« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama and Reid: Destroying the Economy; Stimulating Trial Lawyers

Over the past few weeks, we’ve been hit with a torrent of negative economic news, portending a prolonged period of stagnation for the foreseeable future.  While most recessions end with a period of robust growth and job creation, this recovery has been stymied by odious regulations and a cloud of uncertainty painted dark black with Obama’s anti-business policies.  Naturally, the response from Democrats is to impose even more regulations.  This time they plan to tap one of their favorite tools; wage controls.

Harry Reid is planning to bring the “Paycheck Fairness Act” (S. 3220) to the floor today.  Behind this mellifluous sounding name rests a plethora of onerous paperwork for small businesses, a strong disincentive to hire women, and a Pandora’s box of class action lawsuits designed to enrich the trial lawyers – a group that happens to be prolific donors to the Democrat Party.

At the root of liberalism is the desire to identify contrived vices of the free market and impose arbitrary and deleterious solutions to rectify those supposed problems.  In this case, they are looking broadly at a category of people called…women!  Yes, they look at the women’s population at large and conclude that they are not paid as much as another broad category…men!  That’s a real educated hypothesis that factors in numerous variables.

The reality is that women who choose not to have a family or to continue working full time throughout their career even with a family, earn just as much as men.  In fact, there are already laws on the books precluding companies from paying women less for equal work and qualifications; the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1963 Equal Pay Act, just to name a couple.  Now, obviously when you compare all men to all women with such a broad lens, you will find that women earn less – and that is by choice.

If we are a country that still desires to procreate, we will need mothers to raise families.  Again, not all women choose to have children or to stay home with those children, but there will always be a much larger percentage of women doing so than men.  Sorry, liberal social engineers, that’s just a fact of life.  As such, more woman (and again, by no means a majority of them) choose professions that don’t pay as much as their male counterparts.  Also, many mothers will take off time from their careers to stay home full-time or part-time with their kids.  This has a cascading effect on upward mobility, experience and qualifications for various jobs. It is a choice that many women are still willing to make in order to raise their families.  It doesn’t make them less intelligent, talented, or driven; nonetheless, is will reduce the earning potential of that specific group of women.

The new Democrat law will automatically make all women parties to class action suits against companies for alleged violations of this pay discrimination bill.  Lawyers will have unfettered power to challenge the pay checks of any woman working in at any company in any location in the country.  Businesses will be forced to prove that they are being paid the same relative to some arbitrary baseline.  Just the threat of lawsuits will weigh heavily on business, often dissuading them from hiring women in the first place.  It might also serve as an incentive to decrease the wages of men workers.  The realm of possibilities is boundless when contemplating such a pernicious government-distortion in the marketplace.  Like all government interventions, we will need new programs to rectify the problems created by this act of Congress.

These arbitrary wage requirements will be judged by government bureaucrats and will be fed to their buddies in the trial lawyer community.  As the Wall Street Journal reported today, “the bill requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collect data from employers about how they compensate on the basis of sex, race and national origin”.  Don’t count on the lawyers interpreting the data judiciously.  They will never look into what’s behind the numbers – and they have no incentive to do so.  One can only imagine the nightmare that will ensue as a result of the new paperwork that will invariably flow from these reports.

Democrats have always been extraordinary at identifying the fulcra of the economy (think oil, wages, price mechanisms) and destroying their effectiveness.  They are especially good at it when their political surrogates stand to benefit from those interventions.

For those Republicans who are thinking of weakening the Filibuster in the Senate, this bill should serve as an portentous reminder why it must be preserved.

Cross-posted to The Madison Project

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Viet71

    n/t

  • azred

    As the Republicans stand against this bill (as they hopefully will!!!) it will do nothing but provide fodder for the liberals to cry ‘war on women’, and the media will oblige with repetition punctuated with disgust. Facts and reality got ditched with the economy.

    It’s appalling how the ‘message’ can be whatever the Dems want, and it’s a constant uphill battle to refute and bury the lies. And since the Dems will NOT be held accountable to their persistent falsehoods, they see no reason to change.

    This won’t die unless the true message can be conveyed and heard.

    Sunshine is the only remedy.

  • dougrodrigues

    Women have a disadvantage in the work place. They rear children. Because of that women often take time off for various reasons. Women don’t have the physical strength of men, if a particular job requires strength, they often don’t have enough of it. So think logically about this….if women can do the same job as a man, but get paid less, why are men even hired to do a job? I find it humorous, because of political correctness, that women get hired as firefighters. Can you imagine a woman trying to carry someone down a ladder? I sure can’t, but they still get hired as firefighters? Some women in the military want to be in a combat role. Okay, what woman is physically qualified to carry a 100 lb. pack all day while walking 3-5 miles? I can’t think of one? Many jobs require a physical agility test. The women’s physical agility test is usually easier than the men’s physical agility test. Does that make any sense? Will a man who fails the men’s physical agility test be allowed to take the women’s physical agility test? No. Why not? If a weaker woman can be hired, why not a weaker man? They’re going to do the same job, right? Political Correctness is the act of not functioning with any common sense.

  • despondent1

    Last night on ABCs Nightline, they completely left out the story about Wisconsin, though it had been called for Walker long before their program began. They had some “important” medical story as their headliner. It’s eerie how incredibly biased the msm has become. You can bet your bottom dollar that ABC would have been gushing with the news if Walker had been voted out!

