American Elephants


The Paycheck Fairness Act Would Eliminate Many Jobs For Women by The Elephant's Child
April 9, 2014, 8:56 pm
Filed under: Politics

Yesterday was “Equal Pay Day.” Supposedly the day when women catch up to men in the pay department. Obama reiterated the 77¢ that women are supposed to receive for any man’s $1 in pay. “It’s not a myth, it’s math,” Obama said.  We might ask if he controlled for education, experience, training, accomplishments, skill level, tenure, occupation, region, degree of risk — no? Then what level of math are we talking about?

The White House has no business trying to set salaries for American businesses. That’s a totalitarian move in the American free market.

Anyone who has worked in an organization of any kind knows the play of personality, education, ambition, character, looks, sex and a couple of hundred other variables at work. A while back, an executive was featured on the cover of an American business magazine because he had a temper and when aroused was apt to throw chairs. Get a bunch of people together and wait for dissension to arise. People should get combat pay just for participating in an organization, and extra if Human Resources is involved. “How engineers see meetings” suggests the problems. Combat pay. I’ve been in meetings like this. Can you imagine that more equal pay would improve anything?

Women who do the same job as men receive the same pay by law, established by the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The Lily Ledbetter Act simply gave a woman longer in which to decide to sue. No real help for a woman, but a big payback to the Trial Lawyers. Now we have the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA), designed to convince women that Democrats care about them — and that Republicans are waging a war on women.

The PFA is another payback to trial lawyers. Studiously avoided are words like “lawsuits,” “government reporting requirements” and “red tape.” Government bureaucrats are empowered to collect information about compensation practices and establish a “national award” for employers deemed superior in advancing “pay equity.” The incentives (Liberals don’t understand incentives) are all wrong. Businesses would limit the number of employees, adopt more rigid, one-size-fits-all compensation packages, and hire fewer women. It’s like forcing union regulations on every business. No advancement based on merit. Little opportunity for promotion.

“Equal Pay” sounds good, but the government does not help anyone by attempting to regulate the free market. It’s a proposed law that would directly harm working women — particularly those looking for a job.



What is this “Social Justice” Thing? by The Elephant's Child

Everybody, or at least all Liberals, seem to talk about “Social Justice” all the time, but what do they mean by that? What is social justice?

We have a Constitution that has served us well for 228 years, and in all that time has been amended only 27 times. We have laws and courts that, for the most part, administer the law fairly, and when it isn’t fair, we try to fix it. Leave it to the Left to come up with a whole new kind of “justice” that will better serve their feelings. Now they are trying to expand social justice to environmental justice and economic justice. Make everybody absolutely equal except for us important people in the progressive aristocracy, who will administer the justice. It is of course, hogwash.

Jonah Goldberg explains the hidden agenda behind the words, and it is not either noble nor caring, and turns out to be something that is clearly — not just at all.



Progressives Don’t Really Believe Anything They Say! by The Elephant's Child

Surfing the internet, it is clear that the Obama era is a particularly frustrating period for the Right. Simply trying to understand what the Left is going on about is puzzling, and each passing year reveals the difficulty of defeating those who hold no inviolable positions or beliefs. Above all, what they say they believe has no relation to their own lives. All is fluid, depending on who is about to vote, and for what. Jim Geraghty tackles the Progressive Aristocracy which notes:

[P]rogressives wide-ranging willingness to contradict their own professed principles: gun-control proponents who travel with armed bodyguards, voucher opponents who send their kids to private schools, and minimum-wage-hike advocates who pay their staff less than the minimum wage, among others.

So what do progressives really want? If, as I suspect, the currency of progressivism isn’t policies or results, but emotions, what does that approach build? What kind of a country do you get when political leaders are driven by a desire to feel that they are more enlightened, noble, tolerant, wise, sensitive, conscious, and smart than most other people?

The evidence before us suggests progressives’ ideal society would be one where they enjoy great power to regulate the lives of others and impose restrictions and limitations they themselves would never accept in their own lives. Very few people object to an aristocracy with special rights and privileges as long as they’re in it.

President Obama had a staffer sign  him up for ObamaCare at the DC exchange in symbolic unity with ordinary Americans, but the president’s health care will continue to be provided by the military at Walter Reed, by the White House physician, and by the physician who travels with the president’s extensive entourage when he travels.

Remember when Obama envisioned a future in which Americans would sacrifice their comfort to the need for combating climate change: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times …and then just expect that other countries are going to say ‘okay.’” In the White House, Obama cranks up the thermostat. David Axlerod said: “He’s from Hawaii, OK? He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

“While touting green technology and lobbying the federal government on environmental policy, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt have put 3.4 million miles on their private jets in recent years, polluting the atmosphere with 100 million pounds of carbon dioxide,” the Blaze reported. Geraghty again:

The party that spent the Bush years screaming about the “Imperial Presidency” overwhelmingly decides that the legislative branch is an unnecessary obstacle to setting its preferred environmental policy. We’ve reached the point where vehemently anti-Bush Democrats in Congress now write-up executive orders for President Obama to implement unilaterally.

The legislative branch matters, until it doesn’t. The filibuster matters, until it doesn’t. Yesterday’s positions get dropped if they interfere with today’s needs. The Right is dealing with extremely adaptive foes who, for the most part, have no hesitation about lying to get what they want.

In the Obama-era Left, a promise repeatedly emphasized with passion and vehemence can and will be suddenly dismissed with a shrug. The highest-profile example of this is “If you like your plan,  you can keep it.” Even today, long after the promise has been declared the “Lie of the Year,” the White House website has a page labeled “Reality Check” that proclaims the accuracy of the pledge:



A Grand Tour of British Accents by The Elephant's Child

The voice is that of Andrew Jack, a dialogue coach.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,505 other followers

%d bloggers like this: