Serendipity SOUL | Tuesday Open Thread | EQUAL PAY DAY

Tuesday, April 17, 2012. This date symbolizes how far into 2012 women must work to earn what men earned in 2011.

Equal Pay Day was originated by the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) in 1996 as a public awareness event to illustrate the gap between men’s and women’s wages.

Equal Pay Day In D.C.

It’s Equal Pay Day—the annual check-in on the pay gap between men and women who work outside the home. Elahe Izadi takes a look at the biggest disparity in the D.C.: The gap in pay between white men and women of color.

In D.C., white women make 79 cents for every dollar that white men earn. That drops to 51 cents for black women, and 41 cents for Latinas. Izadi adds:

The gap in pay between men and women in D.C. is the second smallest among Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston, Atlanta and New York City (which came in first, with 93 cents on the dollar). But take race into account, and D.C. doesn’t do so well anymore; of the aforementioned cities, only Atlanta has a larger pay gap between minority women and white men. In the Georgia city, black and Hispanic women make about 42 cents for every $1 white men earn.

Education is clearly a factor here—Izadi notes that only 23 percent of black women in D.C. have college degrees, compared to 86 percent of white men—but even college educated women make less money than their male counterparts. (Related: We’re not particularly shocked. Last week, a senior political writer at Politico admitted he didn’t know what the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was.)

Tuesday’s 3 Chics featured Curtis Mayfield tune:

Keep on Keeping On

This entry was posted in Current Events, Economy, Empowerment, Jobs, Media, Music, Open Thread, Politics, President Obama and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Serendipity SOUL | Tuesday Open Thread | EQUAL PAY DAY

  1. rikyrah says:

    The Insult that is @AnnDRomney New Blonde Barbie® Media Darling

    Everyone needs to understand and wrap their heads around the fact that neither Ann nor Mitt Romney came from poverty. They were both born into enormous wealth, and have not had one day of struggle in their lives. They went to private schools, traveled to Europe, and went to expensive Universities they didn’t need a student loan or scholarship for. They have not the remotest understanding of how most Americans live.

    Even one of* Ann Romney’s nannies agrees with Hilary Rosen: Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life. For the GOP/Media to even suggest that Ann Romney is your average stay-at-home mom is one of the biggest insults to mothers everywhere to date.

    *This begs the question, just how many nannies did the Romney’s employ, and at any given time? How many gardeners? Cooks? Maids? Household staff? Accountants? Drivers? Stable hands/grooms/trainers? Personal assistants?

    I get that many of you are sick of it, and I completely understand why, but I guarantee you the GOP/Media aren’t letting this go anytime soon. It is not in our best interests to ignore it. We need to stop repeating the mistakes of the past.

    The @AnnDRomney fauxrage is not a distraction, but an extraordinary opportunity for all of us since the GOP intends to get all the traction it can out of this – especially if we ignore it, and refuse to fight back.

    The new Ann Romney Average Stay At Home Mom (and by extension they’re a normal family) meme is ridiculous on it’s face, and creates a gigantic spotlight on pretty much every other cause we need to be fighting for. It’s a bigger “gift” to us, than for Ann’s birthday.

    Ann Romney has never been an “ordinary, average, stay-at-home mom.” She never will be.

    @AnnDRomney has never, nor will EVER:

    – Be forced to work a regular job with a paycheck, ever.
    – Be forced to TRY to get gainful employment to earn that paycheck.
    – Be forced to work multiple jobs and still be short money to feed her kids.
    – Worry about where hers or her children’s next meal is coming from.
    – Worry about how, or not be able to pay for that next meal.
    – Not be able to afford childcare.
    – Make a choice between food, shelter, or medicine.
    – Have to juggle laundry, housework, cooking, diapers, doctor visits, piano lessons, child transportation, grocery shopping, and/or figure out how to pay for it all. (You know, like NORMAL stay-at-home moms.)
    – Sacrifice ANYTHING for her children or their college education.

    This is not only about the GOP’s endless War On Women, it’s about:

    – The lack of JOBS, thanks to the GOP trying to kill the economy to get power by refusing to pass the American Jobs Act.
    – The continuing redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy and the GOP filibustering the Buffet Rule.
    – The endless hypocrisy of Mitt Romney saying it’s okay for his überwealthy wife to choose to be a Stay-At-Home-Kept-Woman, but if you’re poor, you had better be back at work by your child’s 2nd birthday.

    And you know what else? As a cancer survivor, and a woman who lives with MS, @AnnDRomney is the PosterGirl for Obamacare, because most of America doesn’t have the luxury of having a husband who makes an annual income of $20 MILLION+. So, YES. Let’s go there. Let’s have that conversation now, since the power to take away healthcare from over 30 million Americans, a large number of them children, is in the hands of five MALE conservative justices.

    What’s more, the fact that Ann is so far removed from how 99% of Americans live, she cannot see her own insulting behavior for making the comment in the first place, never mind understanding the subsequent outrage from MOST of the country over it. It focuses an even brighter spotlight on how out of touch these people have been all of their lives with how most of America survives on a day-to-day basis.

  2. rikyrah says:

    Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:35 AM PDT
    Mitt Romney still won’t give a straight answer about Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act+*

    by Kaili Joy Gray

    It’s been a week since Mitt Romney’s campaign was first asked whether he supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. While his campaign (eventually) said that he supports equity pay, and his lady surrogates are telling us that of course he supports equal pay, those very same lady surrogates voted against the Ledbetter Act. In fact, the entire Republican Party, with very few exceptions, voted against the act.

    A week later, Mitt still can’t quite answer the question:

    DIANE SAWYER: I want to talk about a couple of issues relating to women. This 19 point difference between you and the president on women. Here are some specific questions. If you were president– you had been president– would you have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Law?

    MITT ROMNEY: It’s certainly a piece of legislation I have no intend– intention of changing. I wasn’t there three years ago–

    DIANE SAWYER: But would you have signed it?

    MITT ROMNEY: –so I– I’m not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed, but I certainly support equal pay for women and– and have no intention of changing that law, don’t think there’s a reason to.

    Given that Mitt Romney has been running on a platform of doing exactly that—running against the “prior law” known as the Affordable Care Act, which he says he plans to repeal when he’s (giggle) president—Mitt’s assurance that this particular prior law is perfectly safe isn’t very reassuring. Back when Mitt was running for various elections in Massachusetts, claiming to be further to the left than Ted Kennedy, he also claimed to support the “prior law” of Roe v. Wade too. But now that Mitt’s trying to prove his “severely conservative” credentials, he’d love nothing more than to see that “prior law” thrown out too.

    His party is firmly against not only the Ledbetter Act, but against the very concept of equal pay. His buddy in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker, just signed a bill to repeal the enforcement part of the state’s equal pay law. Meanwhile, in Congress, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would expand the 1963 Equal Pay Act, has been sitting there collecting dust because not a single Republican has signed onto it.

    If Mitt Romney wants to assure the lady voters who don’t like him that he’s not going to get rid of equal pay, the way he plans to get rid of Planned Parenthood, he needs to say it in no uncertain terms. Besides, it’s not like he can’t shake the Etch A Sketch and take a completely different position tomorrow.

  3. rikyrah says:

    Tuesday, April 17, 2012
    Ann Romney “At Home” with $20 Million a Year
    It doesn’t matter whether Ann Romney stayed at home to raise her five sons. Nobody cares.

    What matters is that she stayed at home to be a full-time mom with millions of dollars of annual income. Maybe when her sons were young the family income was lots less than the $20 million annually of recent years. Maybe it was only 10%, only $2 million a year.

