Citing significant concerns about long lines at airports and flight delays caused by the furlough of air-traffic controllers, Congress is allowing the Federal Aviation Administration to override strict sequestration rules and re-direct funds within its budget. And they did so with lightning speed.

With their big fuss over aviation punctuality, lawmakers make it clear that they’re not feeling the pain felt by the majority of Americans. Their message: In the United States it’s fine to wait — and face a steep climb — for housing, health care, cancer treatment, a pre-school slot, domestic violence intervention services, federal work study, or job retraining. But our planes? They better take off on time.

Thanks to sequestration’s across-the-board cuts that began two months ago, the FAA had to cut $637 million from its budget between March 1 and September 30, 2013. It planned to achieve one-third of this cost savings by furloughing 14,000 air-traffic controllers, obligated at present to incorporate one unpaid day off for every ten days worked.

Congress is falling prey to what The New York Times calls the “special-interest demands for exceptions” — first meat inspectors, now air-traffic controllers. Next up, the Pentagon.

Even though the majority of sequester-driven cuts fall on programs that serve families, workers, and low-income Americans, the gasp emerging from local communities is barely audible in the media or on Capitol Hill.

That’s because the majority of folks enduring the across-the-board cuts — program beneficiaries and the workers who serve them — are fighting to survive. They don’t have huge sums at their disposal to pay lobbyists or publicists.

Our lawmakers’ struggle to ease the pain of weary travelers is doing nothing to soften sequestration’s overall blow. More than a piecemeal approach is required.

Congress must cast off its confounding allegiance to zero-sum budgeting where one person’s win is another person’s loss and stop side-stepping questions about the role of government. With all their constituents in mind, not just a powerful few, lawmakers must forge comprehensive legislation that tackles the way our nation makes our revenue and the way we set federal spending priorities.

There are significant, un-tapped resources available. If only Congress will muster the political and moral will.

Any member of Congress unwilling to engage in this task should locate the exit closest to them. There’s no room on this flight for useless baggage.

It’s not just happenstance: Women have a two-fold stake in campaign finance reform, particularly public financing of state campaigns for public office. Why? First, tamping down the influence that money can buy is a big step towards delivering positive change for women’s priorities. If you care about having more women at the table when decisions are made, seeing that paid family leave and sick leave become law, fighting violence against women, finally achieving equal pay or a host of other issues, it is essential to overcome the big-money obstruction by re-balancing the scales for citizen power.

Secondly, when there is a critical mass of women legislators — 30% or more — there is a better likelihood of action to clean up state elections and move forward to solve critical issues.  Six of the top ten states with the most women legislators (all over that important tipping point threshold) have passed full or partial public financing of campaigns. None of the bottom ten (with 11-18% women) has done so. Women are taking on the toughest of state issues: Connecticut, Maryland and Colorado — all with 30% of more women state legislators — have recently passed tough gun control measures.

More and more states are pressing for fair elections following corruption scandals and resignations that continue to fuel public cynicism in our ability to overcome stalemate. In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo, along with theFair Elections Coalition, has called for public financing to turn government back to the people. Despite front-page stories of out-of-control politics it will be a tough fight. The problems are deeply entrenched and long-standing in a “pay-to-play” atmosphere.  In the 1970s, I founded what is now known as the Center for Women in Government and Civil Society and lobbied the legislature on women’s, workers and families issues. The New York Assembly didn’t resemble any civics textbook. The power of money set the stage as payments changed hands openly at the doors of the chambers. While elected officials go to Albany for the right reasons, too often special interests drown out the voices of ordinary voters.

Clearly change is needed to clean up elections but the long-term impacts are just becoming evident. The new Demos research report, “Fresh Start: The Impact of Public Campaign Financing” traces the results of public financing of elections in CT since the measure passed in 2005 after a gubernatorial scandal. It makes stunning reading on how this relatively simple — and totally voluntary — citizen’s election system makes a difference.

