The editors at The Gray Lady don’t much care for the way Scooter is running Wisconsin as a division of Koch Industries and they let him know.  They find it remarkable that, facing an unprecedent uprising against his administration, he carries water for Team War on Women.

The most recent [outrage] came last week, when he signed the repeal of a 2009 law allowing the victims of wage discrimination to pursue damages in state court, which is generally easier than filing a federal complaint. The principal reason for the original law was to narrow a significant gap in compensation between men and women. At the time the law was passed, women earned an average of 75 cents for every $1 men earned; by 2010, after the law was passed, the average for women had edged up to about 78 cents.

By closing off this important avenue to state courts to women, Mr. Walker was acceding to the lobbying demands of business groups, including hotel and restaurant trade groups that employ large numbers of women in low-paying jobs and do not wish their wage scale to be challenged in court. (He called it a “gravy train” for trial lawyers.) That’s the kind of thing he’s been doing since he took office in 2011, and it’s an important reason why he was warmly embraced during the Wisconsin presidential primary last month by Mitt Romney, who won that state.

With a poisonous viper for a governor, is it any wonder that Wisconsin lags so far behind the rest of the nation in recovery from the recession?

Scott Walker and the GOP: They Hate us for Our Freedom.

So tell me again how “It’s Working.”

Tagged with:

30 Responses to The National Paper of Record Smacks Scooter Around… Again

  1. tom harlen says:

    If the Republicans are running a “war on women”, what is Obozo doing by paying the women employess less than what he pays the men?

  2. tom harlen says:

    Here ya go, read it and weep

    • Zach W says:

      From the article you linked to (emphasis added):

      Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names.”

      What’s more, if you actually bothered to look at the White House pay data the article provides a link to, you’d see the disparity isn’t due to women making less than their male counterparts; it’s due to the number of males vs. females that hold positions of great importance within the White House.

      Here’s an example of what I’m talking about:

      According to the report, Sarah Spooner earns $42,000 per annum as an analyst. If the assertion made by the author of the article you linked to was correct, we’d expect to see a male counterpart make more than Ms. Spooner, but Christopher Upperman makes $42,000 per annum as an analyst.

      Here’s another example:

      Yasmin Rana makes $42,000 per annum as an Information Services Operator, while a male counterpart in the same job (John Payne) makes the same salary.

      Anything else you’d like me to debunk?

      • Memory Man says:

        Hold on there, that’s a White House staff salary report! Those are people who work in or near the White House! I’ve lived in the District before, and couldn’t have done it if I hadn’t had a cousin living there with a pull-out couch in her basement. Part of the reason I moved from Chicago to Madison was to be able to live on considerably more than that without having to resort to the perils (not to mention the capital losses) of living in a crime-ridden neighborhood.

        Forget about possible wage inequality. How do these people live and still make it to work for the White House in proper attire and so forth?

    • Zach W says:

      In the future, I’d recommend you actually read beyond the talking points and look at the data.

    • Phil Scarr says:

      Clearly you (and the wingnut author of that piece Andrew Stiles) do not understand the issue of wage discrimination. The question isn’t that, within a given workplace, do men make more than women. No, the question is do men and women with the same experience a the same point in their careers performing the same jobs make the same money.

      A reasonable definition of “wage discrimination” would be:

      Wage discrimination is the discrimination shown in the payment of wages towards minority groups. The targets of wage discrimination are black men and women, and white women. They are faced with decreased wage earning for the same job with the same performance levels and responsibilities as white males. Wage discrimination is shown towards individuals with equivalent educational background and qualifications.

      The only thing I weep for is your staggering ignorance…

  3. tom harlen says:

    And now the liberals are attacking Ann Romney for “never having worked a day in her life”. Obviously, the liberals do not think raising a family is work. And having your messiah’s only job qualification being a “community organizer” is nothing to be proud of.

    • Phil Scarr says:

      When losing an argument, change the subject. Favorite recourse of the wingnut.

    • Phil Scarr says:

      BTW, we’re playing “logical fallacy bingo” with your comments… Just so you know.

      So far you’ve scored an ad hominem, a hasty generalization and a composition.

      Keep going! I’m close to a bingo here…

    • Zach W says:

      Tom, any comment on the information I provided regarding male and female employees in the same jobs at the White House making the same amount of money without a disparity?

      I’d love to hear you argue the points I raised, rather than changing the subject to something completely unrelated.

      • Phil Scarr says:

        …any comment on the information I provided regarding male and female employees in the same jobs at the White House making the same amount of money without a disparity?