    That’s still an awful lot of money.

    I raised five sons and a daughter. Sometimes I was a full-time stay-at-home mom; sometimes I was a married working mom; and sometimes I was a single parent working mom. In any of these situations I sure would have been glad to have millions of dollars in annual income.

    Think how different being a mom is when you’ve got bushels of money! You can hire household help – lots of it. Someone else can cook, clean up the kitchen, do the laundry, fold the clothes, do the marketing, pick up the kids, wash the dog (when he’s not on the roof of the car). Someone else can go to the dry cleaners, sweep the porch, call the plumber, make the beds, pick up after the kids, pick up after the kids, pick up after the kids. Someone else can bake the birthday cakes, wrap the presents, address the holiday cards, take your various Cadillacs to be serviced, schedule the pediatrician appointments and the dentist appointments and the barber shop appointments. Someone else can take the kids to get shoes and school clothes. Someone else can make sure teeth are brushed and ears are clean.

    You get the picture.

    Most of all, you don’t have to worry about money. You don’t have to think about it at all. There’s no budgeting issues, no waiting for the next paycheck to get the kids those shoes. No dismay as the kids’ dental bills pile up on your credit card or winter heating oil doubles in cost. There’s no stricken sense of calamity approaching when one of your Cadillacs starts making a funny noise. There’s no sorrow to endure because you have to tell a kid he can’t go on a school field trip because of the expense. Or can’t play on the soccer team because you can’t afford the equipment.

    There’s no agony about wanting to sit next to a sick child in a hospital but not having the money to hire a sitter for the kids at home.

    Money doesn’t buy happiness but it sure can provide you a cushion against the anti-happy aspects of most people’s lives.

    What money buys is insulation.

    Ann Romney has indeed been insulated. There is no way, with millions a year in income, that she can have the slightest idea of any normal mom’s life. She knows nothing of being a stay at home mom except the percs: no nasty boss, no juggling work and home, no terror of leaving infants all day with sitters, no raggedy loss of sleep because of days that start at 5 a.m. and end near midnight.

    She got the percs of staying home and paid little of the price. With her millions she could avoid all the mess and work of baking cakes and just enjoy the birthday boy blowing out the candles. She never had to suffer the loss of income of a stay at home mom. Nor did she have to endure (let’s face it) the boredom and loneliness of being home alone all day with small people who are less than stellar conversationalists. If the home drill got a bit tedious, she could boogie on down to her “girls club” for companionship or jump a plane for a week of fun somewhere.

  4. Ametia says:

    Full Transcript: Michelle Obama Speaks To NPR

    April 17, 2012
    NPR’s Michel Martin spoke with first lady Michelle Obama from the White House on Monday. The full transcript of that interview is below. Read the edited version of the interview.

    MICHEL MARTIN: Mrs. Obama, thank you so much for joining us.

    FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA: Oh, thanks so much for having me.

    MARTIN: I just — I thought we’d start by asking you — well, we’re guessing that a lot of people will have heard you talk about the work that you’ve done with the Let’s Move campaign, and you’ve talked about your own experience with this with your own family, but I’m not sure that everybody’s heard about how you got interested in the whole issue of military families. I think your father served in the military before you were born.

  5. Ametia says:

    NEW YORK, NY – APRIL 17: Women emerging from a lunch hosted by Ann Romney at the Trump Towers are confronted by protesters in ‘Tax Dodgers’ uniforms and associated with Occupied Wall Street during a series of actions outside of companies they claim are tax dodgers on tax day April 17, 2012 in New York City. Companies which were targeted by the group included Bank of America, Wells Fargo, GE, Bain Capital, and JP Morgan Chase. The actions, which were partly organized by United Way, are part of a reemergence of Occupied Wall Street following a quiet period over the winter months.

  6. Ametia says:

    NEW YORK, NY – APRIL 17: A protestor passes out fliers with an image depicting Republican presidential candidate and former massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as a tax dodger during a tax day demonstration in front of the James A. Farley Post Office on April 17, 2012 in New York City. Dozens of protesters participated in a demonstration against loopholes that allow banks and corporations to pay lower income taxes than most individual tax filers. Similar rallies were held across the city throuhgout the day.

  7. Ametia says:


    President Obama Created the National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force To Enhance Enforcement Of Equal Pay Laws And Address Challenges That Prevent Women From Receiving Equal Pay For Equal Work. “The Equal Pay Task Force brings together the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor and the Office of Personnel Management to address specific challenges preventing women from receiving equal pay for equal work. These recommendations call for new levels of interagency coordination and communication and will result in improved enforcement of equal pay laws and a workforce better educated on its right to equal pay and employers better educated on how to provide it.” [National Economic Council,October 2010]

    Under President Obama, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Has Awarded More Than $62 Million To Victims Of Sex-Based Wage Discrimination Since January 2010. “$62.5 million in monetary relief has been obtained for victims of sex-based wage discrimination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission since January 2010.” [White House Council on Women and Girls,4/6/12]

    The Office Of Federal Contract And Compliance Programs Recovered Approximately $1.4 Million In Back Wages And Salary Adjustments For Workers Affected By Pay Discrimination Based On Sex Or Race.“The Office of Federal Contract and Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has recovered about $1.4 million in back wages and salary adjustments for more than 500 workers affected by pay discrimination based on sex or race.” [White House Council on Women and Girls, 4/6/12]

    More Than $7.6 Million In Back Wages Was Recovered In FY 2011 For Women Who Suffered Sex Discrimination In Employment.“In FY 2011, OFCCP and the Department of Labor (which enforces affirmative action and equal opportunity laws contractually agreed to by federal contractors) recovered more than $7.6 million in back wages for women who suffered sex discrimination (including discrimination in hiring and pay, and harassment) in employment.” [White House Council on Women and Girls, 4/6/12]

  8. Ametia says:

    Statement from OFA Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter on Equal Pay Day
    April 17, 2012

    Chicago, IL — Obama for America Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter released the following statement on Equal Pay Day:

    “The first piece of legislation President Obama signed after taking office was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which strengthens women’s ability to enforce their right to equal pay. Through his actions as President, he has demonstrated his commitment to women’s economic security- from making it easier for women to receive equal pay for equal work, to ensuring women won’t pay more than men for their health care and supporting women-owned small businesses through increased access to capital and new access to federal contracting programs.

    “Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has offered women little beyond lip service, distorted claims about the President’s record on women’s issues, and deep cuts in investments to the middle class. Yesterday, he again refused to say whether he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act into law, raising questions about why he feels the need to parse his words on a law that is so fundamental to the economic security not only of women, but also their families. Equal pay for equal work is at the heart of growing the middle class and it is a concept that we can’t afford to turn our backs on.”

  9. Ametia says:

    Billionaire investor Warren Buffett discloses he was diagnosed with stage 1 prostate cancer but says it is not life-threatening.

    Scans reveal the cancer has not spread to other parts of his body, he says. He will undergo radiation treatment beginning in July that will limit his travel.
    “I feel great — as if I were in my normal excellent health — and my energy level is 100%,” he says in a written statement.

  10. Ametia says:

    If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?
    Einer Elhauge
    April 13, 2012 | 12:00 am

    In making the legal case against Obamacare’s individual mandate, challengers have argued that the framers of our Constitution would certainly have found such a measure to be unconstitutional. Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases. The framers, challengers have claimed, thought a constitutional ban on purchase mandates was too “obvious” to mention. Their core basis for this claim is that purchase mandates are unprecedented, which they say would not be the case if it was understood this power existed.

    But there’s a major problem with this line of argument: It just isn’t true. The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

    That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

  11. rikyrah says:

    Let the Etch A Sketch shaking begin
    By Steve Benen – Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:03 PM EDT.

    Less than a week ago, Fred Barnes, a prominent Republican insider in DC, wrote, “According to a Romney adviser, his private view of immigration isn’t as anti-immigrant as he often sounded.”

    It was the first big hint that the campaign was already poised to shake the Etch A Sketch in a big way. After all, if Romney’s “private” views are at odds with what Romney has been saying in public, the presumptive Republican would stand poised to reinvent his persona all over again.

    Today, the campaign was even less subtle.

    Como se dice “Etch a Sketch” en espanol?

    Over the weekend, I noticed that Kris Kobach, Mitt Romney’s unpaid immigration adviser — and the inspiration for Romney’s “voluntary deportation” strategy – wasn’t included in a fairly comprehensive Boston Globe rundown of staff, advisers and the kitchen cabinet types.

    When I asked Boston if Kobach was still an “adviser,” a Romney spokesperson emailed back: “supporter.”

    Look, this is just silly. Kobach himself has boasted, on the record, “I have advised Romney directly, and his close team around him,” on immigration policy. He’s also said, “Comparing my involvement from 2008 to 2012, I’ve been much more involved” with Romney’s campaign. Talking to reporters at CPAC, Kobach also bragged that he interacts with Romney’s staff on a regular basis.

    Those comments came in February; perhaps his role as part of Team Romney has diminished since? Actually, Kobach told ThinkProgress today, “No, my relationship with the campaign has not changed. Still doing the same thing I was doing before.” And what might that entail? He added he’s still “providing advice on immigration policy,” and communicating “regularly with senior members of Romney’s team.”

    I can appreciate why the Romney campaign is scrambling — polls show large numbers of Latino voters repulsed by Romney’s anti-immigrant policies, and the fact that he pals around with Kris Kobach, the architect of harsh, right-wing immigration measures, only reinforces why so many in the Latino community won’t even consider backing the presumptive Republican nominee.

    But this isn’t a problem Romney can just flip-flop out of. He locked arms with Kobach to make the GOP’s anti-immigrant base happy, and after having jumped off that cliff, it’s too late to climb back up.

  12. Ametia says:

    April 17, 2012 10:57 AM
    Ga. police handcuff, arrest kindergartner for tantrum

    CBS News) MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. – A six-year-old kindergarten student who threw a tantrum was placed in handcuffs for her safety, police said.

    According to CBS Affiliate WMAZ, kindergartner Salecia Johnson is accused in a police report of tearing items off the walls and throwing furniture at Creekside Elementary School last Friday. The report also said the girl knocked over a shelf, injuring the principal.

    She was crying in the principal’s office at Creekside Elementary before police arrived Friday. The report says when the officer tried to calm the child, she resisted.
    She was handcuffed and taken to the police station, where she was charged with simple assault and damage to property, reports WMAZ correspondent Judy Le.

  13. Ametia says:

    Governor Corbett joins a long list of far-right wing Republicans working to systematically undermine women’s health care and economic security that Mitt Romney has embraced. From Senator Roy Blunt, who sponsored legislation that would allow bosses to deny women coverage for contraception and other health services based on their political beliefs, to Governor Scott Walker—Mitt Romney’s ‘hero’—who restricted Wisconsin women’s ability to enforce in court their right to equal pay, Mitt Romney has consistently cast his lot against American women .

    And today, he adds the support of Corbett, who has sought to force women to undergo ultrasounds before receiving abortions and even dismissed concerns about the procedure by saying that women could ‘close their eyes’ during it. Coming just one day after Mitt Romney refused to say whether he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, this endorsement speaks volumes about his commitment to women.” –Lis Smith, campaign spokeswoman

  14. Ametia says:

    Romney tries to ‘bracket’ Obama, plans ‘prebuttal’ speech in Charlotte
    By Philip Rucker, Tuesday, April 17, 11:52 AM

    To beat a sitting president, you first have to chase him around the country.

    At least that’s the operating theory at Mitt Romney’s campaign headquarters, where aides are unleashing an aggressive strategy to combat President Obama at his campaign stops and even adopt Obama’s itinerary as their own.

  15. rikyrah says:

    When lying is ‘a business plan’
    By Steve Benen – Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:46 AM EDT.

    Mitt and Ann Romney sat down with ABC’s Diane Sawyer yesterday for a wide-ranging interview, but what stood out for me was the presumptive Republican nominee arguing, “92%, 93% of the jobs lost have been lost by women during this president’s term.”

    As a simple matter of reality, Romney’s lying. He knows he’s lying. Everyone, including Fox News, realizes he’s lying.

    But Romney said it anyway, in part because he assumed Sawyer wouldn’t call him on it (she didn’t), and in part because he simply doesn’t care — Romney’s running for office, for Pete’s sake, and can’t be bothered to worry about telling Americans the truth.

    The problem comes when Romney develops a reputation as someone who simply cannot be trusted to be honest with the public. Consider, for example, Richard Cohen’s new column, which says, “I admire a smooth liar, and Romney is among the best.”

    A marathon of debates and an eon of campaigning have toughened and honed Romney. He commands the heights of great assurance, and he knows, as some of us learn too late in life, that the truth is not always a moral obligation but sometimes merely what works.

    He often cites his business background as commending him for the presidency. That’s his forgivable absurdity. Instead, what his career has given him is the businessman’s concept of self — that what he does is not who he is. This is what enables the slumlord to be a charitable man. This is what enables the corporate raider to endow his university. Business is business. It’s what you do. It is not who you are. Lying isn’t a sin. It’s a business plan.

    That’s a good line, but what matters more to me than Cohen’s argument is the column’s existence — Romney’s unnerving dishonesty is starting to get noticed in ways that had gone largely overlooked. Concerns are, in other words, going mainstream. Dana Milbank did a column on this recently, and now Cohen’s on the case.

    As I argued a week ago, this matters. This is about the point in a presidential campaign at which media “narratives” start to stick. Romney can live with mockery of his out-of-touch patrician elitism; he can tolerate talk of his role in orchestrating mass layoffs; he embraces his lack of leadership experience; and he’s confident he can overcome talk of his flip-flopping.

    But if political observers start to see Romney as a man who frequently lies to advance his ambitions, it’s a character flaw that’s awfully tough to live down.

    As Rachel recently explained, “Some dishonesty in national American politics is frankly routine. It’s too bad, but it’s true. Romney-style dishonesty is a sight to behold. It’s different. He’s bending the curve.”

  16. rikyrah says:

    Political AnimalBlog
    April 17, 2012 2:00 PM

    Don’t Forget the “Doughnut Hole”

    By Ed Kilgore

    In a generally interesting post at Ten Miles Square on the relative value and great popularity of Medicare, Aaron Carroll offers an important reminder about one recent improvement in both the value and popularity of the program:

    It turns out that Medicare has been looking better recently. Why? Because the prescription drug coverage has improved immensely since they started closing the “doughnut hole“. What did that, you might ask. Why the Affordable Care Act, of course.

    The “doughnut hole,” as you may recall, was a budget-driven anomaly in the original Medicare Rx Drug benefit whereby coverage ceased when an individual’s costs exceeded a certain amount, and then resumed when they reached a much higher amount. ACA offered beneficiaries a one-time $250 rebate to help cover the “hole” in 2010, and then required pharmaceutical companies to offer discounts on drugs that would otherwise boost out-of-pocket costs for prescriptions that fell into the “hole.”

