Justin's Political Corner

House Republicans are launching their first concerted effort to win back female voters on Tuesday with the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013, a bill that’s being packaged as a lifeline to working moms across the country.

Unfortunately, the legislation is a particularly cruel hoax—a slick attempt to give employers more power, and hourly workers much less.

At first blush, the idea sounds good. The bill would allow hourly workers to convert overtime pay into time off: in other words, instead of getting paid for extra hours, they could stockpile additional vacation time. The pitch here is that working parents could have more flexibility in their schedule and an enhanced ability to balance work and family. “This week, we’ll pass [Representative] Martha Roby’s bill to help working moms and dads better balance their lives between work and their responsibilities as parents,” House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday.

The GOP is specifically invested in convincing women this bill is for them. The GOP spent $20,000 last week on a digital ad campaign focusing on so-called “mommy blogs,” like Ikeafans.com and MarthaStewart.com, and geo-targeting Democrats in swing districts. “Will Rep. Collin Peterson stand up for working moms?” one iteration of the ad asked.

But it’s not too hard to see how pernicious this legislation truly is. “Flexibility” is a word that should make hourly workers check for their wallets—employers hold most of the power in the relationship with hourly workers, which is all the more true if they are not unionized. So “flexibility” to decide if you want to get paid for overtime work, instead of getting fewer hours later on, can quickly become a way for employers to withhold payment for overtime work while also cutting your hours down the road.

Over 160 labor unions and women’s groups sent a letter to members of Congress on Monday, protesting that the Working Families Flexibility Act is “a smoke-and-mirrors bill that offers a pay cut for workers without any guaranteed flexibility or time off to care for their families or themselves.”

Republicans say this isn’t true, and that there are safeguards in the bill that would prevent employers from muscling their employees into surrendering overtime pay. “It is illegal for them to do that. There are enforcement mechanisms in the bill,” Eric Cantor said in February.

But this is where they’re being really tricky—the bill does give workers the right to sue over such intimidation, but denies them the right to use much quicker, and cheaper, administrative remedies through the Department of Labor. It also gives the Department of Labor no additional funds to investigate nor enforce provisions of the act.

So if hourly workers get intimidated into giving up overtime pay in exchange for working even fewer hours down the road, they’re more than welcome to hire a lawyer and sue—a rather improbable outcome given how expensive that might be. Otherwise, tough luck.

There also isn’t quite as much flexibility in the act as it seems. As the National Partnership for Women and Families points out, while the bill does allow hourly workers to turn overtime pay into as much as 160 hours of comp time, it gives them no right to decide when they can use that time—even if there’s a family emergency. That’s still entirely up to employers.

Further hampering workers’ flexibility is that once they bank more than eighty hours in comp time, employers can unilaterally decide to cash out any additional hours. Also, workers who decide later that they need to cash out the comp time they’ve earned can do so—but employers have thirty days to cut the check, which could certainly be a problem for hourly workers on a tight budget.

Moreover, this isn’t even a new idea. Republicans proposed this same bill ten years ago, prompting the late Molly Ivins to remark “the slick marketing and smoke on this one are a wonder to behold.”

The legislation, simply, is a straightforward boon to big employers. “It pretends to offer time off but actually asks [employees] to work overtime hours without being paid,” Judy Lichtman of the NPWF told reporters on a conference call Monday. She added that it’s simply a “no-cost, no-interest loan to the employer.”

House Democrats will be nearly, if not entirely, unified in opposition. “The Working Families Flexibility Act sounds good, but it is a sham and we are going to call it out for what it is. It would cause more harm than good and we are going to reject it,” Representative Rose DeLauro said yesterday during the same conference call.

Due to the Republican majority in the House, the bill is likely to pass on Tuesday, but Senate passage seems dubious at best, and the White House has already issued a veto threat.

In 1993, when Congress considered and ultimately passed the Family and Medical Leave Act—which mandates only twelve weeks of unpaid family time off—Republicans were apoplectic. One House member from North Carolina called it “nothing short of Europeanization—a polite term for socialism.” A young John Boehner, years from becoming House Speaker, said the legislation would “be the demise of some [businesses].

