also served as a U.S. trade representative to boot. Portman has a strong political network in Ohio, which again will be one of the most crucial battleground states in the election. And he is well-known for his keen mind and firm grasp of a broad range of policy issues. He served in George H.W. Bush's White House as well, so he knows how both the executive and legislative branches work.

Cons: Portman's stint as budget director under George W. Bush would open a door for Democrats to use one of their favorite attacks: Bush inherited a budget surplus from Democratic President Bill Clinton and handed a more than $400 billion budget deficit to Obama. On a more superficial level, while Portman is friendly with many in the press, he does not bring any extra charisma or excitement to the ticket. In many conservative's eyes, Portman's current position as a legislator instead of an executive (such as governor) is also a minor strike against him.

MARCO RUBIO
Pros: Rubio, 41, is a rock star. He's young, good-looking, well-spoken and a Latino. He's from the must-win state of Florida. What's not to like?

Cons: He's young and only in his second year as a senator. He would also be certain to attract a high level of scrutiny to his past, especially about whether he tweaked his family's story of leaving Cuba to make it more dramatic and if he used a credit card issued by the Republican Party to buy personal items while a state legislator. Rubio has been the most Shermanesque of all the potential VP picks in his promises to refuse any request to consider the job.

CHRIS CHRISTIE
Pros: Christie, 49, is as outsized a personality as there is in modern American politics. He loves the spotlight. He talks straighter than blunt. Some might call his a smash mouth. And voters love him. After three years as chief executive, his approval rating in New Jersey, a Democratic stronghold, is at an all-time high. He has balanced budgets in the face of huge projected deficits without raising taxes and has achieved significant reforms in the state's pension system for government workers.

Cons: He might love the spotlight a little too much for Mitt Romney's liking. He and Romney are worlds apart in terms of personal style. It would be a lot to expect him to hang back and play second fiddle. In addition, having two candidates from the Northeast limits the ticket's geographical appeal and its ability to win over rural voters. His weight is also a factor.

MITCH DANIELS
Pros: Like Portman, Daniels, 63, is also a former White House budget director. He served in that post from 2001 to 2003 and then went on to become governor, now in his second term. Like Christie, he has imposed conservative reforms as governor in budget spending, taxation and state worker salaries and benefits as well as health care. He is one of the most articulate Republicans in discussing the national debt. Also like Christie, Daniels had been wooed intensely by Republican insiders and voters to run in the primary against Romney but refused.

Cons: While Daniels served as George W. Bush's budget director, a surplus turned to a deficit under his watch, thanks in large part to a major recession caused by the September 11 attacks and major tax cuts that Bush pushed through. Daniels did not run for president because his wife and daughters (or at least some of them) didn't want him to. It's not clear whether he'll even agree to being vetted for VP by the Romney campaign for the same reasons. He also lacks the electrifying presence of a Christie or Rubio. His personality is low-key and droll. His tenure as an executive at drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co. in the 1990s would be closely examined.

BOBBY JINDAL
Pros: Jindal is another governor who has accomplished a lot that will appeal to conservatives -- cutting taxes and spending -- and taking on teachers' and state employee unions. And at 40 years old, the former Rhodes scholar is younger than other potential picks. He was re-elected in a landslide last fall and just succeeded in engineering the passage of a sweeping education reform plan by the GOP-controlled legislature. He is now taking on the challenge of trying to curb state worker pensions, though that is proving to be a tougher slog. Jindal is a former congressman (from 2005 to 2008) who in the 1990s ran Louisiana's health and hospitals system and then its university system. He is the son of immigrant parents who came to the States from Punjab, India, six months before he was born.

Cons: He is known nationally mostly for his widely panned 2009 speech giving the official Republican response to President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address. He is not seen as a particularly inspiring figure. His state, Louisiana, is already considered sure win for Romney. And there are two minor hurdles for him to surmount: First, Jindal endorsed Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the primary. After Perry dropped out, Jindal declined to endorse anyone else. And second, Jindal's Washington-based consultant, Curt Anderson, is not on the best terms with Stuart Stevens, the top strategist on Romney's campaign.

PAUL RYAN
Pros: The 42-year-old House budget chairman is a numbers-and-policy ace. He runs through the intricacies of Medicare, Social Security and budgets with the efficiency of a machine. And despite initial resistance a few years ago from many in the GOP, his detailed plan to overhaul federal spending and entitlement programs -- the biggest drivers of the nation's long-term debt –- has become essentially the party's platform. On a few occasions, he has taken on President Obama directly and more than held his own in policy debates. Being tall and good-looking doesn't hurt him. And Wisconsin is a swing state.