    A new HHS report indicates that 3.6 million Medicare enrollees saved a total of $2.1 billion in 2011 thanks to these ACA provisions. And since the discounts are phased in slowly between 2010 and 2020, the savings will only increase in the future.

    If ACA is overturned by the Supreme Court, or is killed by a future Republican-controlled Congress, this very tangible benefit will go away, too. That’s worth remembering, particularly if you are talking to a senior who’s been besieged with “death panel” propaganda about the supposed threat ACA poses to Medicare benefits.

  17. rikyrah says:

    April 16, 2012 9:38 AM

    The Presidential Election Matters. A Lot.

    By Keith Humphreys

    Doug Mataconis is a smart political analyst, but I don’t think he makes a compelling case that it doesn’t much matter who wins the 2012 Presidential Election. He notes some areas of policy that he believes will be similar under Romney or Obama, and there is no doubt that in at least some cases he is correct. But I still find his basic conclusion unconvincing, for at least four reasons:

    1. We. Are. At. War. Americans in uniform are fighting and dying overseas. I may be sensitive about this issue because I am from a military family and I have professional responsibilities to care for wounded veterans, but I have been continually amazed through the past decade how life in America goes blithely on while the 2% of families who members are serving pay the costs of these wars (admittedly, the other 98% did accept tax cuts with patriotic stoicism).

    Can you imagine going back through American history, to 1972 or 1944 or 1916 and saying “Yeah, we are at war, but it really isn’t important who we elect as commander in chief?”. Of course it matters. If you don’t believe me, talk to someone who is serving overseas right now or learning to walk again at a VA medical center.

    2. After 219 straight years of Caucasian Presidents, this country finally elected an African-American. If voters throw him out of office only 4 years later to return to the white norm, it will have a scarring effect on many people of colour for years to come. In contrast, re-election of Obama would redound positively in the U.S. racial atmosphere.

    3. As Harold Pollack has pointed out, if Barack Obama loses, the Affordable Care Act is toast. In contrast, if he is re-elected, the law will be fully phased in by the time he leaves office and will probably become an enduring feature of American life.

    4. The above point brings to mind of course the question of whether the SCOTUS will strangle ACA before the election. It could, but that still wouldn’t make the election unimportant. Come election day, three of the nine SCOTUS justices will be in their late 70s. ‘Nuff said.

  18. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 01:37 PM ET, 04/17/2012
    Dear media: Tell readers the truth about GOP filibustering
    By Jonathan Bernstein

    The death-by-filibuster of the Buffett Rule in the Senate yesterday revealed, among other things, that the news media still has a ways to go in learning how to report on the era of the 60-vote Senate.

    Most Americans, not surprisingly, do not realize that majorities can no longer get their way in the Senate. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that most key votes in the Senate were based on simple majority voting. Only since 1993 has constant filibustering been common, and only in 2009 did Republicans create a situation in which virtually everything requires a supermajority. Reporting in these circumstances is a bit tricky, but if you are going to tell the full story of a bill killed by filibuster, you need to report not just the outcome — a bill lost — but that majority sentiment was thwarted by a minority.

    So, how did the major papers do yesterday? Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post had the word “filibuster” in their on-line front page headlines or teasers. The Post story does get the “F” word into her second paragraph, which is good. The Times story merely refers to the 60 votes the Democrats “needed” to pass the bill, without mentioning that the 60 votes were “needed” to break a GOP filibuster until way down in the eighth paragraph. Politico called it a “filibuster” in the second graf. But none of the three stories said explicitly that a minority of Senators defeated a majority.

    CNN’s web story was particularly awful, reporting simply that “the Democrats fell nine votes short.” There was no mention of a filibuster, or that the “nine votes short” added up a 51 vote majority — so no one reading the story could deduce that a majority of the Senate favored the policy. The Los Angeles Times, in a broader story, also claimed that the Buffett Rule was blocked by “Republican-led opposition,” whatever that means. Again, no mention at all of a filibuster, or which way the majority voted.

  19. rikyrah says:

    here’s the thing…
    Willard has been running for President since 2007.

    Which means to me that he should have had the returns from at least 2005 and beyond ready for publication.

    the fact that he hasn’t,

    that he’s arrogant enough to think that the rules that have applied to all other candidates don’t apply to them.

    once again, I ask why it’s not obvious that he’s the poster child for rich, White, Entitlement Syndrome.


    He Has Something to Hide
    by BooMan
    Tue Apr 17th, 2012 at 11:24:38 AM EST

    Marc Thiessen is concerned:

    Even Republicans are starting to ask: What could possibly be in [Romney’s] old tax returns that is worse than creating the impression he has something to hide? When Romney finally released his 2010 return, it was revealed that he had millions in an offshore Cayman Islands fund and millions more in a Swiss bank account he had failed to disclose earlier. This was perfectly legal, if politically tone-deaf. The man had been running for president for nearly eight years. One would think that, by 2010, he would have scrubbed his finances to get rid of any controversial investments. Whatever is in his earlier tax returns, Romney is better off releasing them and enduring some more bad press than giving Team Obama more fodder for its “what is Mitt hiding” campaign.

    I’m just guessing here, but no, Romney is probably not better off releasing his past tax returns or he would have already done so.

    Thiessen is asking why Romney keeps shooting himself in the foot on the tax return issue. The simplest explanation is that he is pursuing the path that exacts the least political pain. Even if he looks evasive and dishonest, that’s better than whatever those tax returns would reveal.

    The only alternative theory is that Romney and his team are truly stupid.

    When even conservatives are beginning to ask: “What could possibly be in his old tax returns that is worse than creating the impression he has something to hide?” you can be sure that whatever it is is very bad.

    • Ametia says:

      This MOFO thinks he can skate by without producing his tax returns because…….. DRUMROLL……….

      WHITE PRIVILEGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  20. rikyrah says:

    Key fissures emerge between GOP, military leaders
    By Steve Benen – Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:19 AM EDT.

    House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) recently caused some trouble when he accused America’s military leadership of deliberately misleading Congress about Pentagon spending levels. It wasn’t obvious at the time, but the flap was evidence of a larger fissure between Republicans and the brass.

    In this case, the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs want nearly $500 billion in spending cuts over the next decade. Ryan responded that they say they want the cuts, but he and Republicans think they’re lying, and prefer to give the Pentagon more money than it’s asked for.

    Soon after, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) backed Ryan up, saying Republicans “hear about” divisions at Defense about the budget. Though the Joint Chiefs say publicly they’re unanimous in their support of the plan, McConnell said Republicans are “aware of” the “dissent within the Pentagon.”

    Kevin Baron has a new piece, effectively arguing that it’s time for the GOP to put up or shut up.

    If the senior-most Republican in the Senate knows of dissenters in the senior ranks, it’s time to produce them. Put them on the witness stand and roll tape. Under the protection of giving their “best military advice,” heretofore silent dissenters should tell the public why they oppose what the administration has put forth. This is national security, after all, and the nation is at war. […]

    For a year, Republican members and conservative hawks off Capitol Hill have been saying that the military needs a bigger budget than Obama is willing to provide. While the Joint Chiefs signed off on a new strategic guidance for smaller and more-agile armed forces, conservatives have stayed their course, arguing that the Defense Department needs more troops and weapons. That’s not what the members of Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that they wanted. It’s not what a host of other senior U.S. combat commanders and program officers have testified under oath that the U.S. requires.