        You’re awfully optimistic, Zach… Awfully optimistic…

    • Memory Man says:

      Come to think of it, “fisher of men” is a pretty good synonym for community organizer. 😀

      IMHO using pride of all things as a measuring stick for goodness is an exercise in missing the point entirely. But Christ didn’t start His community organizer / King of the Jews career until he was age 30, pretty close to the average lifespan back then. What about Christ’s first career as a carpenter?

  4. tom harlen says:

    I’m not changing the subject, if there is a war on women, the Democrats are the ones carrying it out.

    • Zach W says:

      Tom, where’s your evidence that the Obama White House pays men more than women who hold the same jobs? I’ve cited irrefutable proof that men and women performing the same jobs are paid the same amount per year, but I’d love to hear you try and argue that I’m wrong.

      Face it… tried for a “gotcha” with the link you provided, but instead of actually reading the article and looking at the data, you just read the headline.

    • Phil Scarr says:

      It’s kind of sad, really… You actually think that by changing the subject you can win an argument.

    • Phil Scarr says:

      You see, Tom, this is what a War on Women will get you

      Share of the Female Vote:

      Obama: 57%
      R’Money: 38%

      I think women are smarter than you give them credit for (which is not surprising). Women can tell who’s attacking them and who is not. When R’Money couldn’t respond to the question about the Lilly Ledbetter Act, it was one more indication that the GOP and their candidates really don’t care to win over the female vote. That’s just fine by me… More for the Progressives!

  5. nonquixote says:

    Admittedly OT,

    Just contemplating the potential for a tag-team approach of an organized few progressive blog, “disruptors,” and who might be funding their fevered froth. I hear the going rate is $.25 per response generated by posting conservative talking points variations. I personally helped make a couple of bucks for one of them yesterday, during work intermissions where I was waiting for several sets of intensive graphics renderings to finish, because I really don’t like to see anyone without adequate gainful employment.

    However hard I try to imagine it, I still cannot fathom that anyone would deliberately keep returning for a breakfast treat of sugar smack-downs or a repeated lunch offering of deep-fried crow, with no other apparent compensation.

  6. nonquixote says:

    Topical, this time.

    Had to chuckle at the comment about who is really being the, “gravy train,” for lawyers and I am referring to the one who immediately upon taking offices funneled almost a half a million dollars to MB&F. So to fund that expense just wrest it away from the most likely victims of wage discrimination to attempt to get a day in court. My state Assembly Rep owns a restaurant, open during the tourist season. No conflict of interest in his life membership in the He-Man Women Hater’s Club.

    Quick lunch, later people.

  7. tom harlen says:

    ” it’s due to the number of males vs. females that hold positions of great importance within the White House”

    So you’re saying that the White House is sexist.

    Why is that champ?

  8. tom harlen says:

    Oh, I see. It’s OK for the liberal hypocrites to try and hammer the Republicans for this, but it is A-OK for the Democrats to do it.

    Why are liberals such hypocrites?

    • Phil Scarr says:

      Whew! Amazing pivot there… I’m dizzy!

      And I get to score another bingo point! This one for Begging the Question.

      President Obama and the Democrats are hammering the Republicans for trashing pay equality, attacking women’s right to control their bodies, access to reproductive services, birth control, etc.

      What do the Republicans have? A mildly offended ultra-rich woman who whines that “raising my kids was work.” It’s nice that she had that choice to stay home and raise her kids. Most American women don’t have that option. They have to work to feed their families.

    • Memory Man says:

      Why does tom harlen choose to rely completely on fallacious language? That’s a question that can be answered because it’s not a loaded question.

  9. tom harlen says:

    ” Democrats are hammering the Republicans for trashing pay equality”

    It is hard to trash the Republicans for pay inequality when it is the Democrats whoare not paying women equally.

    “attacking women’s right to control their bodies, access to reproductive services, birth control”

    It is Obozo who wants us to pay for women’s birth control so that can get laid whenever they want. They can have the birth control, why should we have to pay for it?

    The liberals are complete hypocrites. It is horrible when they claim the Republicans do this, but there is no problem when the liberals do it.

    That is the definition of hypocrisy.

    • puzz says:

      “It is Obozo who wants us to pay for women’s birth control so that can get laid whenever they want. They can have the birth control, why should we have to pay for it?”

      Please continue with this line of attack. In fact yell it from any and all mountaintops, rooftops, and bus stops you are able to find. Make sure you are wearing your “I stand with Scott Walker” t-shirt and matching ball cap. Thank you.

    • Zach W says:

      Tom, do you have anything to offer beyond calling President Obama “Obozo” and talking points that we’ve already debunked?

  10. Other Side says:

    Tom is obviously a “ditto head”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *