February 4, 2008

For Immediate Release Contact: Terry Neese, 405-942-8551

Terry Neese Featured on WomenEntrepreneur.com

Entrepreneur's Advice Featured on Prestigious Website

Terry Neese, founder of a personnel services company in Oklahoma City, was featured on the WomenEntrepreneur.com website on January 29th. Her quote from The Woman's Advantage Calendar for that date was displayed on the top right corner of the page.

Mary Cantando, Growth Expert of The Woman's Advantage in North Carolina, said that Neese's advice was prominently featured on the WomenEntrepreneur.com site.

"Terry Neese's quote was selected because it was powerful yet easy to understand. Her idea is relevant to almost every woman in business today." says Cantando. "Women business owners and those who dream of starting a business will learn so much from Terry Neese's advice."

Neese's calendar quote provides seemingly common sense counsel that is actually often ignored: "If you run a buisness and are not involved in politics, then politics will run your business."

Neese is a Distinguished Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, with offices in Dallas, Texas and Washington, D.C. She is a co-founder of Women Impacting Public Policy, and is also CEO of the Insitutute for Economic Empowerment of Women, assisting women in the developing world in learning entrepreneurial skills. The quotation from Neese was eatured on the WomenEntrepreneur.com website on January 29 and was printed as part of the Woman's Advantage Calendar 2008, which provides daily advice on key business issues including: organization, promotion, sales, and human resources.

Mary Cantando is a nationally-recognized expert on women business owners. She is the developer of the successful Woman's Advantage line of products, geared specifically to women entrepreneurs. As a member of the National Speakers' Association, Cantando provides keynotes and workshops for women who want to grow their businesses.

The Woman's Advantage is a line of information products including books, workbooks, CDs and calendars designed exclusively for successful women business owners. The Woman's Advantage Calendar provides sound bites of advice on key business issues including: organization, promotion, sales, and human resources. For more information, call 919-841-0401 or visit http://www.womansadvantage.biz/

After Super Tuesday has come and gone, I still don't know where the presidential hopefuls put working women in their hierarchy of targeted constituencies. Women make up 54% of the electorate and make MOST spending decisions for American families and millions of small businesses, yet tax laws, labor laws and a host of other institutions are still designed from top-to-bottom for an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle. I don't say this to marginalize the life many of our grandparents and parents lived. It's merely a direct observation.

Our major economic institutions reward families with a full-time worker and a stay-at-home spouse, and by comparison punish every other arrangement. The labor market does not provide women with the flexibility we need for the varied lifestyles we live in the 21^st century.

All I'm saying is that our nation's employee benefit system needs to be reformed in order to meet the needs of women today. We all know that women are more likely to work part-time so that they can look after children or elderly family members. So, women are less likely to ever qualify for employer-provided benefits. Women move from job to job and in and out of the labor market more often than men; therefore, women are more likely to be burdened by employee benefit programs that penalize job switching.

Why can't we have flexible employee benefit systems that make it easier for dual-earner couples to obtain higher wages rather than unneeded, duplicate benefits, and for part-time workers to accept lower wages in return for more valuable health and retirement benefits?

Why can't we have flexibility in labor law, making it easier for workers, especially parents with young children and caregivers for elderly parents, to choose alternatives to the traditional 40-hour work week?

Why can't the system be flexible to enough to reflect the ways people actually live today, rather than the way they lived 50 years ago?

Why can't we have a system in which ALL benefits programs are "portable" — following the worker wherever she goes in the modern, dynamic market?

Have the "big four" presidential candidates - Hillary, Obama, John, and Mike - even talked about such things?

Why can't they?

 You tell me…

Testimony for Submission to the
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee
Weathering the Economic Storm:
Helping Working Families in Troubling Times

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Terry Neese, Distinguished Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization dedicated to developing and promoting private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.  I welcome the opportunity to share my views in writing regarding HR 3963. 

This is a critical time in our nation. It's only January, and people are already tired of the 2008 presidential campaign. In fact, only 20% of voters bothered to vote in the Michigan primary.

What can we do about it? Well, I am convinced that one person joining together with the voice of many can make a difference.

As Distinguished Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, I am focusing  on real kitchen table issues making an impact on women, families, businesses and entrepreneurs. We are focused on the economic impact of public policies on the lives of women, businesses and entrepreneurs. That's our agenda, simply put.