    Also, rarely mentioned is the fact that 4 sitting state senators in Wisconsin were also recalled, and the Republican won all 4 of those seats as well. This was an old fashioned butt-kicking!

  • akerber00

    Obviously the bill wont pass, and I expect it to end up hurting the Dems in the long run. But I would be interested to know if the bill also promises equal pay for those men who choose to stay home and raise the kids while their wife works. I know a couple of those whose wife makes substantially more money than they can, so financially it makes much more sense for the husband to stay home to raise the kids. Do those men get the same protection? And I wonder how it does with gay couples, come to think about it. Or could this be just the Dems posturing again? Surely not…

  • ihateliberals

    The senate defeated the wage control bill this time around but if the house should revert to Democratic control again look for this to re-surface and be shoved down our throats. This would take all incentive and control away from the employer. Just because someone does the same job doesn’t mean they have the same qualifications or abilities. People are not ants. They appy themselves differently even to the same job and should be rewards accordingly not hve the pay dictated becasue of the position. Thisis what the government does with their workers. a GS-12 that comes to work does his job and goes home everyday gets paid the same as the GS-12 that goes to work and runs his real estate business frm his government office all day.

  • fishgod3

    The happiest sight I will ever see,is 50,000 trial lawers walking south over the Mexican border with an illegal under each arm.

  • dragonass

    Hi Daniel, you begin your post referencing the “torrent of negative economic news”, but you really didn’t elaborate on that at all. Instead your next few paragraphs talk about women’s wages compared to men’s and why you feel they’re lower and how Obama/Reid are stifling growth. I think it’s worth pointing out that the stock market has performed better under Obama since any president since Eisenhower, that corporate profits have never been higher, that corporations are currently sitting on over 2 trillion dollars, how corporate taxes have gone down and that the US has currently one of the lowest corporate taxes in the world, how that since 2010 four million private sector jobs have been added, and how the unemployment rate has gone down. All this information is available, you just have to be motivated enough to fact check. Fact checking is not something most people do. That truth allows the right to consistently lie. Nearly everything produced from the right is a lie or a half truth or a cherry picked factoid. We are living in an era akin to McCarthyism, where instead of just one senator making outrageous claims, the entire party does it and their crony’s in the media repeat it and hammer it home. The right cares not for truth, they say anything they want without repercussion.

    • streiff

      actually you are doing nothing but regurgitating a dog’s breakfast of talking points. The S&P 500 has gained 1.26% since 1/21/2009. http://ycharts.com/indicators/sp_500_monthly_return/chart#series=type:indicator,id:sp_500_monthly_return,calc:&zoom=&startDate=1/21/2009&endDate=7/31/2012&format=real&recessions=false

      Corporate taxes are down because corporate earnings are down.

      The US is 14 points higher than the OECD average http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/30/no-fooling-u-s-now-has-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-the-world/

      I have fact checked you and found you to be a mendacious fraud. You are gone.

    • commonsenseobserver

      Obamaloney. Obama has had the worst jobs record since the Depression, and household incomes have dropped by more than $4000, in return for record levels of debt. Stock markets don’t represent America’s working families, who are struggling each day. 1/6 in poverty, 8% unemployment for more than 40 months, small businesses without “gold-plated connections” being drowned by taxes, red tape, and uncertainty. Is that record of debt, doubt, and despair something you really want to try defending?

  • commonsenseobserver

    Yes, there should be safeguards against retaliations by employers, but this bill tips the scales too much in favour of employees, which would encourage irresponsibility and frivolous lawsuits, much like Lilly Ledbetter.

  • DerKrieger

    …lawyers

  • drfredc

    The short version of how Democrats work is they are “Mud Farmers”.

    In William Faulkner’s book, The Reivers, Mud Farmers held the land between two cities connected by dirt roads. They would pours water over roads so that everyone would get stuck in the mud, then they’d extort money to get folks out of the mud so commerce could proceed.

    Democrat Mud Farmers have taken this to higher levels — they create unelected bureaucracies to flood the roads, then the job of hauling folks out of the mud goes to their lawyer lobby. Both the burros and lawyers then kick back some of their gains to the Mud Farmer Democrats reelection campaign.

    The Mud Farmer’s greatest fear — paved roads like those Scott Walker put in place that allows commerce to proceed without undue burro and union interference.

  • http://madisonproject.com/ Daniel Horowitz

    As always, this is not about some ignorant, albeit lofty goal. It’s about crony capitalism to benefit their benefactors at the expense of the general economy. That sums up Dem politics in a nutshell.

  • http://www.ajharaldson.com lakeworthcane

    Daniel, I’m not comfortable with second-guessing intentions, but I think Reid’s intent in this case is political. This law will likely be defeated, and Reid probably knows that. But by submitting it, democrats–and specifically Obama, in the upcoming election–can claim that they submitted legislation supporting equal pay for women, republicans shot it down, and this proves that republicans don’t favor equal pay for women.

    Again, I’m just guessing, but I think Reid’s intent with this law is to persuade women voters to support Obama and democrats.

    Yes, if the law passes, it will be a boon for trail lawyers and, by extension, the democrat party.

    But it probably won’t pass because–for reasons you outlined pretty well–it’s a terrible law that, if passed, would solve no problems but create many more.

    Looking into Reid’s behavior a little more deeply, I see this law as a further unraveling–on a broad basis–of the “utopian” democrat promise to voters.

  • commonsenseobserver

    The laws do need to be updated, of course, if only because the economy has changed too much over the years.