    Baron added that we’re looking at a “GOP-versus-the-Generals” theme that “only threatens to grow.”

    I’d just add that the disagreements between Republicans and U.S. military leaders have been growing steadily in recent years. The notion of Republicans siding with the military is supposed to be one of those assumed truths that the political world is simply supposed to accept as a given. But over the few years, on most of the major policy disputes related to national security and defense, it’s been Democrats (on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue), not Republicans, who’ve sided with U.S. military leaders.


    When it came to political fights over the New START treaty, torture policies, closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, negotiations with the Taliban, and even repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Republicans not only disagreed with the brass, they acted as if military leaders’ judgment was untrustworthy and better left ignored. We’re seeing this same dynamic play out again on the budget.

  21. rikyrah says:

    Mitt Romney Blames Obama For His Refusal To Release His Tax Returns

    Mitt Romney finally sat down for an interview with the mainstream media (insert clapping here; this is a huge step for a Fox Republican). In his ABC World News interview with Diane Sawyer, Mitt took the opportunity to side step her questions about his refusal to release his tax returns and blamed Obama for his decision.

    Mitt Romney isn’t going to turn over more than one year of tax returns (maybe two, but the second won’t be unveiled until weeks before the election) because… Obama.

    It’s all Obama’s fault. Mitt claims that Obama wants to avoid discussing the Bush economy (that is also Obama’s fault, according to Mitt) and so Obama brought up Mitt’s tax returns for no good reason. Never mind that releasing tax returns is long-standing precedent of transparency; itself a tenet of our system of government. Heck, Mitt’s own father released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for President, former President Bush released 17 years and Obama has released over a decade’s worth of returns…

    Mitt doesn’t have to because… Obama!


    And exactly as John McCain and– and– John Kerry had, and– I know the Obama people want to get us to do something that will cause a lot of attention to be drawn to the fact that I’ve been successful. John McCain wasn’t worried about diverting from the issues of– of the– of the day, but I understand that the Democrats are going to try and do everything in their power to keep this election from being about the failure of President Obama to turn around our economy.

    Ah, yes. It all makes sense now. Romney gave two years (but not really) and that is enough because of Obama. Yes, see, Obama expects Mitt to comply with the same rules as the rest of the candidates, but somehow Romney sees this as Obama wanting to distract the public with Romney’s success.

    It’s not that Romney has anything to hide; it’s just that he doesn’t want you knowing all about his success because then mean Obama would make him talk about what it means to be the elite of the 1%. Also, you might get peeved when you saw how much money he made and how he pays a much lower percentage of taxes on his overall haul than you do, which would make you agree that the Buffett Rule would be cool, and that would be bad for Mitt.

    Without Romney’s Republican opponents also demanding that Romney release his tax return for 2010, we might still know nothing about Romney’s tax rate or what he stands to gain personally by the tax policies he is proposing.

    The American people would like to see Mitt Romney’s tax returns, just like any other candidate discloses theirs. We’d particularly like to see the years when he was governor and when he ran Bain Capital. But Mitt Romney thinks he’s above transparency. Notice how he tripped over the section where he explain his way out of the question?

    • Ametia says:

      The unmitigated gull of this MOFO. “THE BLACK GUY IS MAKING ME RELEASE MY TAX RETURNS… MAKE HIM STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  22. rikyrah says:

    PROGRESSIVE VICTORY: ALEC Ends Its Guns And Voter Suppression Task Force
    By Scott Keyes on Apr 17, 2012 at 11:54 am

    In the face of mounting pressure from progressive activists and its own corporate sponsors, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a right-wing group funded by corporations like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, announced today that it will shut down a task force that deals with “non-economic issues,” like voter suppression efforts and “stand your ground” gun laws. ALEC came under intense scrutiny over the past few weeks after progressive groups like Color of Change began pressuring corporations that fund ALEC to drop their support. The Center for American Progress also released a report highlighting the right-wing group’s role in pushing voter suppression efforts around the country. As a result, 10 companies, including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Kraft, have pulled out from ALEC.

    In response to the exodus of corporate funding, ALEC made the decision today to scale back its operations and focus on “economic” matters. The group released the following statement:

    We are eliminating the ALEC Public Safety and Elections task force that dealt with non-economic issues, and reinvesting these resources in the task forces that focus on the economy. The remaining budgetary and economic issues will be reassigned.

    This is a monumental move. The now defunct ALEC task force helped usher countless reactionary laws through state legislatures. Most prominent among these are “stand your ground” gun laws that came to the forefront in Florida after Trayvon Martin’s tragic death, and new voter ID laws that could suppress millions across the country, predominantly poor people and minorities.

  23. Ametia says:

    Morning Joe Clash Over Romney’s Wealth And ‘Class Warfare:’ People ‘Trust Rich Guys’ Over Big Goverment
    by Alex Alvarez | 8:10 am, April 17th, 2012

    “It’s not going to work,” Scarborough explained, “because I believe, and most people where I’m from believe, that you can still succeed in America and get rich in America even if you’re working class. And that sort of class resentment… It never played out in our house, even when my dad was unemployed. And, I’ve got to say, it still doesn’t play out in trailer parks across America, and I say that as somebody who in the summer went to visit my grandmom and stayed in the trailer.”

  24. rikyrah says:

    Media Fail: The “Cockiness” of Michael Tomasky
    April 17, 2012 By Miranda

    So Michael Tomasky believes President Obama has a “cockiness” problem huh?

    Well POU commenter Aleth has a response to the so-called cockiness problem imagined by this writer for The Daily Beast. Its a classic!

    If there is one camp that has played the election game safe, it is the Obama campaign. Everyone of their team says it would be a difficult reelection and every dollar counts. It’s funny because if any OTHER president including Republican had Obama’s accomplishment, his approval would be in the 70s. But with authors like Michael, who seems to think he is sending the team an unwarranted advice but rather the headline is to gain attention.

    In reading his entire article, you end up looking for the alleged “cockiness problem.” Where is it? You will not find it.

    According to Webster, cocky means “to be boldly and brashly self confident.” Again, re-read the examples cited by this author and you see nothing, absolutely nothing.

    Funny, the only person who is not allowed to eat argula; travel with his family; use air force one without silly complaints from irate journalist who could give two shits about clearing non-existent bushes; be confident; speak without progressive approval; dance without upsetting certain black academia’s assertion it’s a stereotype of black folk; speak firmly without upsetting the media’s tone bullshit; have coverage on his trips abroad; remain honest (while the competitor lies continuously yet enjoys bullshit statements like he’s smart); watched like a hawk; over-analyzed; mistreated and disrespected in every avenue from liberals to “you lie” conservatives; question his birth place; disrespect his wife and kids (yet it’s not on 24 hour analysis TV or seeking an apology like faux Ms Ann); create faux outrage; helps so many disenfranchised (at least native Americans acknowledge that he has done more for them than the last 5 presidents combined, while some of these faux LGBT folks who have made strides continue their bull); gives oval office address without making some TV pundit have to create their bullshit idea of what it should look like; polled on everything every damn day (i.e. do you think the president was nice today?); deal and smile with the most insecure bunch of representatives in the senate and congress (yep including democrats, yes I said it!); speak on women’s rights, men’s struggles; collective struggles (without a million interest groups complaining – funny enough these folks lost their voice with all those white presidents); unions and corporations (without upsetting their representatives who don’t read shit but follow the wind of outrage), on and on and on and on…is President Obama.

