Republicans Say the Darndest Things - Women Should Age-Out

State Representative 
Allan Rothlisberg (R-Kansas)

So, Republicans, how is that We-Heart-Women campaign going?

Republicans Claim to Support Equal Pay for Equal Work. Can They Prove It?

President Obama, during the State of the Union address on Tuesday: "Today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.  That is wrong, and in 2014, it's an embarrassment.  A woman deserves equal pay for equal work."

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Washington), who delivered the official Republican response to the President's speech, was asked about this issue on Wednesday:  "Yes, absolutely.  Republicans and I support equal pay for equal work."

what eye thynk:  I believe Ms. Rodgers and her fellow Republicans are a bit confused over the meaning of the word "support."  To begin with, look at their record on the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act.  

Ms. Ledbetter discovered too late that her work as an executive for Goodyear was compensated at a rate substantially below that of her male counterparts.  She sued for back pay.  The Supreme Court denied her claim because she hadn't filed her suit within 180 days of her first paycheck.  (She didn't discover the inequality until she was retiring and found her pension was lower than a male co-worker's.) The act that bears her name removed the statute of limitations on equal pay cases. The Lilly Ledbetter Act was the first piece of legislation that then newly inaugurated President Obama signed into law in January 2009.   The 111 th Congress, which had a Democratic majority in both Houses, passed the bill mostly along party lines with all but a handful of Republicans voting "No." 

 I'm having trouble seeing the support here.

Then there is this quote from the Republican Party's pet news station Fox News, where anchor Martha MacCallum was discussing the equal pay issue on Wednesday evening: "I think most women do not want to be treated as sort of a special class of citizens.  They want to go to work every day, they want to get paid for being a professional, for doing their job really well.  And they don't want to be treated like some group of people who have to be, you know, given a little special handout just to make sure that they're okay.  

Fox's liberal commentator Alan Colmes objected, "It's not a special handout.  It's equality.  It's equal pay for equal work."  Ms. MacCallum's response:  "Many women get paid exactly what they're worth, Alan."

What does that even mean?

Go back to 2013 and you have Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) explaining why she is against pay equality legislation. "You know, I've always said that I didn't want to be given a job because I was a female, I wanted it because I was the most well-qualified person for the job.  And making certain that companies are going to move forward in that vein, that is what women want.  They don't want the decisions made in Washington.  They want...the control and the ability to make those decisions for themselves."

But, Ms. Blackburn, if you are the "most well-qualified person for the job", wouldn't you expect to be paid a salary that supported your qualifications?   And if somebody gives me the "ability to make those decisions" myself, I'll tell ya, I'm going for the big bucks.  Maybe you're nobler than I am and requested a reduced compensation package when you took your oath of office?

And how can we forget 2012 when the Paycheck Fairness Act was brought before Congress for the second time...and Senate Republicans boasted of filibustering it into failure.  Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine)--one of the few moderate Republicans left in the world--told reporters, "I think this bill would result in excessive litigation that would impose a real burden, particularly on small businesses."

Well, actually, no, it wouldn't.  If businesses, no matter the size, paid women and men equally for the same job, there would BE no litigation, and thus no burden.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "support" as "to promote the interests or cause of; to uphold or defend as valid or right."

Republicans can continue to claim they "support" pay equity, but the claim is bogus.  Their rhetoric shows it. Their voting record proves it.  And, most importantly, women know it.

The Republican War on Women: The Battle in the U.S. Capitol

This is the twenty-first in a series of articles on the subjects of women, abortion rights and the Republican Party. 

Republicans continue to say they don’t have to change their core principles, they only have to change the language they use to get their message out.  One perception they want to alter is the idea that they are running a “war on women”.  Looking at the news over the past few years, I’d say the Republican Party has a long way to go on this subject.

• Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky): “Talk about a manufactured issue.  There is no issue.” 
•  RNC Chairman Reince Priebus:  “It’s a fiction.”