Cons: Ryan's "Road Map" may be accepted by the GOP as its best attempt to fix some of the nation's most vexing problems: the budget deficit and national debt. But that doesn't mean Romney and many Republicans want to make that a central issue in the race this fall. They want the economy -- and Obama's handling of it -- to be the focus. A concern is that putting Ryan on the ticket could make a plan that hasn't yet been enacted into law the central focus -- instead of what Republicans view as mistakes made by the incumbent president. This is the reason Ryan is a highly unlikely pick.

TIM PAWLENTY
Pros: Pawlenty, 51, suffered a political bruising during his time as a candidate in the primary but has emerged as a trusted adviser to Romney after he endorsed him. The personal connection between the two men should not be underestimated. Pawlenty also has an ability to connect with blue-collar voters that Romney does not. And there would be few doubts about Pawlenty's trustworthiness or loyalty.

Cons: He offers little heft to the equation in terms of geographic advantage, in that he is from Minnesota (which is not a swing state) and showed no distinct ability to excite any passion or confidence among voters during his primary run.

BOB MCDONNELL
Pros: McDonnell, 57, is governor of a key battleground state and he looks the part of vice president. He's eloquent and smart enough. He gets along with people well and seems like a natural fit for Romney. After Portman, there seems to be no other potential VP pick who is a better match for Romney when it comes to pure compatibility.

Cons: McDonnell doesn't stand out. He has not distinguished himself with any particular accomplishment or stylistic trademark. His handling of a bill requiring an ultrasound before a woman obtains an abortion was widely perceived as shaky. He first supported a transvaginal procedure before backing away from this stance and saying only an abdominal, noninvasive ultrasound should be mandated.

SUSANA MARTINEZ
Pros: The 52-year-old Texas native and granddaughter of Mexican immigrants has an inspiring, up-from-the-bootstraps personal story. The former district attorney is the first Latina to become governor in the history of the United States. She is also the head of state in a Democratic-leaning state that is nonetheless considered by some to be a swing state. Her two years in office so far have gone reasonably well.

Cons: Not much is known about Martinez. She has vowed she would turn down an offer to be considered for the vice presidential spot. And she is likely not seasoned enough to step into the vice presidential role.

RICK SANTORUM
Pros: Santorum, 53, became a hero to many conservative Republicans with his insurgent campaign for the GOP nomination, which went further than anybody ever expected. Santorum showed a talent for grassroots campaigning (that Pennsylvania campaign watchers already knew about) and a knack for articulating a conservative message that connects with voters in a way Romney never has had. He's also from a swing state, though Pennsylvania has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since it went for George H. W. Bush in 1988.

Cons: Santorum waged a fierce and sometimes bitter battle with Romney in the primary. It's not yet clear how much the fences between the two have been mended. Santorum is holding off on endorsing Romney, waiting until he can meet with the presumptive nominee and press him to hold fast to conservative principles on key issues. How that meeting goes will likely dictate whether Santorum is even in the running for the VP spot. But Santorum's lack of message discipline and penchant for veering into social issues are likely to be turnoffs for the Romney campaign.

NIKKI HALEY
Pros: The 40-year-old governor of South Carolina is a talented, dynamic and charismatic political figure. She's the youngest governor in the country. Haley is another player among the bumper crop of young, minority stars rising in the Republican Party. She is the daughter of Sikh immigrants from India.

Cons: Haley is struggling as governor. Her approval rating is in the 30s range. Her endorsement of Romney before the Palmetto State's January primary failed to help him beat back Newt Gingrich, who won convincingly. And she is probably too inexperienced.

MIKE HUCKABEE
Pros: The former governor turned Fox News personality won Iowa during his 2008 presidential bid and attracted the same evangelical voting bloc that went for Santorum this year. The 56-year-old remains a hero to many conservatives. His name recognition is substantial, since he has been on national television regularly during prime time most weekends for the last three and a half years. He has an ability to present conservative positions in ways that are more winsome than is true for many other Republicans.

Cons: Huckabee is taken more seriously as a cultural force than as a political figure. And like Santorum, he would bring rightward drift to the ticket at a time when the Romney campaign is counting on the Republican base remaining steadfast (because of the party's intense opposition to Obama) and is focused instead on winning over independents and moderates.