    Stating the president should “start packing” or “it’s our turn” did not warrant an article from Michael. Oh no, that’s what in their world is allowed for a white male to say. Imagine the President, heck the First Lady… Let’s not even go there. I am preaching to the choir.

    But don’t worry, somehow this silly article will find its way to Huffington Post, then CNN and MSNBC.

    Projection is the name of the game.

  25. rikyrah says:

    Roseanne Barr on Ann and Mitt Romney and the Mommy Wars
    Apr 16, 2012 10:37 AM EDT
    Let us not be dragged back into the “working mom versus stay-at-home mom” dialogue.
    By Roseanne Barr.

    I almost got sick to my stomach when I heard Hilary Rosen’s unfortunate words regarding Mrs. Mitt Romney

    It’s a shame that Rosen lobbed the Romney campaign a fat political softball they could smack over the gender fence. It’s especially unfortunate because Romney was on the ropes with American women, at least the ones with an IQ higher than Ramblin’ Rick Santorum’s. After the Republicans had alienated at least half the voting public by all but condemning birth control, suddenly Rosen’s remark enabled them to self-righteously assume the role of defenders of American motherhood. Mitt Romney, who’s shown himself to be the empty suit that even most Republicans know he is, had proven it by making ridiculous statements like “Not the language I would have used” when asked what he thought of Rush Limbaugh’s disgusting, insulting tirade directed at a young woman testifying before Congress. Limbaugh called her a slut and suggested that she owed the tax-paying public a sex tape. Mitt the Twit rolled that around in his tiny brain, and then, when pressed, he announced that he thought Rush, the painkiller lush, was just a bit over the top. God, he’s brave! Limbaugh’s insane comments were barely a blip on Romney’s radar, but the Rosen comment is a huge deal in Mitt’s world.

    The media, which are completely clueless about every single issue that affects American women, must have had a shiver run down their nonexistent spine when they realized they could dig out the old “stay-at-home mom versus working mom” script that worked so well to divide and conquer mothers and women along class lines to help defeat the Equal Rights Amendment back in my 20s.

    Mrs. Mitt Romney and one of her adult sons took to the airwaves in defense of countless stay-at-home mothers whose husbands are billionaire insurance-company hucksters and corporate raiders, and both represented a decadent and crumbling empire well. Mrs. Mitt Romney claims to have worked her toned ass off, raising five Romney males all on her own, as privileged wives often do—but, no, Ann, I call bullshit on your Big Mama story, girlfriend. Your son may flash that “I adore my mother” grin on cable TV all day as he backs up your claims that you did it all on your own with no help—except from a “lady” who comes in one or two hours a week to help with housework. Of course neither Mrs. Mitt Romney nor her son knew the name of the “cleaning lady,” either, because like 99 percent of rich people, they are oblivious to those women who do work outside the home, even when they work inside the home of the Romney family. I say let’s find that “cleaning lady” (if she is documented) and ask HER how many hours she worked per week over the years.

  26. rikyrah says:

    An open letter to Ann Romney
    Dear Mrs. Romney,

    Perhaps you can advise me. Since you have raised 5 boys, I’m sure you’ll understand. One of the kids is sick again and I have no sick days left at work. In fact, my boss gave me a bad performance review and no raise this year because he said I obviously don’t care that much about my job since I’ve missed so many days and if I miss anymore he may have to replace me. Whenever my child gets sick, my boss reminds me how easily I can be replaced.

    We don’t have health insurance at my job, so, if my boy gets worse, I’ll probably be at the ER most of the night tonight. Not for the first time, but that’s ok, he’ll get care. It’s tomorrow I’m worried about.

    As you know, regular day care will not take a sick child, so if I want to work when my child is sick, I have to pay for sick child day care, which costs as much as I make, and, as I’m sure you know from personal experience, I still have to pay my regular day care, whether my child is there or out sick, so I actually lose money in order to work while he’s sick. It’s that or take a chance on losing my job entirely.

    Should I take my child to the day care for sick kids and lose money and not have enough for my bills this month, so I can keep my job, or should I stay home with my sick child and hope that I don’t get fired?

    What did you do when this happened to you?

    Sincerely, Just Another Mom…nn_romney/


  27. Ametia says:

    Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM PDT.
    Mitt Romney: I am not a tax crook!

    Mitt Romney’s campaign explains why he doesn’t need to release any more tax returns than the one year’s worth he’s already disclosed:

    Mitt Romney has been scrupulous about observing the requirements of the tax code. His income is reported and taxed in full compliance with U.S. law, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed. His good name means everything to him. Throughout his life in this and in other matters, he has conducted his personal and business affairs so as to be beyond reproach.

    <b. So far beyond reproach, in fact, that they don't believe anyone has a right to see exactly just how far beyond reproach he went. But you can trust Mitt Romney isn't a tax crook. His good name means everything to him, after all.

    Sure, in 2008, Mitt Romney was willing to give John McCain 23 years worth of tax returns during the vice presidential vetting process. And sure, McCain ultimately picked Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney. But there’s nothing in those returns that would make Mitt look bad. How do we know? Because his campaign said so. Mitt Romney isn’t a tax crook. Period.

  28. Ametia says:


    Mitt Romney is refusing to follow the precedent of transparency set by past presidential candidates. While President Obama has released over a decade of tax returns, Mitt Romney has only released one year of returns. What is he hiding from the American people?

  29. Ametia says:

    Romney’s Female Surrogates Oppose Women’s Rights
    Ben Adler on April 13, 2012 – 11:07 AM ET

    Mitt Romney thought he had found the right wedge to drive between President Obama and women: unemployment. On Wednesday morning Romney started the day off with a speech in Hartford, Connecticut, blaming Obama for job losses among women since he took office. Said Romney:

    I was disappointed in listening to the President as he’s saying ‘Republicans are waging a war on women.’ The real war on women is being waged by the President’s failed economic policies.… These are just some statistics which show just how severe the war on women has been by virtue of the President’s failed policies. The number of jobs … this is an amazing statistic…the percentage of jobs lost by women in the President’s three years, three and a half years, 92.3 percent of all the jobs lost during the Obama years have been lost by women. 92.3 percent!

    This is merely a variation on the same intellectually dishonest nonsense that Republicans have been slinging at Obama for years. There is a lag between when a president takes office and when his policies are imposed, then take effect, and then have measurable results. The job losses during Obama’s first year in office are the result of the economic

  30. Ametia says:

    Hello taxpayer! I’m Mitt Romney.* Some people say I don’t pay my fair share in taxes. Well, let’s just see about that. Enter in your wages and federal taxes and we’ll compare your rate to my mittrate.

    • Ametia says:

      Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Is Still a Mathematical Failure
      By Matthew O’Brien
      Apr 16 2012, 6:42 PM ET11

      Even if Romney’s hot mic moment is a preview of the loopholes he would close, his tax plan creates a lot of red ink.

      The last time we checked in on Mitt Romney’s tax plan, the numbers didn’t add up. Actually, there weren’t any numbers to add up. Instead, there was a not very plausible promise to make the numbers add up at a later date. At stake was that Romney only spelled out the taxes and not the tax deductions that he wanted to cut. Basically, he told us what was for dessert, but not for dinner. Because he promised that his plan would be “revenue neutral,” these numbers had to offset each other. But if Romney’s recent hot mic moment is any indication, they don’t. Not even close.

  31. Ametia says:


    • Ametia says:

      GOP= a small group of whtie men who want government completely out of AMERICAN’S LIVES, so they can GET INTO & CONTROL AMERICAN’S LIVES.

