So the Republicans demand changes from Obama in the economic stimulus plan, which he (unwisely) concedes on after reaching out to them, and then they vote 100% against. Because they want tax cuts for high-income Americans. A policy proven, proven I say, to work have contributed to causing a major recession. One hundred percent of House Republicans decided that saying no to economic recovery and standing by failed policies was the essence of party loyalty.
Meanwhile, the Ledbetter Bill passed the Senate, with only five Republicans voting for it, including the only four women Republicans in the Senate (in the House, only 3 of 169 voting Republicans voted yea). On the radio this morning, I learned that Ledbetter’s campaign ad for Barack Obama polled as one of the most effective ads of the campaign, and the single most effective “negative” ad. Which means there 202 Republicans who are so utterly opposed to equal pay for women that they are willing to risk going on record, knowing for a fact that such record has had a strongly impact on campaign results.
They’re toddlers. They’re pouty, foot-stampy, hold-their-breaths-until-they-all-turn-blue toddlers. Our President says “Yes We Can” and they say “No We Won’t!” (And add “So There!”)
I know that the more-intelligent-than-me President Obama has a grand scheme about bipartisanship and outreach and a new era in Washington and all, but I don’t see how an intelligent and fair-minded spirit of bipartisanship can work while the toddlers are having a tantrum. Possibly a time out chair is in order.
In terms of policy preferences, I agree with you about tax cuts and wage discrimination. But there are valid counterarguments to both pieces of legislation regarding their structure. Ledbetter, for instance, does some screwy things with the Statute of Limitations. I haven’t read enough about the law to fairly evaluate whether these concerns should have tanked the law or not, but I do think they merit consideration. The ends don’t always justify the means (as GWB so often demonstrated for us…); we need to make sure that the means don’t cause more problems.
I think what you will see for the long term results of this law will be that fewer women will get hired to reduce company liability risks (although it most likely will be under some other guise and it wont be obvious), the average mean household income across the nation will gradually decrease because employers are into paying less not more, and the temporary agency business model will just blossom because they would have to shoulder the liability burden and not the business. As a business owner, the temporary business agency is the option that I would prefer. As of Jan 1, 2009 the average wage of a temp worker in Fort Worth was $24,000 annual. Put it as a couple together and your looking at 48,000 household income total gross with zero growth potential. Do I care if they are male or female? No. Do I care about their ability to produce a quality product and conduct themselves in a business manner which includes negotiating sales contracts and salary requirements? You bet I do. In short, this economy is strictly performance based. Why should underachievers be coddled?