Saturday, May 26, 2012

The Changeling and the Democrats still lying about equal pay

Well.  Well.  Well.  Dems push 'paycheck fairness' bill.  Now this would have been some stellar politrickin' - if not for their hubris. Some of us have long memories - and they didn't wait long enough.  From the Politico piece:
“Either Ledbetter was the biggest bait-and-switch scam in history,” he said, “or Democrats are getting nervous about new polls that show Obama losing ground among women.”
Have to say  - even though the latter might also be true for those into polls - I'm going with the former.  And as you walk with me,  do keep the words manipulative, hubris and lying in mind, particularly as you see Boxer's mug framing the issue - not Pelosi's.  But I digress.

In the Fall of 2008, when I took my old behind back to school to work on a master's degree in Journalism (full disclosure:  took a leave of absence, didn't finish), my Covering Capitol Hill class required we actually GO to some committee hearings and then come back and write about them.  I chose the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).  In light of the Democrats' pure f*ckery tomfoolery - here's that first paper (which I'd posted here on January 31, 2009):
###


Major gender-based pay-equity legislation remains in Committee

Women are still waiting for the Paycheck Fairness Act to become a law. But, since passing by a party line vote of 256-163 in the House on January 9, it remains in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).

Unlike the recently passed Ledbetter bill which extends the statute of limitations for everyone in a protected class with a proven claim of pay discrimination, the Paycheck Fairness Act’s aim is to provide women with more effective tools to combat pay inequities based on gender. But, given its overwhelmingly partisan vote in the House, it appears the wait will be a little longer than expected and I don't think the Republicans are the only ones to blame - after all we all know who has the majority. If they wanted it to pass, Republicans alone could not stop it.

According to a January 27 CNBC transcript of a media event held in the Capitol following passage of the Ledbetter bill, Speaker Pelosi’s comments seem to hint it may well be some time before the bill passes.

When asked what the next workers’ rights bill she would attempt to take up, she replied:
” Well, we have paycheck fairness, sponsored by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, which Mr. Miller passed out of his committee, and with the leadership of Mr. Hoyer, on the floor passed and was sent over to the Senate. So we hope that eventually that will become law someday, too, because that's the obvious next step.”
If the bill becomes a law, women would be able to sue for unlimited punitive and compensatory damages to include expert fees either individually or as a class. Companies would have a greater duty to prove that job performance alone was the reason for any pay inequities that do exist. Additionally, the bill would usher in a never-before-seen era of wage transparency in our culture by preventing companies from retaliating against employees who share salary information.
The opponents of the bill feel it would strip employers of the right to manage their businesses and lead to more frivolous class action lawsuits. But the sponsors believe its passage is imperative in order to:
  • provide a solution to problems in the economy created by unfair pay disparities
  • substantially reduce the number of working women earning unfairly low wages thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance
  • promote stable families by enabling all family members to earn a fair rate of pay
  • remedy the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex
  • ensure equal protection pursuant to Congress' power to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments
If implemented as written (guess I should say "if implemented at all), it could either seriously close the gender wage gap, or clog the judicial system to such an extent that no substantive progress is realized. We'd just have to wait and see.

###
Staying with the Politico piece:
In January 2009, when Democrats controlled both chambers, the bill cleared the House but fell two votes shy of the 60 needed to move forward in the Senate.

Republican opposition has given Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) a chance to frame the issue of equal pay as yet another example of the GOP’s war on women.

“As I look at the record of Republicans on women, it is not good,” Boxer said. “Personally, I say it’s a war on women. The more they protest it, the more I say it, because I truly believe it.”

But Republicans say such legislation is unnecessary since the landmark Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is already on the books. President Barack Obama himself has toured the country talking up the Ledbetter Act, which was the first bill he signed into law upon taking office. The law “ensures equal pay for equal work,” he said in Maine this past March.

“I signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to make sure that all of our daughters have the same opportunity as our sons,” he told the House Democratic Caucus in 2009. (emphasis mine)
First of all, let's look at the emphasized portions, shall we?  Women,  most importantly marginalized women of color - please hang in there with me:
  •  It's been three and a half years since the Democrats dangled this carrot in your face (they also held the majority when Shrub went to war, but that's off-topic).  Two votes in the Senate kept this from passing!  Really??  Yes really.  Amy Siskind lays it all out, here.
Though she obviously had no real power in how the vote would go - she certainly represents someone who supposedly had some real power.  Most relevant in this piece, is Siskind's #4 on the "Cowards" list:
Senior White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett (D) (Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls) -- progressive blogger Joanne Bamberger said it best on Facebook: President Obama and his advisor Valerie Jarrett have said time and again they are committed to passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act and it was a priority to them. Wednesday, fair pay failed by 2 votes. They couldn't use their "commitment" to women to get us 2 votes?
Enough said (keeping manipulative, hubris and lying in mind?).
  • Of course Republicans have given Boxer a chance to frame the issue as "the GOP’s war on women!"  - there's no difference between the two of them , people!!!
  • Republicans saying the law is unnecessary is at least honest, because they truly believe that.  Plus, they already know that Ledbetter was " the biggest bait-and-switch scam in history!!” 

But keeping the reposted paper in mind, the Changeling on the other hand - is a LIAR  (quite animatedly bolstered by the then, just happy-dancin', now boisterously vocal, Mikulski):


And so is Nancy Pelosi (which is why Boxer - not Pelosi is out front, framing this issue for the 2012 election):


Back to the Politico piece:
Democrats counter that the Paycheck Fairness bill is much stronger than the Ledbetter Act. They say Ledbetter keeps the courthouse door open for women to sue for discrimination, while Paycheck makes it tougher to discriminate in the first place. Ledbetter does not address compensatory or punitive damages; Paycheck does. And Paycheck makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers for inquiring about their colleagues’ wages. (emphasis mine)
Keeping the words manipulative, hubris and lying in mind - finally, they admit it!

Two and and a half years later, I wrote this - Paycheck Fairness, Ledbetter and the "Walmart Women" (that picture is as funny now, as it was then!).  I'm sure the Walmart women knew exactly what was up with the Changeling and his crew after that.

It's taking everything I have - to contain the absolute schadenfreude I'm  feeling about the clearly exposed Democrats, and their deus ex machina that is the Changeling (and no, Republicans don't get a  free pass in this farce, but I'm not talking 'bout them right now). 

I'm exercising this restraint solely because, rather than arousing your naked emotion, I want you to first, consider this quote - 

"It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have."
Mr. James Baldwin

And secondly, because I'd like to try to inspire some of the critical thinking skills Margaret Kimberley so effortlessly exhibits - from the 16:35 to the 23:25 click in this video.

There's a whole lotta hoodwinking and bamboozling goin' on folks - and it's not just the Republicans who are doing it.  

2 comments:

Marsha said...

Ah, Deb, Deb, Deb...what it be like, suhstuh? I was told on my Fbook page that the reason I don't support the president's apologetic reluctance to confront inequality and injustice is, besides my Smiley/West/Jackson-esque "jealousy and pique," I'm not a black man. This was told to me by a fervent supporter of "his" president, who has also in the past called me an "emotional 60's militant." I was also told by a non-black Obot, that because I have so many Fbook "friends," I have a duty and responsibility to vocally support the right-leaning centrist Democratic president or else be the cause of allowing a big scary Republican to become president. I would presume all this support is because the president is black, except the radical brother told me when I said I always had a problem with his "don't rock the boat on the rising tides because it scares de white folks Pookie and RayRay eating Popeye's Chicken on the couch in they house shoes" brand of politics, to remember that he is only half-black anyway.
So, what's an "emotional 60's militant" to do when people are so blind that they can't even see that they can't see? And, all this started when I said it was funny that liberals were using the "hell, he might as well be a Republican" defense against the "Socialist!" nonsense from the right.
Have a great holiday, gurrull, and don't ever think I'm not still here, reading and nodding and shaking my head right along witcha.

Deb said...

Hey there Suhstuh!! I sure as HELLmiss you!!!

"I was told on my Fbook page that the reason I don't support the president's apologetic reluctance to confront inequality and injustice is, besides my Smiley/West/Jackson-esque "jealousy and pique," I'm not a black man....I have a duty and responsibility to vocally support the right-leaning centrist Democratic president or else be the cause of allowing a big scary Republican to become president. I would presume all this support is because the president is black, except the radical brother told me when I said I always had a problem with his "don't rock the boat on the rising tides because it scares de white folks Pookie and RayRay eating Popeye's Chicken on the couch in they house shoes" brand of politics, to remember that he is only half-black anyway."

ROTFLMBAO!!!!

See, that's why I STILL don't have a FB page! Folks is crazy as hell - and nowhere near critically thinking! (I have thought on occasion, about creating a dummy page so I could keep up with you though! ;-D)! Feel free to leave your link in the comments, just so others - unlike my "old-head"-for-real-now ass, who DO have a FB page -can traipse through the reality that was the "Cinie's World" I knew and loved - cuz I can see you haven't changed!

"So, what's an "emotional 60's militant" to do when people are so blind that they can't even see that they can't see? "

Darlin' - you tell me! I keep pluggin' away though, cuz I just can't - NOT!

"Have a great holiday, gurrull, and don't ever think I'm not still here, reading and nodding and shaking my head right along witcha."

Same to you sister-friend and, thanks for stoppin' in. Still waitin' like a fool, to write that post (when I called you - and you responded, remember?). Finally wrapping my head around, what the hell that says! Take care, woman...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...