Public financing in Connecticut is popular across the political spectrum: 77% of the legislative winners in the last election participated along with all statewide constitutional officeholders. Candidates for any state office who wish to participate must raise an aggregate amount of small donations (between $5 and $100) from individuals living in their district early in the election year. Senate candidates must raise $15,000 from at least 300 residents while state representative candidates must raise $5,000 from at least 150 residents. Personal funds are limited and are reduced from public funds provided. No PAC’s, corporations or unions may contribute. The report confirms that legislators can focus on legislating with more bi-partisan coalitions. Without the focus on raising large donations — especially during the legislative session — there is a decline in lobbyist influence. More diverse candidates, particularly women, run and win since deep pockets are not required. In 2008, the number of women elected rose from 45 to 51, and in 2012, nine women were in the state Senate, one more than in 2006 and women comprised 29 percent of the legislature.

Besides opening the door to more women in public office, public financing has changed other power dynamics as well. In 2011, Connecticut became the first state to require companies to provide paid sick days for their employees. The minimum wage has been increased. A new state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) now is 30% of the federal level. The Dream Act providing in-state tuition to undocumented students is now law.

Fair Elections with public campaign financing instead of special interest money is critical to overcome obstacles preventing more women from winning public office and from passing the policies women have demanded year after year.

Linda Tarr-Whelan is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos. This blogpost was cross posted from Policy Shop, the Demos blog.

My daughter is enrolled at Jackson Street in Jen Reed’s Kindergarten class, where I’ve – happily – volunteered in the past. But during this last visit I was with the “big kids” – the fifth graders. My host was Mary Cowhey, Jackson Street’s Title I math instructor. Mary asked me to teach about the federal budget in order to build students’ math and civic capacity. After all, there are a lot of “big numbers” in our nation’s budget and you and I are intimately connected with all of them. In a democracy, we both fund the government and reap the benefit of government services and programs.

We began our lesson talking about federal income taxes, and asked students to prioritize the spending of one federal income tax dollar by distributing its 100 pennies between 12 separate budget categories. Like so many past participants in this exercise, the students spoke passionately about federal investment in education, health care, the environment, and jobs. One student later wrote that he didn’t know that his parents had to pay for all “this stuff.” And – after learning about all the ways the government spends our federal income tax dollars – a second student said she realized that the government doesn’t take our taxes “to be mean,” but rather to pay for things we say we want and need.

Kids have a way of laying out complex concepts with such wise simplicity.

By talking about their family’s income tax contribution, these two fifth graders nailed the real struggle we all have as we try to better understand our relationship to the U.S. federal budget. We don’t have the ability to see the efforts of our nation’s government in our midst. It’s also tough to remember that we – the bill payers – are actually contributing to a fund that pays for some of the services and programs that we say we value, time and again.

Several days after my visit, I received a note from a student named, Jennifer. She wrote that she really enjoyed acting “like the government and [deciding] where we would put the money.” In a nutshell, that’s why my National Priorities Project colleagues and I come to work every morning. Participating in our democracy – making a meaningful contribution to the conversation about federal spending and revenue priorities – can be exhilarating. And it’s a thrill every American has the right to experience.

So, in honor of young people thinking big thoughts, take a moment and check out NPP’s suite of Tax Day materials. Run a tax receipt so you can see how you personally contributed to programs ranging from WIC to nuclear weapons. Play with our all-new and wildly popular Trade-Offs tool so you can see how much taxpayers in your own city or town pay toward a variety of federal programs – and what else that money could buy. And, if you’ve spoken with your paycheck, take a few minutes to view our animated video If Paychecks Could Talk.

Today Rock the Vote, educators, politicians, and students commemorate the anniversary of the 26th Amendment with Democracy Day. Our annual Democracy Day celebration not only celebrates the passage of the 26th Amendment, but also recognizes Rock the Vote’s Democracy Class program.
Democracy Class is a 45-minute civics education lesson that teaches high school students about the history of voting rights, the power of their participation in our democracy, and how the voting process works. Using a celebrity-filled animated video, a mock election, and classroom discussion, the Democracy Class program has educated nearly a quarter of a million students on what is at stake and prepared them to engage in our political process. If you or an educator would like to sign up to bring Democracy Class to a local high school, then you can do so here.

Our annual Democracy Day celebration has included thousands of educators sharing Democracy Class with their students, our artist and celebrity ambassadors joining us in the classroom to talk about the importance of voting, and the registration of hundreds of thousands of new voters.