“And as that occurs,” he said, “the light of freedom will grow dimmer.”

h/t: George Zornick at The Nation

The Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, an Illinois-based conservative group, convened a symposium in Washington earlier this month to discuss topics including “Defending Faith in an Age of Christophobia,” “The Pornography Industry,” and “Economic and Social Costs of Abortion.” 

At a panel titled “The ‘War on Women’: Myth or Reality?,” Concerned Women for America senior fellow Janice Shaw Crouse argued that it is in fact “those who present themselves as champions of women’s rights” who “constitute a very real war on women.” This “war,” Crouse declares, began in the 1960s and has “undermined and torn apart the faith, values and morality that have held together a diverse and multicultural people.”

h/t: Right Wing Watch

Here we go again: serial distortion artist Dana Loesch has attacked the recently reinstated REAL version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), while supporting the House GOP’s fake version (certain GOPers supporting their faux-VAWA bill and taking credit for passing it, while voting against the real version). She has a long history of attacking VAWA.

VAWA is NOT a “slush fund”, you fucking arrogant nutjob!

(cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on Monday openly admitted that she opposed the latest reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) because it included protections for LGBT, Native American, and undocumented victims of domestic violence.

In an appearance on MSNBC, Blackburn pointed out that the latest iteration of the law protects “different groups” and thus dilutes funding for straight, non-Native American women with the proper documentation:

When you start to make this about other things it becomes an “against violence act” and not a targeted focus act… I didn’t like the way it was expanded to include other different groups. What you need is something that is focused specifically to help the shelters and to help out law enforcement, who is trying to work with the crimes that have been committed against women and helping them to stand up.

Watch it:

Domestic violence is domestic violence, period. And there is no way to justify Blackburn’s suggestion that some victims of this violence are more deserving than others. 

Additionally, the reauthorized VAWA includes provisions to prevent serial rapists and similar abusers from preying on Native American women. If Blackburn considers Native American women a “different group,” then it’s one she should be most concerned about: Three out of every five Native American women has been assaulted by an intimate partner.

H/T:  Think Progress Justice

WASHINGTON — The Violence Against Women Act is finally heading to the president’s desk this week after a dragged out political fight over expanding protections to Native American, LGBT and immigrant victims of abuse.

The House voted 286 to 138 on Thursday to pass the bipartisan Senate version of VAWA.

The vote came just after the House rejected its own GOP bill, 166 to 257, which drew loud cheers in the chamber. Sixty Republicans voted against the GOP bill.

Throughout the debate, House Republicans maintained that their bill would have covered all women. But the reality is that it didn’t go as far as the bipartisan Senate bill. The House bill stripped out protections for LGBT victims of abuse, it didn’t give tribal courts new authority in certain domestic violence cases and it added new eligibility restrictions for U Visas for abused immigrant women. The House bill also entirely left out two separate measures attached to the Senate bill: the SAFER Act, which helps law enforcement address a backlog in untested rape kits, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which targets human trafficking.

The House Republican bill appeared doomed before it hit the floor. It had zero support from Democrats, and a growing number of Republicans were saying they couldn’t support it.

H/T: Jennifer Bendery at HuffPo

After nearly a year of resistance that has damaged them politically with women voters, House Republicans have found a clever way to back down on the reauthorization of an expanded Violence Against Women Act, aides confirmed to TPM late Tuesday.

The original plan was for the Republican majority in the House to pass its version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and then go to conference conference committee with the Senate. The Senate has already overwhelmingly passed a more aggressive bill, with protections for LGBT, Native American and undocumented women that have been at the heart of the dispute with House Republicans.

But all that changed Tuesday night. The Rules Committee instead sent the House GOP’s versionof the Violence Against Women Act to the floor with a key caveat: if that legislation fails, then the Senate-passed version will get an up-or-down vote.

The big admission implicit in this latest move is that House GOP leaders don’t believe they have the votes to pass their version of the bill but that the Senate version is likely to pass the chamber. So this way they’ll give House conservatives the first bite at the apple as a way of saving face and still resolve an issue that has hurt them politically.

Here’s how Democrats expect it to play out.