Yuval Levin, National Review
Get FREE NRO NewslettersLog In  |  RegisterFollow Us Everywhere         April 30 Issue Subscribe to NR Renew April 30 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  RenewThe CornerThe one and only.The Conrad Fiasco Stuttaford: Shut Up, Greenpeace Explained Comments (6) Trinko: Rubio: Romney Should Pick Portman for VP ...

According to the World Economic Forum's 2011 Global Gender Gap Study, the U.S. ranks 68th in an evaluation of wage equality between men and women among 135 countries that represent 90% of the world's population. Is it "arguable" that earning a living is more important for men than for women, as a Wisconsin state senator suggested earlier this week? Men out-earn women in the U.S. and people in this country think they should continue to do so. Which means individual women, their families and our entire society will continue to pay high prices for what is essentially a broad application of outdated gender stereotypes to economic policy. But hey, the U.S. ranks No. 1 in Miss Universe wins. That's a major relief, because, after all, when women have a vicarious relationship to their income and long term financial security, the currency of their worth is attractiveness, so at least we look good.

Women have made important and major strides in opportunity, work force engagement and pay in the past half century, but next week's April 17 Equal Pay Day exists for an enduring and legitimate reason. This day symbolically marks how far into the year a woman has to work to make what a man made during the prior calendar year. Yup. That means Jane has to keep working through January, February, March and half of April 2012 in order to bring home the same paycheck that John did in calendar year 2011. Since the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the gap between men's and women's pay (calculated for full-time work) has closed at less than half-a-cent per year. At this rate, we will be "celebrating" this event for fifty more years before the gap closes.

You've heard the statistics: The median annual earnings for working (full-time) white women is 77 cents to a man's dollar. For women of color, the gap and its effects are even greater: African-American women earn 61 cents to the male dollar and Latina women earn 53 cents. Controlling for factors like education, experience, job type and more reveals that fully one-quarter to one-half of the gap is attributable to unexplained causes. Women now make up more than half of the U.S. workforce -- this gap affects hundreds of millions of people and families.

Why do we have such an intractable gender pay gap, what do these numbers actually mean and how are you personally affected by it?

Let me say there are no cabals of mean men, dressed for Scottish Rites, plotting to pay women less. It's a matter of deep cultural habits and systematized sexism borne of dated stereotypes. Unless you live in Wisconsin. In which case, I'm so sorry. Wisconsin is where, while everyone was busy over the weekend, Governor Scott Walker signed a bill repealing the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act which made it easier for victims of pay discrimination to pursue legal redress. Republican state senator Glenn Grothman, a major champion of the charge to repeal the Act, explained to Daily Beast reporter Michelle Goldberg, "You could argue that money is more important for men."

Uh. Wrong. You could argue NOT and accurately reflect the reality of contemporary life. The most recent Department of Labor Statistics reveal that 40% of wives earn more than their husbands and, according to recent Pew Research studies, women are increasingly earning heads of household (22%). Lastly, due to divorce, widowhood or no marriage, more than half of children born to women under 30 have single, sole-breadwinning mothers. If the wage gap didn't exist, the poverty rate for single mothers would be half of what it is. Boys and men might still feeling a sluggish but strong pressure to provide for dependent women and children. And there are women who feel they are right in doing so. But, we are so far past the days when most women can either afford to or want to have a vicarious and precarious relationship with their income. Women need to be able to earn their own money while raising children. True "family values" would reflect an investment of time, money and political capital to helping them to this without either short-term income or long term security penalization.

Forget, for just a moment, debates about the inputs and analysis that produce these numbers year after year, and consider this: What do those numbers mean in terms of lost wages and spending power?

According to economists at The Wage Project, over the course of her lifetime a woman will earn, on average, this much less for her work than a man of comparable education: If she has a high school degree she will earn $700K less; a college degree, $1.2 million less and, gosh, if she has a professional degree that number is in excess of $1.8 million. Unless she's in Virginia, there she will lose more than $2,000,000 over the course of her working life. What if this gap didn't exist for women in Virginia? How much more could a woman afford during the course of a year?

• For starters, 1.8 years' worth or 95 more weeks of food
• Half a year's worth of utilities and mortgage payments
• More than 3,000 gallons of gasoline
• Eleven extra months of rent
• Oh, and, I almost forgot -- nearly three additional years of health insurance premiums for her family.