This year, we’re bringing the celebration online with a Twitter campaign that thousands will join. On March 22nd, educators, students, celebrities, Secretaries of States, and Mayors will come together to tweet about Democracy
Day and celebrate young people winning the right to vote.

Join us in tweeting the following messages throughout the day using the hashtag #DemocracyDay!

• Celebrate #DemocracyDay w/ @Rockthevote & commemorate young people’s right to vote & their voice in our democracy http://rtvote.com/i7TIcv

• Tell an educator to bring @Rockthevote’s Democracy Class & the power of voting to their students: http://rtvote.com/i7TIcv #DemocracyDay

• My favorite thing about Democracy Class is [insert response here]. See what the program is all about: http://rtvote.com/i7TIcv #DemocracyDay

Also, for a limited time, anyone who refers three colleagues to the program will receive a free Democracy Class kit including a poster, banner, buttons, t-shirts, and a “History of Voting Rights” DVD.

For our democracy to truly thrive, we need every young person in America to receive a civic education and a chance to register to vote as they turn 18. Let’s take the anniversary of the 26th amendment to recognize the importance of young
people’s participation in our democracy and to truly celebrate Democracy Day.

We’ve previously highlighted the ways the Ryan budget would harm women, like dismantling Medicaid and repealing the ACA; deeply cutting funding for programs like child care, Head Start, education and job training; and providing lavish tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations.

The event, held by Representatives Donna F. Edwards (D-MD), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Gwen Moore (D-WI), and Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM), addressed these harmful policy proposals in another way – by showing the human cost of these cuts.

The press conference featured the stories of two amazing women. Joyce Milford, a sophomore from Howard University who has relied on federal education funding including Pell Grants – funding the Ryan budget would cut – to succeed in high school and go to college. Emily Townsend, a mother with a daughter living with disabilities who relied on Medicaid to help care for her child – a support that enabled her to obtain a Ph.D. in physics while caring for her daughter.

Another story that particularly touched me was Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s story. Rep. Lujan Grisham spoke about growing up with a sister with disabilities and the critical importance of Medicaid to help her family pay for costly caregiving expenses and medical treatments. The Ryan Budget drastically cuts Medicaid by over $750 billion and puts coverage for vulnerable women at risk. This story hit home for me because, as I have written about before, my husband’s sister, Mandy – a constituent of Rep. Lujan Grisham’s– is also a young woman with severe disabilities who relies on Medicaid to help assist my in-laws with the cost of her care. Chairman Ryan’s proposals to cut Medicaid and repeal the ACA would be disastrous for people like Mandy.

These stories show that these budget cuts are not just numbers on a page – they are cuts to programs that will directly and severely impact the lives of millions of people all over the country – mostly low-income women and children. They are simply unconscionable.

That was the day I joined the Paul Ryan Fan Club.  While I don’t agree with him on policy issues, any elected official who can laugh with a former staffer is more than OK in my book. My encounter with him continues to remind me that good people can disagree on policy, and they can advocate for different ideas and policy proposals but still respect and laugh with each other. Now that Chairman Ryan is a star in his party – he was a Vice-Presidential nominee after all – it is even more important for me to remember that encounter. Because the truth is, while I do like him, I don’t like his latest proposals very much.

Last week, Representative Ryan released his budget plan for Fiscal Year 2014. In my position here at the YWCA, focused on economic issues that impact women and families, I have spent a lot of time reviewing these kinds of plans from both sides of the aisle. In many ways, Ryan’s plan is the same one we have seen from him for the past few years, dusted off and with a few minor changes: tax cuts that benefit the economically well-off, and structural changes to Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP/food stamps, which will hurt women and children who rely on them the most.

Here is a brief summary of what the Ryan Budget does:

