Cain support falls after harassment claims. Nearly half of all 7th – 12th graders experience sexual harassment. New metric to measure poverty. More muscle in the fight over California pensions.
Cain support falls after harassment claims
A new poll shows Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has been hurt by sexual harassment allegations against him that stem from the 1990s. The percentage of Republicans who view Cain favorably has dropped 9 percentage points, to 57 percent from 66 percent a week ago. A majority of respondents to the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 53 percent, believe the allegations are true.
However, a large number of Republican polled – 47 percent – say the controversy has not affected their opinion of Cain. It was one week ago that POLITICO's investigative team broke the news that two women had accused Cain of sexual harassment while he was president of the National Restaurant Association, an industry lobbying group. A third woman has also claimed Cain made sexually suggestive remarks to her, according to the Associated Press.
While none of those women have since come forward publicly, today a fourth is expected to come forward. Los Angeles attorney to scandal, Gloria Allred, wrote to reporters this morning: "A woman who alleges that she was sexually harassed by Presidential hopeful, Herman Cain, when she sought his help with an employment issue when he was President of the National Restaurant Association will hold a news conference [in New York.]"
What is the veracity of all these claims against Cain? How much could these poll numbers change in light of a fourth accuser making a very public claim? How has the scandal affected the overall Republican slate of candidates?
Guests:
Julia Clark, vice president, Public Sector Practice, Ipsos Public Affairs
Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC and adjunct faculty at USC Annenberg School
Nearly half of all 7th – 12th graders experience sexual harassment
A national study released today from the American Association of University Women has found that almost half of the students in 7th to 12th grade have experienced sexual harassment this past year. 44% of students reported “in person” harassment, which includes sexual comments, jokes, touching or intimidation, while 30% felt the effects of harassment online through digital comments and the spreading of rumors.
Sexual harassment is so prevalent that it is essentially another part of the school day for students, according to the report’s director of research, Catherine Hill. As one might expect, girls were found to be the victims more than boys, and girls also experienced negative consequences from harassment more so than their male counterparts, such as wanting to stay home from school or feeling sick. The students who suffer the most psychologically are those subjected to harassment online and in person.
While this is definitely a tough issue for young women, it affects all students. The researchers found that pretty girls, ugly girls, girls with the most developed bodies and feminine boys are most at risk for being targets of harassment.
WEIGH IN:
What do some of these numbers mean? Is this something that simply happens among students? Are boys just being boys? How our school’s handling such activity? Are they turning a blind eye, or getting involved? Have you experienced any such harassment? How did you handle it? What actions did you take?
Guests:
Lisa Maatz, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations for American Association of University Women (AAUW)
Karen Sternheimer, Professor of Sociology at USC; author of several books about youth culture and the media including "Kids These Days: Facts and Fictions About Youth"
New metric to measure poverty
Today, the U.S. Census Bureau released a long-promised alternative method for measuring who’s officially considered poor and who isn’t. The old approach, established 50 years ago, set the poverty line for a single parent with two kids just below $18,000.
The calculation was pegged to one thing: food costs as a share of annual income. It didn’t take into consideration hundreds of billions of dollars the needy get in food stamps and other benefits – or whether one lives in an expensive city or a cheaper, rural area. The new metric is aimed at providing a more accurate count of the resources poor people have and the bills they’re saddled with.
What difference does it make how poverty is quantified? Policy makers will use the new – and hopefully improved – system to better evaluate and target federal aid programs designed to help those who need it the most.
In September, the Census Bureau said that the number of poor Americans had risen by nearly 10-million since 2006 to 46.2 million people. But most poverty experts called the measure flawed.
WEIGH IN:
Will the Bureau’s new Supplemental Poverty Measure give us a more accurate picture? Will it alter dramatically who’s eligible for benefit programs? Dollar figures aside, what does poverty look like to you? Does your simplified lifestyle seem like hardship to others? Where do you draw the line between “near poor” and impoverished?
Guest:
Kathy Short, Economist, United States Census Bureau
More muscle in the fight over California pensions
On Monday morning in Sacramento top union representatives were wrestling with major developments in the pension fight. Last week, two new ballot initiatives were proposed that aim to change retirement plans for public sector workers. While there are variations in the details, they both aim to shift some of the pension burden away from the state and on to workers.
The Sacramento Bee reported that similar to Gov. Jerry Brown's recent pension pitch, one of the measures would change retirement age to 67 for most civil servants. Most of the proposed changes would apply to future hires, but there would also be new caps set on current employees' benefits.
Marcia Fritz, president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility (CFFR), said the coalition group negotiating pensions have drafted proposals that contain immediate money-saving changes.
"They have come up with a couple of very strong proposals, much more to the right of what Governor Brown has proposed," Fritz said Monday. "But that said, with their proposals, the benefits that they are proposing are still very attractive compared to what is provided in the public sector. A lot of people would kill to have the benefits that they are proposing in their two initiatives."
Barbara Maynard, member of Californians for Retirement Security, said that unions are willing to compromise when necessary.
"In the city of Los Angeles, for example, most civilian employees approved an increase in their retirement contribution from 6 percent to 11 percent this year alone. There have been similar changes in different local government agencies as well as in the state over the last several years," Maynard said. "Public employees are taxpayers, public employees are voters, we care deeply about the fiscal soundness of our pension plan and our state, and there's a lot that still could be done."
Fritz said while the number of employees paying toward their pensions has risen in the past year, she has only seen one case where public sector employees have actually taken a net pay cut.
"What happens is, the employer is giving them salary hikes equal to what they have to pay for the pensions, and that makes the problem worse because pensions are based on your wage," she said. "When you increase your wage in order to make your contribution, that makes your pension higher, so it's just putting us more in a hole."
Fritz went on to say that city managers who struggle to pay their pensions costs often cite difficulties in getting employees to agree to pay towards their pensions.
"The employees aren't willing to take a cut at all, and that's really where's it's got to go," she said.
In a July 2011 CFFR-sponsored study, researchers found that six companies named on the Forbes' "100 Best Companies to Work For" provided private employees benefits a third of the value of those given to public employees.
"Their employees are happy with the benefits that they're receiving, even at that level," Fritz said.
Maynard said that in the long run, cutting public sector pay is a minor issue.
"Why is it that certain organizations and out-of-state money coming into the California are pushing to lower retirement security down to the level of certain corporations, when Wall Street Journal said that the average private sector worker has only 20 percent of what they need to get through their retirement years? Is that where we really want to go?" she said. "What we really need to do is have retirement security for everybody."
Unions and legal experts argue downgrading pensions unilaterally would be against state and federal laws governing contracts and property rights. Dan Pelliser of California Pension reform says the law allows for changes: "We've spent a tremendous amount of money on legal fees. There's a good legal case for changing benefits that are earned in the future."
The two plans are currently undergoing fiscal impact analyses with the Department of Finance. After that, advocates of the plans say they will conduct polling and choose the strongest one for the November 2012 ballot.
WEIGH IN:
How do the plans compare to Governor Brown's proposal? Do the unions have their own plans for pensions changes? How will most public sector workers fare when they retire?
Guests:
John Myers, Sacramento bureau chief for KQED's California Report
Marcia Fritz, President, California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility
Barbara Maynard, Member of Californians for Retirement Security (a coalition of California public-sector unions), Representing public employees at the city and county of Los Angeles