In addition, consider the ramifications of the lifetime wage gap in terms women's ability to:

• Save for retirement
• Accrue Social Security benefits
• Rely on pension plans and
• Save for lifetime goals (like buying a house).

For an equivalent, interactive map analysis for your state, go here. Here's a useful list of Zen Koans.

The broad impact on our economy is immeasurable loss. As succinctly articulated by Gloria Feldt, author of No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power: "For a thriving 21st century economy, America can't afford to lose half its population's contributions."

Mr. Grothman and Mr. Walker, like so many of their peers, are nostalgic for a bygone era based on the outdated and onerous-for-all idea of all-male, sole-breadwinner responsibility. Grothman continued: "I think a guy in their first job (sic), maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true." Personally, I'd rather attribute it to ignorance, paternalistic sexism and a blithe denial of modern economies. But, to be fair, I imagine that Mr. Grothman is simply trying to help sex-seeking young guys by making sure they have a "dining budget" to go a-courtin'. Pat Robertson captured the essence of this "man-up" approach to finances this weekend when he instructed Evangelical faithful men to "push forward and your wife will come along." I know, I know, some people don't want to get too feminist-thinky about money and sex and get befuddled by new-fangled ideas of equality and fairness.

Here's an incontrovertible fact: Regardless of education, experience in the workforce or child-rearing commitments, the gender pay gap remains a stubborn legitimate problem for American women and families (including men, if you can imagine). The effect is magnified for women of color who bear the brunt of the feminization of poverty. Passing legislation that hinders people's ability to seek justice, as Wisconsin just did or as Republican's in Congress have, denies and perpetuates a real problem with real day to day ramifications for people.

There are several dimensions to pay discrimination and a wage gap, many of them wielded as a defensive weapon to explain that the gap is due to women making "choices" that result in lower pay. The choices that women and their families make are a) rational, given the continued imbalanced dynamics of work/family responsibilities and b) false "choices" since both men and women are socially and culturally constrained and unable to consider equally competing and comparable options. Even after taking into account the issue of "choice" gender discrimination remains a marked component of the wage gap measurements.

"The gender pay gap is a product of the choices people think women and men should make, as well as the choices that they actually make," explains Catherine Hill, Director of Research for the American Association of University Women. "Women's work has long been undervalued, and traditionally female jobs continue to pay less than traditionally male jobs. The fact that women working full-time earn just 77 percent of their male peers shows us the scale of the problem."

Here are the major contributors informing the stats and the debate over their relevance:

1) The Maternal Wage Tax:
The way women with children are treated in the workplace is anachronistic. We penalize women and reward men when children enter the picture. The most minimal "real" pay discrimination period in a woman's life takes place when she is unmarried with no children, college educated in her twenties. In her book, The Richer Sex, reporter Lisa Mundy talks about this and predicts that we are on the verge of a "big flip" when women will out-earn men. But, despite the claim of her title, women are not richer and once children enter the picture, the erosion of wages continues to be substantial.

Motherhood is the prime "women make choices" time. Women often work in lower paying sectors, work (outside of the home, for pay) fewer hours a week and therefore fewer paid hours a year than men. They are less likely to get hired (according to The Motherhood Manifesto, 44% less likely) and when they are hired are paid on average 11% less than a childless woman. Their work life is also more likely than men's to be interrupted. Numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show the degree to which the idea that women stop working to care for children (thereby making choices that reduce their pay) is a matter of stereotyping and perception, not reality: 60 percent of women with children under the age of three and 77 percent of mothers with school-age children remain in the workforce. Secondly, these facts ignore the catch-22 that women and their families face due to the cost of working being higher than the gains. We generally still struggle to have family-friendly work cultures that create a more gender equitable work life playing field. This complicated fact is potentially the most important contributor to the gap's perseverance. Most men I know do not ever seriously consider paternity leave -- the long-term costs to their careers is too significant. Well, what do you think the long-term cost to a woman's career is? Equally significant. But more women make these "choices" than men do and as long as this gap exists the rational choice will be for the higher income earning partner to stay employed and the lower earning partner to stay at home. Gee, could't be because of laws that perpetuate unfair pay practices and enable family-hostile work environments? Or the cultural messages we send children about sex roles, could it?