After the House finishes debating the GOP-version of the bill on Wednesday and Thursday, it will get a vote, but will fail to muster enough votes for passage due to conservative and Democratic opposition. So the Senate-passed bill will get a vote instead, and Democrats as well as a faction of more moderate Republicans will carry it to victory. Then it will go straight to President Obama’s desk for his signature.

“[Rules Committee Chairman] Pete Sessions laid it out in not so many words that this is what the majority’s plan is,” a House Democratic aide said Tuesday evening. “They’re anticipating that their version gets voted down. But it’s clear the Senate bill will pass with flying colors.”

h/t: Sahil Kapur at TPM

Once again, Dana Loesch is absolutely lying about the Violence Against Women Act, by falsely claiming that the Senate Democrats version of the bill as “pork” and baselessly accusing Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) of “exploiting women.” Remember, she has a long history of misleadingly accusing Democrats and liberals of being ”anti-women.”

Loesch lies about VAWA again on her radio show blog:

The VAWA has enjoyed bipartisan support for years until Leahy tried to exploit the women he claimed to protect with this act by using them as front. 

Democrats use VAWA as a litmus test for female concern, so why then are they jeopardizing it? 

Speaking of violence against women, let’s revisit the Colorado Democrats and how women should just take the violence visited upon them.

Here’s the real truth about VAWA that Loesch intentionally decided to distort in order to defend the House GOP version, via Jennifer Bendery at the Huffington Post:

The House GOP bill entirely leaves out provisions aimed at helping LGBT victims of domestic violence. Specifically, the bill removes “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the list of underserved populations who face barriers to accessing victim services, thereby disqualifying LGBT victims from a related grant program. The bill also eliminates a requirement in the Senate bill that programs that receive funding under VAWA provide services regardless of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Finally, the bill excludes the LGBT community from the STOP program, the largest VAWA grant program, which gives funds to care providers who work with law enforcement officials to address domestic violence. 

Another notable difference in the House bill relates to a provision targeting Native American victims. Under the Senate bill, tribal courts would gain new authority to prosecute non-Native American men who abuse Native American women on reservations. The House bill also grants that new authority — a major change from the bill House Republicans put forward in the last Congress — but adds a caveat that would allow those people to move their case to a federal court if they feel their constitutional rights aren’t being upheld. 

Congress failed to reauthorize VAWA last year for the first time since the law’s inception in 1994, due in large part to House Republican opposition to the tribal provision. The fact that the House bill includes some kind of tribal provision reflects some movement by GOP leaders toward a bill that can pick up broader support. But even some House Republicans who have advocated for a compromise on the tribal piece say the bill needs to go further on that front. 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) trashed the GOP proposal altogether.
“House Republicans just can’t help themselves,” Pelosi said in a statement. ”Even with a strong, bipartisan bill passed by the Senate for the second Congress in a row, even with countless women in need of support and protection, Republicans are still turning the Violence Against Women Act into a partisan political football.”

On Twitter, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA12) rightfully slammed the House GOP version of VAWA as a “non-starter”:

House Republican VAWA bill is a non-starter for our nation’s women. America’s mothers and daughters deserve better. 1.usa.gov/VBC3h8

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) February 22, 2013

(Cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

Thanks to Donkeylicious for bringing this to my attention. Michael Walsh of National Review Online called for the termination of women’s right to vote last week:

 Nevertheless, you’re on to something I’ve been advocating for years now. And that is the repeal of all four of the so-called “Progressive Era” amendments, including the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th, which were passed between 1911 and 1920. 

One of those has already been repealed—the 18th amendment, which ushered in Prohibition—which Walsh admits. That’s not really what he’s on about anyway:

The income-tax amendment was a self-evident attack on capitalism and led to the explosive growth of the federal government we currently enjoy today. (Without it, there’d be no need for a Balanced Budget Amendment.) Direct elections of senators has given us, among other wonders, the elevation of John F. Kerry to, now, secretary of state. Prohibition was directly responsible for the rise of organized crime and its unholy alliance with the big-city Democratic machines. And women’s suffrage … well, let’s just observe that without it Barack Obama could never have become president. Time for the ladies to take one for the team.

I suppose we’re supposed to imagine it’s a “joke”, because he takes a jovial tone for the last one. But if so, it doesn’t make sense. He’s dead fucking serious about the other two—three, really, because he only seems to be against Prohibition because he believes it gave Democrats a leg up, which is one of those deaf-to-historical-change moments that lead Republicans to imagine that Lincoln would have anything to do with the modern version of their party—so, as a joke, it falls completely apart. If he hadn’t rolled it up with the other amendments initially, the “joke” defense he clearly has in his pocket would be an easier sell. Something like, “I’ve long advocated for the repeal of 3 of the Progressive Amendments (though one has already been repealed), and hey, ladies, sometimes you make me wish to repeal all four.” It would still be a misogynist joke, but easier to sell as a joke, even if not a very funny one.

I’m trying to imagine the shitstorm that would erupt if a feminist dare say men should forsake their right to vote until they shape up and start voting correctly. It certainly wouldn’t slide under the waters, like this did.

Typical sexism from the far-right.

h/t: Amanda Marcotte at The Raw Story

The evil kook is at it again: Recently writing for fellow former CNN “contributor” Erick Erickson’s RedState blog, callous RWNJ asshole Dana Loesch is peddling even more distortions on guns and women. The victim of Loesch’s misleading lies: Colorado State Rep. Joe Salazar (D-COLD31) for defending rape whistles and supporting a concealed weapons ban on college campuses.

KDVR, Denver’s FOX affiliate:

DENVER — First-year state Rep. Joe Salazar is apologizing for a statement during Friday’s debate over a concealed weapons ban on college campuses that has drawn the ire of conservatives across the blogosphere.
In arguing in favor of the ban, Salazar, D-Thornton, said that women on college campuses don’t need guns to feel that they’re safe. 

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles,” Salazar said on the House floor. “Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.” 

“I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention,” Salazar said. “We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong.

But that only served to egg on the right-wing morons, such as Loesch and Malkin.

She wrote in her RedState blog her usual distortionist BS:

Chill, women, says Colorado Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar. While arguing for the disarmament of college students, Salazar says that even if women feel like they’re going to be raped, they may not, so who needs a firearm for protection?  

This is the real “war on women” I’ve talked about: the progressive insistence that women disarm. Women, according to Rep. Salazar, are hysterical things which shoot indiscriminately at any and everything. 

This “feel like you’re going to be raped” nonsense is as poorly-worded as the “shut that whole thing down” drama from last fall. If Democrats don’t swiftly condemn this, I see this used as a tactic to showcase the vast lack of respect Democrats have for a woman’s right to self defense.

While she attacked Salazar, Loesch had the nerve to defend 2012 Senate candidate and former Congressman Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks. BTW, Mrs. Liaresch, Salazar is NOT advocating “disarment” of women. She also falsely accused Democrats having a lack of respect for women.

Salazar claims to have a record of defending women’s rights but his actions to disenfranchise them of their Second Amendment rights are completely contradictory to that claim. One in four collegiate women report rape and one in five are raped. Salazar wants to deprive women of their right to defense with these odds? Just blow your rape whistles and pray that an attacker represents the “safe zone” boundaries? The best apology is a reversal of his war on women.

This claim by her is absolutely pants-on-fire false.


She took to Twitter to further demonize Salazar (and by extension, the Democratic Party):

“You don’t know if you feel like you’re going to be raped” or like, rape-raped. So whistles are a good bet, says Dem Rep. Salazar.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

Because women are hysterical little things who just shoot indiscriminately, according to Dem Rep. Joe Salazar. #waronwomen
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

This is what Democrat males think of a woman’s right to self defense: bit.ly/15qwqGB
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

A woman’s right to self defense is under attack in this country from Dems like Salazar. #waronwomen
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

#COLeg Dem Salazar says women don’t need guns if they “feel like they’re going to be raped” bit.ly/15qwqGB #waronwomen
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

Unless #COLeg Dems swiftly condemn Salazar and he apologizes for his remarks, I’ll assume they endorse this “shut it down” thinking.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

Rapists can’t enter “safe zones.” Didn’t you know? Just like werewolves can’t enter holy ground. #Salazar #COLeg #waronwomen
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