  32. Ametia says:

    Your 2011 Federal Taxpayer Receipt
    Civil Rights
    Energy & Environment
    Fiscal Responsibility
    Foreign Policy
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Seniors & Social Security
    Tax Receipt
    Tax Cuts, Unemployment Insurance and Jobs
    Urban Policy
    Additional Issues
    In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama promised that, for the first time ever, American taxpayers would be able to go online and see exactly how their federal tax dollars are spent. The receipt launched that year and, now, we’ve updated the tool to reflect current spending. Just enter a few pieces of information about your taxes, and the taxpayer receipt will give you a breakdown of how your tax dollars are spent on priorities like education, veterans benefits, or health care.

  33. Ametia says:

    Billionaires fall in line
    By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 4/16/12 7:27 PM EDT

    The super PAC mega-donors who dragged out the GOP primary are getting behind the establishment, rather than continuing to back rogue candidates and causes — as some in the Republican Party feared.

    Donors like Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess, who gave millions to anti-establishment presidential primary campaigns, are starting to fall in line — promising to support Mitt Romney and cutting checks to groups fighting for congressional Republicans.

    It’s all good news for Republicans, since the moves suggest big outside donors who supported anti-establishment candidates are prepared to keep playing big in the general — but this time, it’s to beat up Democrats instead of rival Republicans. And the moves come as various factions of the conservative base — some of which had shown signs they’d resist a Romney-led ticket — also are coming together to support him, too.

    “With the Republican presidential primary winding down, donors are starting to look at the national battlefield and what it’s going to take to win the White House, keep the House and win the Senate,” said Dan Conston, a spokesman for the Congressional Leadership Fund, the Boehner-linked super PAC. It revealed Sunday that almost all of the $5.1 million it raised in the first three months of the year came from the Adelsons.

    “If there’s a President Romney, donors want to see the best case scenario of a Speaker Boehner and a Senate Majority Leader [Mitch] McConnell, and if the president is somehow reelected, the last thing the country needs is a Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and a Senate Majority Leader [Harry] Reid.”<b.

    Read more:

  34. Ametia says:

    Michelle Obama: ‘I Don’t Have The Stressful Job. He Does’
    To White House outsiders and maybe even more than a few insiders, the life of a first lady would seem to be a fairly anxiety-inducing one. After all, there is no greater fish bowl than 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    So NPR’s Michel Martin, host of Tell Me More, asked First Lady Michelle Obama during an interview scheduled to air Tuesday how she deals with the pressures of being both the president’s wife and the mother of school-age children.

    Mrs. Obama, however, didn’t accept Michel’s premise:

    “I have to disagree. I don’t have the stressful job. He does. I have the privilege of working on the issues that I choose and the issues that I feel most passionate about.

    “There are definitely pressures that come from being in the spotlight, but they are far overshadowed by the amount of great things I’ve been able to do and the impact I’ve been able to have. And to be able to do it in the warmth of the White House and to do it around people who do care about my kids and a country that has been respectful of mu children and their privacy, it has been less stressful than I would have imagined for me.

  35. Ametia says:

    I think this clown is worth psoting again, to give folks a reminder of what he did to the good OLD US of A, and what he is continuing to push as sound financial advise for America. SMGDH

  36. Ametia says:

    Who says women don’t care about wages?By Sandra Fluke, Special to CNN
    April 17, 2012 — Updated 1241 GMT (2041 HKT)

    CNN) — Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman, who supports Gov. Scott Walker’s repeal of a law that protected workers from pay discrimination, recently said, “You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious.”

    As a graduating student surrounded by classmates about to assume their first jobs, I assure the senator that none of my female classmates is thinking, “Salary isn’t that important to me. I don’t plan to work hard and don’t need to be paid fairly, because I won’t be a breadwinner. A man will come along to take care of that for me.”

    Instead, many young women about to enter the workforce are focused on paying off their student loan debt. Those who are also mothers are worried about how to financially provide for, and simultaneously care for, their young children. The single moms among us face even larger challenges. And we are worried about our sisters who don’t have college degrees and so don’t have the same earning power.

  37. Ametia says:

    Betty Dukle,right, was plaintiff in a 2011 wages discrimination case against Walmart. The Supreme Court turned it away.

  38. Ametia says:

    On Equal Pay Day, American women still earn less than men for the same work

    Tuesday, April 17, is Equal Pay Day. This date represents how far into 2012 women must work to earn what men earned in 2011. Because, on average, women get paid 77 cents for every dollar men earn, they have to work more for the same pay.

    This disparity goes beyond the issue of gender equality. This is an economic injustice that affects nearly half the workers in this country.

    The Department of Labor estimates that women made up 47 percent of the total U.S. labor force in 2010, accounting for up to 66 million workers. Overall, 73 percent of employed women worked full time, while 27 percent worked part time.

    We cannot afford to be underpaying almost half the workers when our country is experiencing such challenging economic times. And women are not the only ones affected. Families are affected. Almost 14 million married couples with children relied on two incomes in 2009, representing 60 percent of all married couples with children, according to the National Women’s Law Center.

    Black and Latina women are affected. African-American women make only 62 cents, and Latinas only 53 cents, for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men, the law center notes. Considering that they represent the two largest ethnic groups in the country, we are continuing the economic segregation that defined much of the last century.

    Single mothers and their children are affected. Lower earnings cripple the economic security of the 6,340,000 families headed by working single mothers, 41 percent of whom already live below the federal poverty line.

    The ability of women to retire is affected. The Center for American Progress estimates that a typical woman would lose $434,000 over a 40-year period due to the wage gap. Economist Evelyn Murphy, president of The WAGE Project, estimates that the wage gap costs the average American full-time woman worker between $700,000 and $2 million over the course of her lifetime. Lower lifetime earnings mean lower Social Security benefits for women.

    Read more here:

  39. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 02:41 PM ET, 04/16/2012
    TheWashingtonPost Michelle Obama, paradox
    By Krissah Thompson

    Evanston, Ill. – “Michelle Obama is a genuine paradox,” said Darlene Clark Hine, a professor of African American studies and history at

    President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama arrive to welcome Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife Samantha Cameron to the White House prior to a state dinner.

    Hine’s lecture, part of a black studies conference at the university last week, argued that the first lady is a “transformative, liberationist” figure — despite her interest in domestic issues and the long list of magazine cover stories focused on topics such as Obama’s approach to motherhood or the importance of healthful eating.

    “I caution: Let us not be distracted by a first lady draped in gowns, gracing the covers of women’s magazine’s from ‘Essence’ to ‘Vogue’ or a first lady on her knees planting a White House garden or a first lady jumping double-dutch rope with an array of young girls,” Hine said. “Rather let us appreciate the paradox.”

    That paradox is rooted in the soft-focus lens that Obama is viewed through, which clouds the genuine policy gains Obama is making, said Hine, who is co-editor of a reader in black women’s history.

    The professor suggests that Michelle Obama’s work is not taken seriously enough. Obama, a popular and high-profile first lady, has appeared frequently on daytime talk shows and been a fairly regular figure on Nickelodeon. She came into office declaring herself mom-in-chief and has pushed back against suggestions that she is a power player in the White House.

  40. rikyrah says:

    Clearly Concerned About Women
    Posted on 04/16/2012 at 4:30 pm by JM Ashby

    As Bob pointed out earlier, Mitt Romney’s pledge to eliminate the Department of Public Housing and Urban Development to a group of wealthy donors in Florida yesterday would disproportionately effect minorities, however another group of Americans it would effect in great numbers is single mothers.