Quoting Dr. Shelley Correll, who has studied the maternal wage gap for years, MomsRising put it this way:

"We expected to find that moms were going to be discriminated against, but I was surprised by the magnitude of the gap," comments Dr. Correll. "I expected small numbers but we found huge numbers. Another thing was that fathers were actually advantaged and we didn't expect fathers to be offered more money or to be rated higher." But that's what happened. A study by Jane Waldfogel of Columbia University, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, found the same thing: Men don't take wage hits after having children, women do."

2) A persistently gender segregated work force
Women continue to make up the majority of low-wage earners in jobs such as teaching, administrative support and nursing. They also are more likely to be employed in the public sector, where wages are significantly lower than in the private sector. The number one job held by women in 2010: secretary. Why do women cluster in the lowest paying jobs? Is it a chicken or egg problem? First, many originated as extensions of "nurturing," "mothering" roles and "naturally" women want to do those out of the goodness of their little, womanly hearts. Second, these jobs are perceived as unskilled to some degree -- not needing either additional training or graduate degrees. Women chose these jobs for lots of reasons among them are that a) they are "traditional" women's jobs, b) people believe they are more "flexible" which is questionable at best, c) they do not require an investment in higher education, d) women are less likely to pursue traditionally "male" jobs -- which often require early childhood educational focus in the sciences and math (that's a whole other issue).

3.) Women get a lower return on educational investment in terms of pay.
Most people pursue education to improve their lot in life and earn more money. With each level of education, potential earning power increases, as does the lifetime value of an investment in education. Over the course of a man's life, he will make 84% more if he gets a Bachelor's degree than if he stops at high school. There is a correlating jump if he gets a professional degree. For him, each educational step yields a correlating increase in earnings. That's not true for women compared to men. So, whereas women with degrees make more than women without, they still make less than men with the same educational background. Because of wage discrimination, for a woman to make what a man with a high school degree makes, she has to get a college degree. This is true at every level of change in education. Georgetown University's College Payoff study, has details if you care to read more. Multiple studies have consistently found that women earn less than men with similar degrees in the same occupational categories -- for full-time work with the same level of experience. Women pursuing higher education do tend to study fields with lower earning potential however, so more English majors, less engineering. But there is an interesting problem with women seeking to diversify their educational and professional options: When women enter traditionally "male" fields they don't earn more money, but instead, salaries and prestige go down.

4) Last but not least, plain old-fashioned sex discrimination.
Many people refuse to believe that gender discrimination still exists. In addition to the issues above, debunking myths abound. The US Census American Factfinder reveals apples to apples, full-time pay inequities between women and men doing the same job. For example, women physicians and surgeons earned $120,971, compared with $190,726 for men and women securities, commodities and financial services sales agents earned $52,524, compared to $85,760 for their male counterparts. Multiple studies like the AAUW's 2012 The Simple Truth, controlled for factors known to affect earnings such as education and training, parenthood and hours worked, "college-educated women still earn five percent less than men one year out of college and 12 percent less than men 10 years out of college." Fully one quarter of the pay gap is unexplained despite attempts to account for differences. The gap is constant, well and consistently documented. Some people simply refuse to believe this can be the case.

Taking all of this into account might make it easier to understand why pay equity and its relation to long term wage earning equity goes from being a matter of individual discrimination and legal redress to broad systemized societal bias that need to be addressed through legislation and policy. It's also easier to understand how certain types portray women as gold-digging, dependent parasites, seemingly incapable of managing "their" finances. Imagine if men lived in a system where politicians (84% of whom were women) continuously enacted laws that imperiled their ability to earn a living fairly, increased their chances of poverty and long term insecurity? Imagine if the basis for policy was the idea that men's income would be optimized, ideally, through a relationship with a higher wage earning female? They too might make decisions that are rational, but on the surface seem self-defeating or mercenary.

Both "pay equity" statistics (although usefully illustrative) and the arguments debunking these statistics (such as Mr. Grothman's "suggestion" that it is more important for men to make money than for women) are distracting and misleading for three reasons: 1) both strongly suggest an incorrect zero-sum, either/or, women v. men framework for the issue. Valuing women's work and paying them fairly does not penalize men who by and large have to work in economic partnership with women now 2) the focus on "pay" instead of aggregated wages minimizes the issue of women's long-term financial vulnerability and impoverishment which have serious implications for society and 3) emphasizing "pay" obscures our country's lack of policy commitment to family friendly policies, maternal and paternal leave and other structures that support working mothers (and fathers) instead of penalizing them.

There are several ways to address these issues and they are all necessary. One is for companies to understand the value of family friendly policies from which men and women can both benefit. Many already pursue these policies to positive effect, but they are the minority. Lists of which companies are ranked for best work life balance benefits abound. Those that focus on the best companies for working mothers also tend to be the best for working fathers. The second is to make sure that legislation related to fair pay is not revoked or is passed when up for a vote. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which is vital to addressing this gap and eliminating loopholes, is up for a vote in Congress and may not pass. In an effort to stem the tide of women to the Democratic party, Republican candidates are now using words like "kitchen table" decisions. The problem is, deep down they still think the only people at the kitchen table are women and that they are making their decisions when their husbands come home after a long day at work. Otherwise, they wouldn't be systematically voting against fair pay provisions both at the state and federal levels. If you're in a clicktavist kind of mood be a Two Minute Activist get involved here.

Contact any of the following organizations to better understand compensation, legal issues, legislation and workplace culture as they relate to making pay more equitable and reducing lifetime wage loss for women:

American Association of University Women: excellent list of resources and action steps
National Committee on Pay Equity: extensive list of studies and practice guidelines
The Institute for Women's Policy Research
Catalyst
The Women's Law Center
The Working Mother Research Institute
The National Partnership for Women and Families
Momsrising
The Wage Project

The Truth-o-Meter says: Pants on Fire! | Paul Ryan says Barack Obama 'has doubled the size of government since he took office'

On his congressional website, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., makes a striking claim that President Obama has doubled the size of goverment. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, is perhaps the leading Republican voice for a fiscally conservative approach to taxing, spending and reducing the federal debt. So when a reader recently pointed out the doubling-government claim on a web page devoted to Ryan’s views on tax policy, we thought it was worth a look. Here’s an excerpt from the Web page: "At a time ...

>> More

Andy Kroll, Mother Jones
It was Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's surprise assault on public-employee unions in 2011 that set in motion the statewide recall campaign to oust him from office. But don't expect Wisconsin's Democratic Party to make workers' rights a central focus in their quest to oust Walker.In an interview, an official with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin downplayed the importance of the anti-union provisions in Walker's "budget repair" bill in the Democrats' broader recall strategy. "Collective bargaining is not moving people," says Graeme Zielinski, a...

So, can we talk about the Paul Ryan phenomenon? And yes, I mean the phenomenon, not the man. Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and the principal author of the last two Congressional Republican budget proposals, isn’t especially interesting. He’s a garden-variety modern G.O.P. extremist, an Ayn Rand devotee who believes that the answer to all problems is to cut taxes on the rich and slash benefits for the poor and middle class.

Ari Berman, The Nation
As President Obama spoke about Representative Paul Ryan’s budget yesterday, Fox News broke away from the president’s remarks to cover “a stunning case in South Bend, Indiana.” The story covered an indictment by the St. Joseph County prosecutor’s office alleging that local Democratic officials forged signatures to get Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards on the Indiana Democratic Primary ballot in 2008.

John Cassidy, The New Yorker
After my quick sports break, it’s back to politics, and the duelling speeches by President Obama and Mitt Romney that everybody and his or her grandmother has seized upon as the start of the 2012 campaign proper. On Tuesday, B.H.O. lambasted W.M.R. (the “W” is for “Willard”) for embracing House Republicans’ slash-and-burn budget, which he described as “antithetical to the our entire history as a land of opportunity.” Twenty-four hours later, W.M.R. lambasted B.H.O. for hiding his true agenda and engaging in a...

The Truth-o-Meter says: Half-True | President Barack Obama says GOP budget cuts financial aid to college students

Welcome to the Budget Games. The strategy: Offer a proposal with broad outlines and as little detail as possible. When opponents attack, declare, "That’s not what our budget does!" Meanwhile, fill in missing details in the other guy’s budget with the least flattering interpretation you can calculate. Repeat. President Barack Obama filled in some details of the GOP budget resolution passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in a speech to a meeting of news executiveson April 3, 2012 — using his own assumptions. "This new House ...

>> More

Ben Boychuk, City Journal
Jerry Brown wants Californians to believe that the state, facing a current budget deficit of $9 billion, has a revenue problem. In fact, what the 30 million residents of the Golden State have is an entitlement problem. From health care to state and local public-employee retirement benefits, Californians face as much as $500 billion in unfunded liabilities for pensions alone. The state’s unfunded health-care liabilities top $62 billion. Brown’s new budget actually proposes a 7 percent increase in spending, though it offers to cut some services.