Updated with the ridiculous advice the Univ of Colorado gives to women to avoid attacks. You won’t believe it: bit.ly/15qwqGB #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

Re. Joe Salazar, the Democrat who made the woman and rape comment, is on Twitter here: @housesalazar . Story: bit.ly/15qwqGB#COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

I’m offended by the sanctioning silence of @cohousedems on @housesalazar ‘s prejudiced remark against women and firearms. #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Real #waronwomen: @housesalazar wants to disarm women, leave them at the mercy of attackers because he thinks they can’t handle guns. #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Assuming @cohousedems approve of @housesalazar ‘s offensive and sexist characterization of women and rape unless condemned. #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Yikes. Still no response from @cohousedems on Rep. Salazar’s truly offensive remark on women and rape bit.ly/15qwqGB #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

1 in 5 women raped during college years. @housesalazar says they’re too ditzy to handle firearms bit.ly/15qwqGB #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

1 in 4 college women report rape. bit.ly/XoWuNP @cohousedems want to legislate away a woman’s right to self defense on campus. #COleg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

At this point I’m rather shocked that Dems in #COLeg think it’s permissible for women to even attend college.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Dana Loesch, you are a disgrace to your own Goddamn gender and to gun owners!

Maybe if women stayed in the kitchen making sandwiches & didn’t go to college, there wouldn’t be a rape problem, right @cohousedems ? #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

UPDATE: Salazar’s contradictory apology: bit.ly/15qwqGB #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

It’s a nothingburger apology that ignores the statistics. Salazar justifies his offensive remark by saying it served as an example. #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Furthermore, Salazar didn’t rescind his original insinuation that women are too stupid to handle firearms. #COleg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Shorter Salazar: I’m sorry if you women were offended that I basically said you were too stupid to handle firearms. #COleg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Shorter Salazer: My essentially saying you women were too stupid to handle firearms was just an example to explain disarmament. #COleg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

For the record, rapists approve of disarming women: danaloeschradio.com/rapists-agree-… #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Another conservative loon on Twitter, @RichardRSmithJr, is making this the “Democrats have a full-blown Todd Akin on their hands” fallacy:

Democrats Have A Full-Blown Akin (@housesalazar) On Their Hands #guncontrol nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/20… via @foxnation via @dloesch @cohousedems
— #IAmAndrewBreitbart(@RichardRSmithJr) February 19, 2013

Fellow Colorado resident and deranged nutjob Michelle Malkin joined in on the Salazar-bashing:

As RedState reports, on Friday, Salazar argued against concealed carry on college campuses in favor of call boxes, whistles and “safe zones.” Why? Because you as a woman might “feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be” — better to head to the call box and let a man with a gun decide if the danger is real or not (if he shows up in time, that is).

You are such a crybaby, Dana! Get over it, and no, progressives/liberals/Democrats like Salazar are NOT “anti-gun”, “anti-women”, or “pro-rapist.”

More on Loesch’s idiocy and falsehoods on Guns and the 2nd Amendment:
Dana Busted: NRA shill Loesch falsely accuses Missouri Dems of proposing “gun confiscation”
Dana Busted: Dana Loesch visits CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, tells more tall tales on national TV
Dana Busted: Unhinged Moron Dana Loesch on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight: “There Is No Such Thing As An Assault Weapon”
Dana Busted: Wingnut extraordinaire Dana Loesch attacks Piers Morgan and “anti-gun” liberals
Loesch on KFTK’s The Dana Show: Encouraging her listeners to buy a gun for Christmas

(Cross-posted from DanaBusted.blgospot.com)

Last night, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to to proceed on a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, despite strong opposition from the Religious Right. But as the legislation moves to the House, the fight is far from over. The Family Research Council has joined Religious Right activists and organizations including Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Bauer, Concerned Women For America, the Southern Baptist Convention, in opposing the reauthorization because it includes new provisions protecting LGBT people, immigrants and Native Americans. In an email alert last night, the FRC denied the positive impact of VAWA, which has contributed to a dramatic decrease in intimate partner violence, and said that the “real abuse” is VAWA’s cost to taxpayers.

h/t: Miranda Blue at RWW