More of the same from T-Paw

Governor Pawlenty has unveiled his "plan" to deal with Minnesota's projected $4.8 billion budget deficit. I have to use the quotes around plan, because it's just more of the same "loot everything you can" philosophy that has gotten this country into the mess it is in.

Pawlenty would boot 85,000 working Minnesotans from state supported health care. But business taxes - those he wants to cut by half.

Cutting business taxes in half during a time of state government crisis is silly.

"Oh, but it will keep jobs in Minnesota." I can hear the refrain now. Unfortunately, it's wrong. See, when we cut our taxes in an attempt to lure companies here, other states cut theirs as well, trying to lure them there. We get engaged in a 50-state race to the bottom. And the shame of it all is that corporations have the nerve to complain that American schools don't produce the type of knowledge workers that they need.

Back to T-Paw and his silly "plan" - He relies on stimulus money from the federal government (better get on the horn Tim and let your GOP buddies know that you really are hard up for cash.)

He also proposes over $1 Billion in accounting shifts (I guess that's like when you transfer your credit card balance from one card to another and say it's paid off?) And the kicker is that he wants to sell bonds that are to be covered by the state's annual infusion of tobacco settlement money.

What this means is that things have gotten so out of control under Pawlenty's "no new taxes" administration that his only resort is to use up accounting gimmicks, trade future recurring income for a much lower amount of one-time income today.

I think Pawlenty ought to have the guts to simply cover the deficit 100% with spending cuts, since he's so adamantly opposed to increasing state revenues in any sort of meaningful or stable way. OWN the decision, Pawlenty. Let everyone know just how many people you're willing to throw under the bus so that the CEOs get nice fat bonuses again. Don't hide behind one time money and act like you're a nice guy. Because you're not, and you're leaving a mess for the next Governor to clean up.

House Republicans - aka whiny babies that won't play nice

Today the US House passed their $819 billion dollar version of the economic stimulus plan. The vote was strictly on party lines - no Republicans voted for the bill.

President Obama bent over backwards meeting with Congressional Republicans to hear their concerns. He leaned on Democrats to get things like family planning money removed from the bill ('cuz remember, the Republican God hates family planning). And yet, they still snubbed the bill.

Can anyone say sour grapes?

I wonder if this is what the next two years will be like. Republicans voting in a bloc to be as obstructionist as possible.

I seriously cannot understand how it is that they do not realize that their slanted views of economics, and the result of putting those slanted views into action, is the reason why they are the minority party. And if they continue on this path, they will be an even smaller minority party for some time now.

Tax cuts for workers (note, I said workers, i.e., the poor and middle class, not trust fund babies, CEOs, and corporations) are a good thing. And that's why the package has $212 billion dollars in tax cuts.

However - a tax cut doesn't do you any good if you don't have a job.

And that's why the bill contains $607 billion in other government spending. Money for the states, which can use those funds to:
a)pay government workers, as opposed to laying them off
b)give money to the university system, which can them employ education professionals, as opposed to laying them off
c)repair roads and bridges, and strangely enough, employ people to actually do those repairs, etc.

And strangely enough, when the government workers and professors and construction workers have income, they are better able to buy cars and cappacinos and insurance policies and other goods and services. So then other people will have jobs.

Conversely, if you gave that money to large corporations, they would use it to gobble up other companies (resulting in layoffs) or hoard it. They won't use it to hire more workers. Why? Because there's no one that can afford to buy the "stuff" that more workers would produce. They don't act altruistically, and therefore, why would they spend money to employ unnecessary workers? They wouldn't.

Hopefully some moderate Senate Republicans will be less petty when this bill comes to the US Senate. Otherwise, a really bad situation will just get worse. If you want a nightmare tonight, just imagine what the Dow and other world markets will do if we fail to pass a stimulus plan due to petty partisan idiocy.

Bye bye, what's left of my 401k. And sadly, probably bye bye my job. But hey, at least I'll have LOTS of company.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is on its way to the White House!

Today the US House passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. (Here's a Q&A on the Act for your reading enjoyment.) The Senate passed the Act last Thursday, and the legislation is on its way to the White House for President Obama's signature.

I am thrilled that this is finally happening. This common sense piece of legislation gives workers the ability to sue for pay discrimination within 180 days of the last paycheck impacted by illegal pay discrimination. In contrast, the US Supreme Court previously handed down a decision that could only make sense on Mars (or maybe if you run a large sexist corporation) and said that any suit must be filed within 180 days of the first discriminatory paycheck - whether or not the person discriminated against is aware of the discrimination at the time.

Think about it. Let's say we have a serial killer. Do we allow him or her to get off scot free if we don't manage to catch and file charges within 180 days of the first murder?

Why, then, should we allow employers to get away with financial murder if they can hide their wrongdoing for a mere 6 months?