I can't cover all of our concerns in this testimony; but I can raise major concerns and ask for your help to make life better.

The time has come to examine why our government continues to "leave women behind." It is time to examine how a variety of our institutions came about in an age when most women did not work outside the home, and how they have not kept pace with our modern world.

Most of these laws I am talking about were written in the 1930's. Women rarely worked outside the home. It merely describes the lives of most of us here to say that the single most important economic and sociological change in our society in the past 60 years has been the entry of women into the labor market:

• Between 1950 and 2000 the labor force participation rate of women between 25 and 55 years of age more than doubled; today, more than 75 percent of these women are in the labor market.
• Less than 12 percent of mothers with children under 6 were in the labor force in 1950; today, more than 60 percent are working.
• These changes have had a major impact on family life. For example:
• In 1940, two-thirds of all working households were one wage-earner and a stay-at-home spouse; today about one in five households fit that pattern.
• Dual-earner families - with both spouses in the labor market - now constitute almost two-thirds of all married couples.

Despite these remarkable changes, public policy and major institutions have never kept pace.

Tax law, labor law and a host of other institutions are still designed from top-to-bottom for an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle. I don't say this to marginalize the life many of our grandparents and parents lived. It's merely a direct observation. Our major economic institutions - including tax law, labor law, and employee benefits law, as well as Social Security, and retirement policies - reward families with a full-time worker and a stay-at-home spouse and by comparison punish every other arrangement.

Women who work for modest wages outside the home pay effective tax rates higher than Bill Gates! Consider that hypothetical case of Ozzie and Harriet, a middle-income couple.

• Harriet is taxed at Ozzie's income tax rate when she enters the labor market, even if she only earns the minimum wage.
• And even if Ozzie has maxed out on his Social Security payroll taxes, Harriet must pay Social Security taxes on every dollar she earns (up to the same maximum), and she will get few, if any, extra benefits in return.
• Further, when all taxes and all costs are considered (including the cost of child care and other services she was previously providing as a homemaker), the second earner in a middle-income family can expect to keep only about 35 cents out of each dollar she earns.

The labor market does not provide women with the flexibility they need for the life-style most of us live in the 21^st Century.

Take Katherine for example. She is a divorced mother of two who has held several jobs in her career. Early on, most of her jobs did not provide retirement benefits. Of those that did, she was rarely there long enough to become "vested." Now in her late forties, Katherine is frantically trying to save as much as the law allows, but it's unlikely she will ever be able to save enough to provide true security when she retires.

That is just one of many examples of how our nation's employee benefit system needs to be reformed in order to meet the needs of women in the 21st Century. Consider:

• Women are more likely to work part-time so that they can look after children or elderly family members; therefore, women are less likely to qualify for employer-provided benefits.
• Women move from job to job and in and out of the labor market more frequently than men; therefore, women are more likely to be burdened by employee benefit programs that penalize job switching.

In addition, women raising children or caring for an ailing parent have other reasons to want flexibility in working hours. However, rigid labor laws may deny them the opportunity to attend a child's soccer game or take a parent to the doctor one week and make up the hours the following week. Our old-fashioned labor laws will not allow them to have that flexibility.

Women are not asking for a wave of new government entitlements, we just don't want to be penalized when we exercise our liberties. Women want to be free, under law and in the economy. There's no reason to leave laws or policies in place that impede our economic choices. But the truth is that many changes are needed to bring aging institutions into sync with the way people are living their lives in the 21st century.

At the NCPA, we  intend to be a voice for women, families, small businesses and entrepreneurs. We need your help. We need your leadership. Together, we can make a difference.

Let me pose some questions, then offer just a few suggestions. Tell me, tell us, if there is a better way to approach these challenges facing American women and their families.

• Why can't we have a fairer tax system for two-earner couples? At a minimum, both spouses should be able to file completely separate tax returns, if that helps them in terms of tax liability and economic equity.
• Why can't we have a flexible employee benefit system that makes it easier for dual-earner couples to obtain higher wages rather than unneeded, duplicate benefits, and for part-time workers to accept lower wages in return for more valuable health and retirement benefits?
• Why can't we have flexibility in labor law, making it easier for workers (especially parents with young children and caregivers for elderly parents) to choose alternatives to the traditional 40-hour work week?
• Why can't we have a level playing field under the tax law? People who save for retirement, purchase health insurance, long-term insurance and/or day care should receive just as much tax relief as people who obtain these benefits at work.
• Why can't we have portable health and retirement benefits, so that people are not penalized when they switch jobs?
• Why can't we have a completely new approach to the treatment of spouses under Social Security? Earnings sharing (where payroll tax contributions are divided like community property) could easily be applied to any new system of personal retirement accounts.
• Why can't we have a new approach to the taxation of Social Security benefits? If benefits must be taxed they should be taxed in a way that does not raise marginal tax rates and there should be no earnings penalty for seniors who work.
• Why can't we have the ability of everyone to protect assets by buying long-term care insurance, using Medicaid only for catastrophic costs?

While I'm at this, let me share some points on small business and entrepreneurship, reflections on problems facing all of us, women and men, working in smaller enterprises.

• Why can't small businesses have better access to affordable health insurance? As a small business owner, I want to provide health insurance for my employees. In fact, I want to provide Fortune 500 benefits to my employees. But I am not a Fortune 500 firm. Corporate America and Labor Unions can purchase health insurance across state lines in economy of scale and lower costs. Small business owners can't because they are not allowed.
• Why can't we bring an end to our government's discrimination against small businesses run by women or men?
• Why are small businesses not allowed to have access to affordable health insurance just like labor unions and corporate America?

I do not raise these issues to denounce our nation. I love my country. I can never adequately repay America for the opportunities she has given me. I raise the voice of reason, and for compassion and care for those who work, pay taxes and obey the law.

There are shrill voices in the media every day who talk about discrimination against women. But they never seem to talk about how women have been left behind by our outdated labor laws.

We plan to speak for those who have been left behind. We plan to provide the alternative voice, to amplify the voices of women for economic liberty, opportunity and freedom.

There's a lot of talk about new government programs or benefits to "help" women. But why not let women help themselves? Instead of growing government, with its notorious cookie-cutter approaches, what about simple solutions to empower women and working families to live their economic lives according to their personal needs and preferences?

To distill this again, our suggestions are:

• A fairer tax system for two-earner couples; at a minimum, both spouses should be able to file completely separate tax returns.
• A flexible employee benefit system that makes it easier for dual-earner couples to obtain higher wages rather than unneeded, duplicate benefits, and for part-time workers to accept lower wages in return for more valuable health and retirement benefits.
• Flexibility in labor law, making it easier for workers (especially parents with young children and caregivers for the elderly parents) to choose alternatives to the traditional 40-hour work week.
• A level playing field under tax law, so that people who save for retirement, purchase health insurance, long-term insurance, day care, etc., receive just as much tax relief as people who obtain these benefits at work.
• Portable health and retirement benefits, so that people are not penalized when they switch jobs.
• A completely new approach to the treatment of spouses under Social Security; earnings sharing (where payroll tax contributions are divided like community property) could easily be applied to any new system of personal retirement accounts.
• A new approach to the taxation of Social Security benefits: If benefits must be taxed they should be taxed in a way that does not raise marginal tax rates and there should be no earnings penalty for seniors who work.
• The ability of everyone to protect assets by buying long-term care insurance, using Medicaid only for catastrophic costs.

If it's possible to tie all these concerns together in one tidy package, it seems to me the primary focus should be on tax fairness, flexible benefits, portable benefits, flexible workplaces, and health care for small business.

As we move forward on these issues, we don't want to replace outmoded patriarchal models or assumptions with equally outmoded models or assumptions that big government approaches will make life better for American women.

Women want, and need, to be free.

America needs policies that work for people who work. American women - and all American workers — need flexibility, portability, and security. They deserve no less.

NCPA intends to be a voice for such policies. With your help, the voices of women entrepreneurs — mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, lovers, partners and friends — will reach into the homes of millions, to transform and re-form the policy impediments I've sketched here today.

• Our opinions, our solutions, our voices, need to be heard.
• Let's stay in the business of making a difference for women and their families.
• Let's change the world. Why can't we?

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. I look forward to working with the Committee as this debate continues.