The Truth-o-Meter says: True | Obama says Republicans in Congress won't name one tax exemption they want to repeal

President Barack Obama said a budget proposed by House Republicans lacked "a shred of credibility," especially when it came to tax cuts. Obama said their budget includes $4.6 trillion in lower taxes over the next 10 years, with no way to pay for them. "We’re told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful deductions," Obama said. "But the Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close. Not one." We wanted to check Obama’s claim that ...

>> More

The Truth-o-Meter says: True | Obama says Republicans in Congress won't name one tax exemption they want to repeal

President Barack Obama said a budget proposed by House Republicans lacked "a shred of credibility," especially when it came to tax cuts. Obama said their budget includes $4.6 trillion in lower taxes over the next 10 years, with no way to pay for them. "We’re told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful deductions," Obama said. "But the Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close. Not one." We wanted to check Obama’s claim that ...

>> More

Charles Blow, New York Times
The dream is dying. There will be no dynamic, charismatic, Reaganesque Republican presidential nominee this cycle. There won’t even be a consistent conservative. There will only be Mitt Romney.With his wins on Tuesday in Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia, Romney has virtually guaranteed his lock on the Republican nomination and has practically thrown a bucket of ice water on his party’s desire for a transformative right-wing figure who could convincingly sell its draconian budget priorities and regressive social agenda to an increasingly weary middle.

Jared Bernstein, Huffington Post
I've written that Rep Paul Ryan did the world a favor by not trying to hide the ball with his budget -- now adopted by House Republicans and endorsed by Gov. Romney. Their vision for America is clear, a vision that we at CBPP have been elaborating through a set of publications in recent days (see here, here, here, and here).President Obama made a similar point Tuesday in a speech here in DC:

This was originally published as an exclusive to Politico.

Congress and President Barack Obama have been treating federal workers like the nation's piggy bank. They have imposed a two-year pay freeze to reduce the budget deficit, raised pension contributions of future civil servants to fund extended unemployment benefits and talked about additional compensation cutbacks that further devalue public service.

These measures may be expedient for achieving budget savings, fixing pressing political problems or giving some lawmakers satisfaction, but there could ultimately be a high price to pay for treating federal employees as an unnecessary cost rather than an asset.

The legislative actions and some 20 pending proposals to cut pay, benefits and the workforce, combined with regular, unchallenged political attacks against the government, are symptomatic of an elected leadership that has lost understanding of and respect for the people working to implement the laws they pass and the programs they create.

The consequences are already evident. Employee morale is in decline, the desirability of public service has diminished and trust in government is at an all-time low.

The "Best Places to Work in the Federal Government" rankings, for example, show that employee job satisfaction and commitment are dropping. The number of students planning to work in the public sector dropped more than 40 percent from 2009 to 2011, according to a National Association of Colleges and Employers student survey.

In addition, federal retirements last year jumped 24 percent compared with 2010. Many experienced workers, for example, left government because of concern about possible changes in pay and retirement benefits.

If we continue to discourage young Americans from entering public service and experienced employees from staying, we will create a workforce incapable of effectively dealing with our problems.

There are legitimate differences of opinion about what government should do. But there should be agreement about the proposition that we want government to do well -- no matter what it is doing.

It is time for our political leaders to focus on what it will take for government to succeed against a tide of increasing challenges and decreasing resources. More politically motivated quick wins are not the answer.

We need to build a workforce with the advanced skills to serve a knowledge-based economy, including one with a more global and multi-sector perspective. This means creating the conditions that can attract highly educated Americans to government service, providing them with training and leadership development opportunities and holding them accountable for results.

Instead of arguing that federal workers are paid too much and imposing across-the-board freezes, Congress and the Obama administration should revamp the fundamentally flawed civil service compensation system created in 1949. There should be a market-based approach that sets federal pay levels roughly comparable to major private-sector employers.

Federal employee pay should not be higher or significantly lower than the private sector. Government workers should be viewed as part of, not isolated from, the larger labor market.

Last September, Obama called on Congress to establish a Commission on Federal Public Service Reform to recommend personnel system changes that "could include but would not be limited to compensation, staff development and mobility, and personnel performance and motivation." Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) introduced similar legislation in the last Congress.

This is a step in the right direction, and Congress should move forward on this recommendation.

At the same time, the White House must ensure that the political leadership in the departments and agencies focus on operational excellence and be held accountable for it. To do otherwise can only invite missteps and further erosion of the public view of government. As a society, we must take ownership of our government, identify its failings and fix them -- rather than bemoaning the problems, downgrading federal employees and undermining the ability of the nation to meet its collective challenges.