Make no mistake: this Act does not solve all equal pay problems. After all, if they were solved, there would be no need for the Act. Proving pay discrimination is not easy, and pay discrimination is shockingly commonplace if you look at the statistics.

Recount woes

Alas for me - when will I learn that bragging is a cosmic invitation for a good ol' fashioned smack in the face?

During the Bush v. Gore/Florida recount debacle of 2000, I smugly remarked to my husband, more than once "That nonsense would never happen here. Everyone ought to just vote like we do here in Minnesota. It's not hard, and everyone that's taken a standardized test in school knows how to do it."

Alas - cruel fate has left me wincing at the mess that is the Minnesota Senate recount/legal battle.

I do have to say this - at least we did a full recount. And the winner of that recount was Al Franken. You'd think, given his statement just after election day, Norm Coleman would have the grace to withdraw and go off to lick his wounds in private.

What's that? You don't remember what he said? Oh, I can help you with that. He said:

"If you ask me what I would do, I would step back. I just think the need for the healing process is so important."

Rather than step back, Coleman has decided to contest the results of the painstaking recount in court. Of course, that shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who's watched our litigation-happy (and hopefully soon-to-be-former) Senator Coleman in action. He has a history of filing lawsuits against his opponents during campaigns, all the while decrying frivolous litigation.

Now Coleman's lawyers want the court to review 5,000 or so ballots, one by one. And I'm sure the Coleman camp is very sad that the three justices insist that they need to review the original ballots in question, as opposed to the ones that Coleman campaign staffers altered. The alterations, in some cases, cut off or otherwise hide the reason the ballots were rejected in the first place.

Norm, you're embarrassing us. Please just go gracefully. Go now. Minnesota needs two senators, and by a slim margin, we didn't choose you.

I'm back!

The newborn baby, the toddler, health issues, and other woes left me with no energy to really pay attention to politics, much less blog about them.

But now the baby is sleeping through the night (woohoo!), my health issues seem to be resolved (knock on wood) and the toddler....well, he's still a toddler. Anyhow, I'm back! I hope you'll join me.

Motherhood as a political issue

President-elect Obama will have not just a full plate, but a whole buffet of urgent items to address when he takes office. He will need to address the current economic crisis, the economic plan long-term, tax policy, Gitmo, energy policy, health care, education, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and a slew of other priorities.

One item I sincerely hope he makes time for is the issue of working women and the discrimination and challenges we face in the workplace and in society as a whole.

Moms Rising is an organization that works to promote policies that really make a difference for mothers. One of those policies is the issue of Realistic and Fair Wages. They report that the wage gap for working mothers is 27% of their pay. Non-working mothers receive 10% less pay than their male counterparts, and single mothers receive around 40% less. This absolutely has to change.

I am currently reading Not Guilty! The Good News for Working Mothers, by Betty Holcomb. This book is illustrating for me something that I have noticed in my own life: the workplace becomes a great deal more difficult and complicated once you have children.

When I was pregnant with my first child, I was interviewing for a new position at my company. I made the decision to not disclose my pregnancy. Indeed, I was not required to do so due to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This decision, however, was a source of great anxiety for me. Would my new boss (yes, I did get the position) feel betrayed or tricked? How would taking a maternity leave so soon after starting a new position affect my performance review? How would taking a maternity leave affect my relationship with my new co-workers?

It turns out that I made the right decision at the time. When I did disclose my pregnancy to my new boss, she (yes, a woman) was visibly angry. Luckily for me, she left the company less than two weeks later to take a position at another company. I was also fortunate enough to have co-workers that, in the main, greatly supported me. While most of my co-workers with children had teen aged or older children, they remembered what it had been like for them when their children were young.

It turns out that I was pregnant with my second child when I interviewed for my current position at work. This time, I chose to tell my new boss (yes, I got the position) during the interview that I was pregnant. She expressed that she did not have any concerns about my pregnancy as long as I was committed to returning to work after maternity leave. Barring a lottery windfall, I fully intend to return to work, so this was not a problem for me. My current boss has been wonderfully supportive of me during my pregnancy, and now, my maternity leave.

While my two experiences with pregnancy at work were different, overall, they were very good. Many women face discrimination at the workplace due to pregnancy or motherhood. Unfortunately, this type of discrimination is often almost impossible to prove, and thus, most women just accept it and try their best to move on.