• It turns SNAP/food stamps into a block grant, a fixed amount of funding administered by states, instead of a safety net program support by the federal government; places time limits on the benefits; and requires recipients to work in order to receive benefits.
• It offers subsidies for Medicare, so middle-aged people would eventually get a coupon to afford a certain type of healthcare coverage, or opt to pay more for a different plan.
• It turns Medicaid into a block grant, cutting its funding, and repeals the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which means that women and girls would lose the preventative benefits with no co-pays and that insurance companies would be able to rescind coverage based on pre-existing conditions, like domestic violence or cesarean sections.
• It protects defense spending from sequestration cuts.
• It cuts the top tax rate for individuals from 39.6% to 25%, even though, in poll after poll, the public supports ending tax cuts for the highest earners in our nation to help pay for our nation’s debt. Yet, the Ryan budget would cut taxes for households with annual incomes over $200,000 by about $34,500, and cut taxes for households with annual incomes of more than $1 million by about $330,000, on average.  To fully finance these tax breaks for high earners, women and families whose incomes are under $200,000 would see their taxes go up by more than $3,000, on average.
• It locks in the sequester for years to come, with 5% across-the-board cuts  to federally-funded programs in 2013, and includes additional cuts on top of it – resulting in significant cuts to human needs programs like those run by the YWCA. And, the Ryan budget shifts cuts that were allocated to defense programs over to programs that help women and children, like housing and job-training programs, childcare and Head Start programs, and domestic violence and sexual assault services and programs.
• It freezes the maximum Pell Grant award for 10 years, leaving millions of female students with less money to pursue education and job training.

Today, the House will vote on Representative Ryan’s plan. It will pass the House. It will most likely not pass in the Senate. But for advocates concerned about the well-being of YWCA clients, women and children, the Ryan budget is one that we cannot support. Conversations in Washington about how to address our nation’s debt and deficit are ongoing; elected officials on both sides of the aisle, including the President, want to come to an agreement on a broad debt deal – one that would cut over a trillion dollars from the federal budget, and could include changes to the sequester, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs. Representative Ryan’s budget is important, because it is the starting point with which he and his fellow House Republicans, will approach these conversations about the debt. This is their framework.

Now is the time for advocates to speak up and reject this budget and this approach. You can start by asking your members of Congress to stop the sequester. Trust me when I say that Representative Ryan is a great guy. He’s also tough. He can take people disagreeing with his ideas. Because this isn’t personal; we just don’t agree on the policy.

Want to learn more about the Ryan Budget and how you can get involved? Join a webinar with the Coalition on Human Needs this Thursday.  

- See more at: http://www.ywcablog.com/2013/03/19/why-i-like-paul-ryan-but-not-his-budget/#sthash.6j6kPm99.u63qniOr.dpuf

Rio Arriba County covers a geographic area the size of Massachusetts, but claims only 41,000 residents: approximately seven people per square mile.  Ten to twelve thousand foot peaks make roads impassible in inclement weather. Many of Rio Arriba’s elders are retired subsistence farmers and ranchers, grazing a handful of sheep or cattle to feed their families.

Seventy percent of Rio Arribans are pre-Mexican-American-War Hispanics, tracing their lineage back to Juan de Oñate. Eighteen percent are Native American, living on one of three reservations. Twelve percent are Anglo. And it’s not remarkably unusual for the road to El Norte to be blocked off while Sr. Martinez rounds up his errant goats.

Many in Rio Arriba live below the poverty line. In 2010, local health officials were informed that we had the worst record of immunization for senior citizens in all of New Mexico. Only eight  senior citizens were registered as immunized in NMSIS, the state database.

The Rio Arriba County Department of Health and Human Services decided to act.

In August, we realized that the soon to be implemented Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) would incentivize hospitals to focus on preventive care in a number of important ways: 1) our hospital would not qualify for $1.8 million in federal Medicare-based subsidies to rural hospitals until it captured 75% of the local Medicare market share; and 2) after 2014, all hospitals will be penalized for high readmission rates but rewarded for keeping people healthy.

The county approached the hospital with a novel proposition. If, instead of putting budget into billboards, Española Presbyterian Hospital would send staff nurses to immunization fairs at Rio Arriba’s nine senior centers, County officials would conduct an intensive education campaign letting residents (and especially seniors) know about Española Hospital’s excellent safety and health outcomes, which exceed neighboring hospitals, even in wealthy Los Alamos and Santa Fe.

Senior citizens flocked to the fairs. Rio Arriba County and our partners administered over 2,000 vaccines, increasing senior vaccination rates by an incredible 28,000%.  Rio Arriba moved in a few weeks, from last among the 33 New Mexico Counties to either second or first.

While the fairs were in progress, Rio Arriba conducted a promotional campaign, hitting all the radio stations and newspapers in our area. We even got statewide coverage through KUNM, our public radio station. Of course we let everyone know that out of 7 New Mexico hospitals receiving Leapfrog Safety grades, only Española got an A! And we also surpass neighboring hospitals for federal quality measurements regarding use of the right drug at the right time after surgery, getting good information from nurses and doctors, etc.

The campaign improved our civic health as well as our immunization rate. In November, along with voting for President, Senator and Congressman, Rio Arribans went to the polls to vote for a hospital Mill Levy.  While voter participation decreased from 2008 in every other New Mexico county save one, it increased dramatically in Rio Arriba, jumping from the statewide average of 62%, to a remarkable 76%. Approximately 15,000 individuals voted for President, and 14,000 for Senate. A series of mid-ballot bond issues garnered 11,000 votes apiece. And about 13,500 voters weighed in on the hospital mill levy, dead last on the ballot.

While I could not find numbers, I recall the last mill levy vote in 2004 as having attracted about 4,000 voters.

Rio Arriba is a dark blue county, so this turned out to be good news for the President. Ironically, the Rio Arriba strategy is the opposite of its Rovian counterpart: we put a tax on the ballot to attract people who support health care to the polls. And we got their attention, not through scary ads, but by being useful.

While President Barack Obama said recently that he would be skeptical that more guns would be an answer to school safety, his administration is considering paying to add police officers to secure public schools, in part because it may be an area of agreement among lawmakers of all stripes.

SIGN THE K12NN PETITION TO DROP THIS VERY BAD IDEA NOW.

In that same EdWeek article, my own Senator, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), presented such a plan to Vice President Joe Biden:

California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, told the Washington Post she presented the plan to Vice President Joe Biden and he was “very, very interested” and may include it policy recommendations he makes to President Obama.

“If a school district wants to have a community policing presence, I think it’s very important they have it,” Boxer said in an interview Thursday. “If they want uniformed officers, they can do it. If they want plainclothed officers, they can do it.”

…

Boxer’s initiative would provide federal dollars to schools that want to hire police officers and install surveillance equipment. It wouldn’t go as far as the National Rifle Association’s proposal to provide armed guards at every public school.

Here’s what damaging about Senator Boxer’s well-meaning plan: it’s not a good solution to the Kern County shooting that happened in California during Vice President Joe Biden’s press conference on changing gun laws. It falsely uses the urgency of the situation to make more guns at schools a priority and a solution in search of a problem.

And more importantly, Senator Boxer’s plan creates a federal funding stream for increased police presence on school campuses, which is too closely aligned with the NRA’s goal of a militia in every school. Funding creates demand. School districts that never would’ve launched the initiative to do this will now apply for funds to enable them to do this. Let local decisions stay local. We don’t need federal solutions firehosed from on high.

In Texas, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst calls for teachers to be trained in gun use:

Dewhurst said school districts would nominate who they wanted to carry weapons on campus. The training would be more extensive than what is currently required for Texas concealed handgun license and include how to react technically and emotionally in an active shooter situation on a school campus.

President Obama, Senator Boxer (!), Lt. Governor Dewhurst — are you INSANE? Have you lost your mind?

Do I need to surgically implant a spine in your back?

Let’s keep our eye on the ball and stay focused on gun violence prevention that works: closing private gun sale loopholes, better public safety laws that strengthen mental health and criminal checks for gun owners, limiting military-grade high-capacity magazines, and so on.

SIGN THE K12NN PETITION TO DROP THIS VERY BAD IDEA NOW.

For shame, I never would’ve thought my own “liberal” Senator would cave to the gun sales pitches of the NRA masquerading as policy. We do not need guns on campus. NCLB provides for expulsion of students who bring weapons, including guns, on campus. Then would we invite adults to bring guns on campus in the name of “safety”? Do as we say, not as we do? Kids see right through that.

A final thought: the PTA has over 5 million members, one million more than the NRA. What if we had proportional clout? Use your voice on this issue.

SIGN THE K12NN PETITION TO DROP THIS VERY BAD IDEA NOW.

Latinos have a great deal at stake in the debate over the fiscal cliff. Not only are Hispanics a growing share of the electorate that will continue to amplify its voice in the political process, they are an increasingly vital force in our economy. Latino children make up slightly more than one in five of all students enrolled in America’s public schools. In the near future, three out of five laborers will be Latino. This means that investing in those future workers today will have an indelible impact on the strength and competiveness of our nation’s economy.

I recently attended a meeting with President Obama and my fellow national civil rights leaders to discuss the fiscal cliff. We presented a unified message on behalf of those who work for minority communities: we need to protect the most vulnerable among us in this process, and we should not raise taxes on working and middle-class families. Balancing the budget on the backs of these people will only widen the opportunity gap that already exists.

Recent surveys show that Latinos support a balanced, fair, and shared approach to deficit reduction. In an impreMedia/Latino Decisions poll , nearly half of Hispanic voters supported both revenue generation and targeted spending cuts.

The impact of the fiscal cliff would be felt immediately. It is estimated that over two million Americans will lose unemployment benefits and the average middle-class family would see an increase of approximately $2,000 in taxes. For Latinos, who face a higher unemployment rate (10%) than the national average, suffered disproportionately from the foreclosure crisis , and are especially vulnerable to the effects of the fiscal cliff, the struggle to stay afloat will become unbearable.

Latinos want the president to keep his commitment to fostering a fair economy. That means we do not turn our backs on the sick and the hungry. Rather, we must continue to nurture the social contract that has existed through the generations by making long-term investments that will shape a stable and growing economy. Cutting those investments is near-sighted and will shortchange not only our community but the long-term prosperity of our entire nation.

Our nation has a long and proud history of fostering opportunities to join and maintain the ranks of the middle class. We must maintain this tradition if we want to honor those core values that have helped pave opportunities for America’s Latinos.

This election, a record number of women—binders and binders full of them—ran for office, and…best of all…won.

In the new Congress, we will have 20 female Senators, up from 17. We will have the first openly gay senator, Tammy Baldwin, in Wisconsin. We will have the first Asian-American woman in the Senate, Mazie Hirono, and the first Hindu in Congress, Tulsi Gabbard. Last I checked, 81 women had been elected to the House, while a few races were still being counted. New Hampshire will have the nation’s first all-female delegation. (Feel free to express your gratitude with a donation to EMILY’s List.)

This election wasn’t just a win for women, and it wasn’t just a win for the men who love them, it might also be a win for government.

What does this all mean?

As you know, there was a lot of talk this election, particularly from Republicans, about how government should be run more like a business. Well, guess what? Having more women in leadership roles is a key sign of a company’s health. And more women in Congress may be a sign that government is growing healthier.

Here are the facts:

Companies with more women in leadership roles improve their bottom line

That’s right. The research shows that again and again that companies that consistently promote women outperform their competitors. They do better on the stock exchange, and they make higher profits.

From a 2007 Catalyst study: [1]

Fortune 500 companies with 3 or more women on the Board outperform those with the fewest by

• + 42% return on sales
• + 53% return on equity
• + 66% return on invested capital

From a 2007 McKinsey study: [2]

Companies with more women in top management outperform the industry average in return on by 48% in operating results.

From a Pepperdine University study:

After several years of tracking the performance of Fortune 500 companies, researchers found “The correlation between high-level female executives and business success has been consistent and revealing.”

There are many possible reasons for this correlation between more women and healthier companies. It could be that we’re better listeners, we have a unique ability to form relationships, or the fact that we tend to be more risk-averse than men in our decision-making. Or according to a study published in Harvard Business Review this year, we’re simply better leaders. Or maybe, as Nancy Pelosi pointed out in an interview yesterday morning, the years some of us spend raising children actually give us important diplomacy and interpersonal skills.

How do these skills translate to government?

Anyone who has worked in business knows that to get anything done, you need to bring people along with you. These relationships are what make women effective in business, and could make us doubly effective in government, where nothing gets done without a consensus.

In the words of our first female secretary of state, Madeline Albright:

“I believe that societies are better off when women are politically and economically empowered…When you have more women, the tone of the conversation changes, and the goals of the conversation change.”

What do you think this election means for women? For everyone?

* * *

[1] “The Bottom Line: Corporate Performance and Women’s Representation on Boards,” Catalyst report 2007

[2] “Women Matter” McKinsey & Company report, 2007

Cross-posted from Working Moms Break and The Huffington Post.