    Furthermore, according to the National Poverty Center, the elimination of public housing actually decreases the chances that a recipient will find a new job. Something Mitt Romney really wants them to do.

    in 2008, 20.3 percent of all low-income single mothers and 20.8% of all disconnected mothers received public housing or housing subsidies (Loprest & Nichols, 2011). As noted below, however, these studies do not distinguish between receipt of public housing and tenant-based housing subsidies.

    Researchers examining the nexus between welfare reform and publicly assisted housing have focused, for the most part, on the effect that housing assistance might have on welfare
    recipients’ abilities to secure employment and increase their incomes while reducing their reliance on public assistance. They have sought to understand whether the existence of housing assistance serves as an incentive or a disincentive to work. Findings on the short-term effects of housing assistance on employment have been mixed, and have tended not to distinguish between types of housing assistance (Olsen, Tyler, King & Carrillo, 2005). A 2003 HUD study of Connecticut and Minnesota (Verma, Riccio, & Azurdia, 2003) suggested that welfare recipients who received housing assistance had better outcomes in terms of employment and earnings than those who did not.

    It seems obvious that someone with a home would have an easier time finding a job than someone who is homeless, but that doesn’t matter to Mitt Romney who will serve you a platitude as soon as you take a number.

    • Ametia says:

      Mitt Romney has 4 or more HOMES and talks of getting rid of planned parenthood, educations programs, dept of housing & URBAN development- BTW, URBAN =NEGROES! in Romney’s world. ad Mitt likes FIRING PEOPLE!

      CHECK! He’s real concerned about women.

  41. rikyrah says:

    Miami-Dade fire captain on Zimmerman charges: Blame ‘sh*tbag’ parents of ‘our urban youth’
    By Joy-Ann Reid

    5:30 PM on 04/13/2012

    The Miami-Dade Fire-Rescue Department is investigating a Facebook post by one of its captains that seems to blame the shooting death of Trayvon Martin on the “shi*tbag parents” of “our urban youth,” and the “ghetto hoodie look” of young black men like Martin.

    The entry was posted on the personal Facebook page of Miami-Dade fire captain Brian Beckmann. The Facebook page bears the same profile picture as the entry, which appears to have been deleted, but which was captured in a screengrab sent to theGrio.

    The page’s profile entry lists Metro-Dade Firefighters Local 1403.

    The entry appears to have been created on Wednesday, the night State Attorney Angela Corey announced she would file second degree murder charges against George Zimmerman over Martin’s shooting death.

    “Listening to Prosecutor Corey blow herself and her staff for five minutes before pre-passing judgment on George Zimmerman,” it read.

    “The state seeks reelection again, truth aside. I and my coworkers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, sh*tbag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents, but like Mrs. Corey, we speak only the truth. They’re just misunderstood little church going angels and the ghetto hoodie look doesn’t have anything to do with why people wonder if they’re about to get jacked by a thug.”

    Beckmann responded to questions about the page in a Facebook message, saying, “I am a private citizen and have the same right to freely express an opinion on any subject that anyone else does. I choose not to embellish or alter the facts as your employer chose to do.”

    He offered to contact theGrio when he was “off duty” for further comment.

  42. rikyrah says:

    Michelle Obama hits her campaign stride in 2012
    By Justin Sink – 04/17/12 05:00 AM ET

    Michelle Obama has become a more comfortable and willing surrogate for her husband this election cycle, using appearances on television programs to target voters who might not normally be engaged in the political process.

    Leveraging her popularity on behalf of President Obama will be important in November, especially with Ann Romney having shown herself to be a powerful campaigner able to make headlines for her husband, Mitt Romney.

    The first lady is everywhere lately, revealing old prom photos to talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres, trading complimentary tweets with pop star Beyonce and sack-racing through the halls of the White House with comedian Jimmy Fallon.

    And while her efforts are ostensibly in support of her initiatives to reduce childhood obesity and help unemployed military veterans, there’s little doubt the first lady is using the series of unconventional appearances to pave inroads to independent voters.

  43. rikyrah says:

    oh, look who Artur’s hanging out with.

    he’s trying hard for that jiggling and cooning spot.

    THIS is but another reason why those folks in Alabama KNOW they did the right thing by giving Artur the finger.


    “ScrewTrue the Vote”: Would It Be Wrong to Pray for A Meteorite?
    By Anne Laurie
    April 16th, 2012

    I do not remember hearing about this convention until Dave Weigel’s Slate post today…

    John Fund, the reporter and freelance pro-voter-ID speaker, encouraged the morning audience at Herman Cain’s “Solutions Revolution” to mark April 27-28 on their calendars. On that weekend, the Tea Party spinoff group True the Vote will hold its second annual summit on election fraud—or, at least, the threat of election fraud.

    The conference will feature some mainstays of the conservative voter integrity circuit. James O’Keefe; former DOJ lawyer/anti-New Black Panther crusader J. Christian Adams; and so on. But the star is Artur Davis, the former Democratic congressman from Alabama who has started irritating his old party by ringing bells about voter fraud…

  44. Ametia says:

    Return of the ‘white man’s party?
    By Charles Lane, Published: April 16

    In 1868, Horatio Seymour ran for president as the nominee of the Democratic Party, or the “white man’s party,” as it was called. The Democratic heartland in those days was the “reconstructed” South. White men there loathed the Republican Party and its standard-bearer, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant — who relied on the votes of newly enfranchised blacks. Women, of course, could not vote.

    Today, such overt racial appeals are as passe as the “solid” Democratic South. But racial polarization, alas, is not. As election analyst Sean Trende argues in a provocative new book, “The Lost Majority,” one plausible scenario for the American future is the entrenchment of “racialized” parties — a prospect that should concern anyone familiar with the American past.

  45. Ametia says:


    Romney speaks to Independence Hall Tea Party at ‘tax day summit’

    Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

    With the Republican nomination in hand but skeptics remaining on his right, Mitt Romney told a “tax day summit” of tea party activists at the Franklin Institute Monday night that he was determined to shrink the federal government and keep runaway regulation and high taxes from killing jobs.

    “The economy is struggling because the government is too big, and we’re going to bring it down to size,” Romney told about 400 cheering people at the event organized by the Independence Hall Tea Party. “This campaign is going to be fun. The contrast could not be greater.”

    President Obama “doesn’t understand the power and importance of economic freedom,” Romney said. “I just don’t think he understands what makes America such an exceptional and successful nation.”

    A wealthy former venture capitalist, Romney also ridiculed the “Buffett Rule,” the measure being pushed by Obama and congressional Democrats to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. The proposal was blocked Monday in a Senate vote.

    Read more:

  46. Ametia says:

    Which Mitt will we get?
    By Eugene Robinson, Published: April 16

    It’s all over but the shouting — or, in this case, the polite applause: Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican presidential nominee. But which Mitt Romney? Will it be Mitt One or Mitt Two?

    This is not an inconsequential question. Mitt One is a fiscally conservative, socially moderate, Wall Street-style Republican who believes in compromise to get things done. Mitt Two is a far-right zealot who accuses Democrats of trying to impose godless socialism and claims that what hangs in the balance this fall is nothing less than liberty itself.

    We’ve seen a lot of Mitt Two during the primary campaign. Competing against Rick Santorum, a genuine far-right zealot, and Newt Gingrich, a master of rhetorical excess, Romney strove mightily to convince the GOP’s activist base that he could be every bit as doctrinaire as his opponents.

  47. Ametia says:

    Good Morning, Everyone! :-)

Leave a Reply