The National Front  

the facts and commentary:  Yesterday, January 28, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, a bill put together by a 12 man (as in all male, no female) committee.  The legislation imposes tax penalties on small businesses that provide abortion coverage in their health care plans. (80% currently provide abortion coverage.)  It also forces women who purchase private ACA insurance plans and want abortion coverage included in their policies to pay the full price for the rider, even if they are eligible for government subsidies to help with the cost of their policies.  There is an exception for rape, but proponents of the law bragged that claiming the exemption on her tax return would "spur audits for rape survivors" and the threat of an IRS audit will be an additional deterrent.

Richard Hanna (R-New York) was the sole Republican to vote "No."

Yesterday evening, just hours after passing these new restrictions, U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Washington) gave the official Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address.  Part of her reply focused on (surprise!) complaining about the ACA.  In her words:  "Republicans believe health care choices should be yours, not the government's."

Given the chronology in evidence here, I wonder how Ms. Rodgers was able to say that with a straight face.

 Ms. Rodgers is not a party leader.  She's not on any important committees.  She heads no study or research group. It seems obvious that she was chosen simply to put a female face in front of the media at a time when Republicans are desperate to regain support among female voters.  (President Obama won 55% of the female vote in 2012.)   

That percentage isn't going to improve any time soon if Republicans continue to hand ammunition to the Democrats like Ms. McMorris' Party-approved statement.

The Republican War on Women is "fiction"?

WHAT YOU DO SPEAKS SO LOUDLY

THAT I CANNOT HEAR WHAT YOU SAY.  

Eye Recommend --- ACA Opposition Frays a Little Further

ACA OPPOSITION FRAYS A LITTLE FURTHER, by Steve Benen -- 
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/aca-opposition-frays-little-further

There are more signs that Republicans are finally realizing their fight against the Affordable Care Act is one they are not going to win.  

 "When Kit Bond was in the Senate, he absolutely hated the Affordable Care Act, and voted to reject and kill the law.  As he was getting ready to retire, the Missouri Republican said the impact of the reform law, especially expanding Medicaid, would be 'horrific.'

Last year, Bond went so far as to describe the Affordable Care Act as 'a pile of manure.'"

Very classy, Mr. Bond.

"Now, however, it appears Bond...has changed his mind, at least about one key aspect of the law. 

(Mr.) Bond has been hired as a lobbyist by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry.  His goal will be to persuade a General Assembly skeptical of all things Obamacare to go along with one of the law's central tenets--adding 300,000 uninsured Missourians to the public health insurance program for the poor. 

Dan Mehan, the Missouri chamber's president, told the Kansas City Star that the business lobbying group 'opposed Obamacare,' but the organization believes it will remain the law of the land."

I'm thinking this comment deserves a big "Duh."

"And as such, Mehan added, 'We should take the opportunity to get an enormous amount of investment back into our state and, while we're at it, improve Medicaid for everyone."

Talk about a Johnny-come-lately justification.  Think of all the money Missouri could have saved if they had not passed their anti-ACA laws--laws they then had to defend in federal court where they ultimately lost their case just this past week.  http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2014/01/quick-note-missouri-obstructionist-aca.html

"And why did he change his mind?  Bond told the Associated Press, 'While I was and still am one of the loudest opponents of Obamacare, I'm getting involved in Medicaid reform now because if our state sits on the sidelines, I'm concerned hospitals in rural and inner city Missouri won't survive.'"

He didn't think of this when he was a U.S. Senator?

"To be sure, that's a perfectly good reason to support a perfectly sensible policy.  But Bond's 180-degree reversal reinforces a larger truth about the nature of ACA opposition:  it's fracturing in ways that spell trouble for conservatives...

...And it's not just Missouri.  Dylan Scott had a good report this morning on West Virginia, where Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R), a leading U.S. Senate candidate, has voted to repeal the law, but is now comfortable leaving Medicaid expansion in place.

The conventional wisdom is that Republicans running in 2014 will be campaigning against Obamacare, attempting to recreate the 2010 magic that saw them make massive gains in Congress and state governments...

...That's the narrative, and that's what Republican strategists would have you believe.  But comments--or the lack thereof--from some GOP candidates in state and national elections suggest that opposition might not be as ironclad as previously believed."

With nearly 3 million Americans now signed up for ACA coverage, Republicans are waking up to the reality that "Elect me because I promise to take away your health insurance" is not the best road to take if you want to be a working politician.

"Utah's Republican governor just endorsed Medicaid expansion in his state, and Republicans in Michigan and Iowa are considering following suit.

For the last few years, the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act has been a staple of Republican rhetoric, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that the GOP's posture is evolving.  At this point, the Republican position appears to be, 'We hate Obamacare with every fiber of our being, except for (some) parts.'...

...This isn't a sustainable approach to health care policy...

...The ACA opposition, in other words, is fraying, which is generally a precursor to defeat."

Somebody tell Ted Cruz.

January 27 - Monday Quote

I came across this quote in a book I was reading and couldn't help but think it pretty much describes the Republican Party's modus operandi.

monday quote:   Yes, it is a lie, but the media repeated it, and a lie repeated becomes perception and perception is reality. (from The Atlantis Plague by A.G. Riddle)

Republicans Say the Darndest Things - Cause of Gun Violence Identified (It's Not the Rich)

U.S. Representative
James Lankford (R-Oklahoma)

Representative James Lankford of Oklahoma, the fifth-ranking Republican in the House, has identified the cause of gun violence in this country: "welfare moms."  

At a meeting in Oklahoma City earlier this month, a constituent asked, "My question is regarding the guns and is Washington at all aware of the psychotropic drugs that these children are taking?  I guarantee it 100 percent that's our big problem."

His response: "I agree with that.  I think there's a bunch of issues that, quite frankly, most liberals are afraid to talk about.  We've over medicated kids.  Quite frankly some of the over medication of kids are because welfare moms want to get additional benefits and if they can put them on SSI through maintenance drugs, they can also put the on Social Security disability and get a separate check."

Sounds like feeding time at the Republican Bigot Zoo.

Fact:  Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine--all these shooters came from affluence.  

Mr. Lankford cannot really believe that by eliminating welfare mothers and their supposedly drugged up kids, we will eliminate gun violence, can he?  Or maybe his rich-is-better, Republican sensibilities would just prefer a better class of killer?

Quick Note: Missouri Obstructionist ACA Laws Struck Down by U.S. District Judge

In 2012, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon decided that his state would not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and would not set up its own health insurance marketplace, making it one of 17 red states where the federal government would have to step in to assist citizens signing up for health insurance.  

Last year, Missouri's Republican led legislature went even further, passing laws that were designed to put obstacles in the way of the federal government's exchange efforts.  These included requirements that federally trained insurance navigators also complete a 30 hour state insurance agent training course and pay a fee to be licensed by Missouri's insurance regulating board. They refused to allow federal workers to set up shop on any government property and would not permit ACA information to be displayed in government or social service offices.  Even that wasn't enough for Missouri Republicans.  They made it unlawful for any Missouri employee to offer "help or assistance of any kind" to anyone asking for information. Giving someone an ACA pamphlet or telling them the address of the ACA office was considered grounds for dismissal and prosecution. 

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ortrie D. Smith ruled that the obstacles Missouri had set in place were illegal.  In his ruling, Judge Smith said "It seems obvious these additional requirements obstruct the federal government's operation of the federally facilitated exchange;" and since Missouri decided not to set up its own exchange, it could not "impose additional requirements or limitations" on any exchange designated by federal law.  He added that forbidding social service offices from disseminating information to those who inquired put social service workers in an "untenable position" and restricted their constitutional rights to free speech.

Judge Smith's decision could have ramifications in other Republican led states like Ohio, Florida, Texas and Wisconsin where similar laws were passed requiring federal insurance navigators to be licensed by the state and setting limits on what navigators can do.

Missouri's attorneys say they will review the decision before deciding if they will appeal.

And so the voodoo doll of Republican obstructionism takes another stake to the heart.

I wonder how much money Republican states are spending to defend these laws-of-hindrance, laws which seem more and more untenable as time goes by.  And I wonder how that money could have been put to better use actually helping the people they claim to serve.