Max Stier is the president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service.

The world was reinvented in the 1970s by soaring oil prices and massive transfers of national wealth. It could be again if the price of petroleum crashes — a real possibility given the amazing estimates about the new gas and oil reserves on the North American continent. The Canadian tar sands, deepwater exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, horizontal drilling off the eastern and western American coastlines, fracking in once-untapped sites in North Dakota, and new pipelines from Alaska and Canada could double North American gas and oil production within a decade.

Given that North America in general and the United States in particular might soon be completely autonomous in natural-gas production and without much need of imported oil within a decade, life as we have known it for nearly the last half-century would change radically.

Take the Middle East. The United States currently devotes about $50 billion of its military budget to patrolling the Persian Gulf and stationing thousands of troops in the region.

 

America was the target of a crippling oil embargo following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Ever since, it has often hedged its support of democratic Israel in fear of oil cutoffs or price hikes from the Middle East. Just as often, the United States finds itself hypocritically calling for democracy while supporting medieval sheikdoms and monarchies in the oil-exporting gulf. Likewise, Western petrodollars seem to find a way into the coffers of terrorists bent on killing Americans and their allies.

 

But at a time of shrinking defense budgets, an oil-rich America might not need to protect Middle Eastern oil fields and shipping lanes. U.S. foreign policy really could be predicated on the principle of supporting those nations that embrace constitutional government and human rights, without worry that offended dictators, theocrats, and kings would turn off the spigots.

Curbing the voracious American appetite for imported oil could also help lower world petroleum prices for everyone. Poorer nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America would save billions of dollars on their imported-energy bills.

High-cost oil has warped the global system by rewarding luck and punishing accomplishment. Oil-poor countries that earned their wealth through hard work and innovation — China, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, for example — should be rewarded with reduced imported-energy costs, while those that became rich by having someone else find and develop the oil beneath their feet might find their windfalls reduced. Americans tend to admire the earned wealth of China and Japan more than the accidental riches of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Without high-priced oil, Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are just neighborhood loudmouths rather than regional threats.

Unemployment here in the United States has not dipped below 5 percent since February 2008, during the last year of the Bush administration. But some estimates suggest that 3 to 4 million jobs will follow from new gas and oil production alone. That figure is aside from the greater employment that would accrue from reduced energy costs. Farmers, manufacturers, and heavy industries could gain an edge on their overseas competitors, as everything from fertilizer and plastics to shipping and electric power would become less expensive.

America is spending nearly half a trillion dollars a year on imported oil — the greatest contributor to the massive annual U.S. trade deficit. We are also currently borrowing more than a trillion dollars a year to finance chronic budget deficits, which in turn weaken the dollar and make oil imports even more expensive.But without the drag of high-cost imported oil, the economy would grow more rapidly, and that could shrink both trade and budget deficits — lessening somewhat the need for spending cuts and new taxes.

 

The problem with green energy has not been the idea, per se, of wind and solar power and electric cars, but the use of massive federal subsidies, in times of record fossil-fuel prices, to rush into commercial production technologies that are not yet cost-competitive or reliable. The president recently talked of vast algae reserves. True, energy-rich scum may prove to be helpful in the distant future. But right now we don’t have the money to find out — unless we tap our burgeoning fossil-fuel supplies, which can provide a critical bridge to new sources of green energy.

The world was transformed for the worse in the 1970s, when world oil prices quadrupled. A half-century later, it could change again for the better should oil prices crash. We should do our part in ensuring that at last the tables are turned.

E.J. Dionne, The New Republic
WASHINGTON -- Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.Senator, excuse me, Justice Samuel Alito quoted Congressional Budget Office figures on Tuesday to talk about the insurance costs of the young. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts sounded like the House whip in discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell. He noted...

The Truth-o-Meter says: Half-True | Reince Priebus says health care law could mean 'as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-based insurance'

Republicans marked the two-year anniversary of President Barack Obama’s health care law with statements and video ads attacking the law. RNC chairman Reince Priebus took aim with an op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel. Priebus pointed to what he saw as a range of problems with the law, but we zeroed in on one claim. "While millions will be added to the government rolls, millions more will also lose their current health-care coverage," Priebus wrote, later explaining, "According to the (Congressional Budget Office), as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-based insurance thanks to ...

>> More