In Holcomb's book, she details the story of one workplace where, despite seemingly family and mother-friendly amenities like on-site childcare, women experienced a great deal of anxiety about announcing a pregnancy or asking for time off to care for a sick child. During a workshop on diversity, men in senior management were asked about their beliefs about why women weren't generally representing in senior management. Their responses ranged from "they are not willing to sacrifice family interests" to "they aren't tough enough." Then, women at the company were told about the men's comments, and allowed to respond. One woman was compelled to tell her story in response: she made the decision to not have a second child because she felt that management would decide that she was on the "Mommy Track" and not committed to her job. She felt she had to speak up - wasn't the decision to forgo having a second child enough "sacrifice?" She also spoke about how women in the office strategized with each other on how best to break the news of a pregnancy, and how women were afraid to place photos of their children on their desks, for fear of being seen as not committed to work. Why was it that men were not afraid to have children, but the women were? Why was it that men were not pegged as "not serious about work" when they had children, but women were?


Moms Rising has a term for this problem: Maternal Profiling. Maternal Profiling is "Employment discrimination against a woman who has, or will have, children."

I don't know of any magic bullets for this issue. However, there are a number of things that would help. One is ensuring that safe and affordable childcare is more abundant. Another is advocating for paid maternity AND paternity leaves for new parents. A third would be passage of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which would remove the ridiculous restriction that a woman must file any suit claiming pay discrimination the basis of gender within 180 days of starting a job, as opposed to a reasonable amount of time after she learns that she is the victim of pay discrimination. A fourth would be increasing options (for all workers - NOT just women) for telecommuting, flex time, and other work-flexibility options. These are all issues which can be influenced by the presidential bully pulpit, and I hope President-elect Obama uses some of his political capital on these important issues.

Joyful tears and small disappointments

First, on a personal note: newborn + toddler + other medical concerns = very little sleep, and thus, little time/desire/coherence with which to blog.

My husband and I watched the election results come in, along with one of our closest friends. We allowed our son to stay up and watch the results with us. (By the way - hearing a 2-year old say "Barack Obama for Pres-ent" is very cute.)

Every time a state was called for Obama, there was a lot of cheering and, honestly, perhaps a frightening amount of dancing in our home. When Pennsylvania was called, the cheering was very loud. When Ohio was called, there was much rejoicing. We then waited eagerly for the polls to close on the West Coast, knowing that the race would be called for Obama shortly thereafter.

A flood of phone calls, back and forth, between our friends and family ensued. I came close to crying in my happiness and relief, but pride made me hold back in front of our friend. Of course, he reads this blog, so it doesn't do me any good now. However, when I started this blog, I promised myself I would be honest and open on it, so, there's the truth.

When my dad started school, he wasn't allowed to attend school with white children. He didn't believe until Tuesday night that he would live to see a black man elected President of the United States. I'm so grateful that he has.

From a national perspective, I'm thrilled with the outcome of this election. From a local perspective, I am somewhat disappointed.

On a personal level, a friend of mine was running for the Minnesota House of Representatives, and he lost his race. I'm so disappointed for him, and I know that he would have made a fine Representative. I hope that he decides to run again in 2 years; hopefully, I will have more time and physical energy with which to help him at that point.

Melissa Hortman, the Democratic incumbent in my local House race, easily won her bid for re-election. I am very pleased about this, but honestly, I'm a little shocked. Just based on the sheer aggressiveness of her opponent's campaign (and the nasty PACs aligned with him), I assumed she would be in trouble. I'm very glad that I was wrong.

I am disappointed that both Madia and Tinklenberg lost their bids for election in CD3 and CD6, respectively. While Michele Bachmann's paranoid red-scare comments helped Tinklenberg in fundraising and in gaining the DCCC's interest in his race, I worry that the new focus on the CD6 race took away the DCCC's focus on the CD3 race. Paulsen's campaign (and organizations on his behalf) ran some very hard-hitting campaign ads painting Madia as a liar obsessed with raising everyone's taxes. I saw very little response from the Madia campaign. I believe this may have cost him the race. Ramstad's representation of this district has been that of a relative Republican moderate, otherwise known as the "Whatever - just please don't raise my taxes" Republican.

Ah, and the race for Senate between Coleman and Franken. As things stand as of now, Coleman is leading Franken by 236 votes out of 2,422,848 votes cast (for those two - about 15% voted for Barkley, and about 1% voted for another third-party candidate.) Coleman's lead has been shrinking day-by-day as more results come in - and this is before a state-mandated recount. Coleman has shown incredible nerve in claiming that he hopes Franken will request that no recount happens, supposedly in an effort to save taxpayers' money.

Um....Norm....no one believes that absolute bullshit you're spewing. I'd say save it for someone stupid enough to believe that, but I'm not sure anyone like that exists.

The Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution designating funding for the outdoors and for the arts passed with about 59% of the vote. I voted against this amendment, mainly on the principles that 1) budgets shouldn't be Constitutionally determined, and 2) putting together the outdoors and the arts smacks of annoyingly-obvious special interests interference. However, all things considered, I'm not that disappointed that the amendment passed.