DC News Briefs: High Court, Lame Ducks, and Goodbye to Larry Craig

A few news updates from this gorgeous autumn day in our Nation's Capital.

Senate Shenanigans: Fulfilling my prediction from way back in January, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has already scheduled a lame duck session beginning Nov. 17. Senators will already be in Washington for the biennial meetings to elect party leaders and set the rules of their chambers...so the timing works.

In the meantime, beginning Monday the Senate will hold the first of a series of pro forma Senate sessions -- which means the Senate will not be going into recess. As a result, President Bush will be prevented from naming any recess appointments -- as he's been known to do.


Mr. Wide Stance Says Goodbye: Sen. Larry "I'm Not Gay" Craig (R-ID), forced out of office because of one of the more memorable sex scandals in political history, said goodbye on Thursday to a mostly empty Senate chamber. Has it really been only a year since the Idaho Republican unleashed some of the best political satire Washington has ever seen with his arrest in an airport bathroom sex sting? With much less fanfare — in fact, none at all — Craig delivered his last speech to the nearly vacant Senate floor. A couple of senators troubled themselves to say nice things about his legislative record; Craig said good things about them in return -- and then it was OVER. Finally. Godspeed, Larry.


Supreme Court Begins New Term: The first Monday in October is always the first day of the new high court session. The 2008-09 term has a docket that includes cases about employment and sex discrimination, education, and others. Among the cases already accepted for review are a case where the justices will decide whether Title IX provides the exclusive legal remedy for cases of sex discrimination in public schools. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (Case No. 07-1125) is scheduled for argument Dec. 2. The court will also be hearing a case that will provide the basis for a potentially important ruling on job discrimination. The question is whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects a worker from being dismissed because she cooperated with her employer’s internal investigation of alleged sexual harassment of another worker. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (No. 06-1595) will be argued Oct. 8.


Pork Barrel Spending Brings ... Presents? One of Rep. John Boehner’s (R-OH) district offices -- the one in West Chester, OH, to be exact -- was evacuated Monday after a suspicious package from Georgia arrived in the mail. After noticing it was leaking an oily substance, Boehner's staff called the Capitol Hill police in Washington, DC. The police advised the staff to evacuate as a precaution and call in local authorities. After an X-ray analysis, police investigators determined the package contained -- bacon. On a related note, Boehner voted twice last week for a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry.


House Republicans Break a Record ... for Gridlock: The Grand Old Party in the House managed to rack up a new record for the 110th Congress -- 120 motions to recommit overall during the two-year period, more than doubling the previous record of 56 set by Democrats in the 109th Congress. What is an MTR, you thoughtfully ask? Well, it's a parliamentary maneuver -- traditionally the right of the minority party -- to provide one last chance to amend or kill the bill. So yes, MTRs basically direct to House to go back to the drawing board -- and muck up the works as well. Wanna slow things down? Offer an MTR. Want to make the majority party nuts? Offer and MTR that picks off some of the majority party's members. In that vein, it is important to note that within this new gridlock record was another record -- 24 of the 120 MTRs were actually adopted, far exceeding the old record of 6 set by the 106th Congress. This means the ruling party -- the Democrats -- got beat at their own game 24 times. Yikes. Come on, Nancy, you can do better than that.


Stevens Gets Busted by ... Himself: Jurors listened Monday to a secretly recorded phone call in which Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) coaches the businessman on how to avoid an obstruction of justice charge. That same businessman paid for a major renovation of Stevens’ home. In the October 2006 phone conversation, it was clear that Stevens was aware that a grand jury was investigating his conduct. During the call, Stevens urged the businessman to forgo additional conversation and start communicating with him primarily through lawyers. Of course, little did Stevens know that Bill Allen, head of he oil services company VECO Corp., was already cooperating with federal investigators. Stevens is in a tough re-election race, and these calls, this trial -- well, let's just say Alaskans are growing increasingly weary of Uncle Ted.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

A Good Week with Women Voters for the Democrats: The Face of Pay Equity Endorses Obama

Barack Obama has just had a particularly good week with the ladies. In fact, it was a noticeably big week for women's endorsements for the Obama campaign. Can you say "gender gap?" I knew you could. :) In a week that saw Republican VEEP candidate Sarah Palin's approval rating drop precipitously, these actvities aimed at women voters well timed.

First, a group of women's organizations -- those few that have PACs and thus can endorse without jeopardizing their precious non-profit status -- endorsed the junior senator from Illinois. Prominently featured was the still-not-as-happy-as-they-could-be NOW, who joined their shero Hillary Clinton in saying "no way, no how, no McCain." Other groups included the Feminist Majority with the ever colorful Ellie Smeal, the Business & Professional Women/USA, the National Congress of Black Women, and the National Association of Social Workers. Watch portions of the press event here:



But the real coup de grace in my mind was this week's Obama endorsement from Lilly Ledbetter. The plaintiff of Ledbetter v. Goodyear fame headlined the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and on September 18 made it official -- she's for Obama, in a big way. Ledbetter made the announcement at a series of events in the critical state of Virginia, and was treated like a rock star by adoring crowds. The New York Times has referred to Ledbetter as "the Democrats secret weapon," and they may be right.

Take a look at this ad featuring Ledbetter, below, just released this past week -- she's a humble grandmother from Alabama who packs a punch, and women nationwide are cheering her on. Why? Because her experiences are so familiar, so universal to us all, and she's speaking up and trying to change things for future generations -- despite the fact that her own case is closed. Now, the Democratic Senate needs to do the right thing by Ledbetter's vocal support and national advocacy and pass the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The House has already passed this critical bill that would right the Supreme Court's FUBAR handling of the Ledbetter case. However, the legislation is currently stuck in a defacto Senate filibuster on the more pompous, ponderous side of the Hill. But if we can get more Dems elected to the Senate -- and inch our way closer to that magic number of 60 -- I predict the Ledbetter bill will be one of the first bills signed by an Obama Administration.



The Democratic women of Congress also had a press conference cheering on Obama this week, touting an earlier equal pay ad put out by the Obama campaign (below). Pay equity champion Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) is especially worth a listen at this particular dog and pony show, although the women members also talk about critical issues such as health care and retirement security.



The Democrats have finally gotten religion on the pay equity issue -- and about time, too. I'm sure the fact that the issue is a vote driver for women helps a lot -- but that touch of cynicism aside, the Democratic party is the only party that is collectively and actively working to improve women's economic equity -- that, in fact, recognizes the problem of pay equity at all. That, my friends, is just one of a million reasons why Obama's the better candidate for women and their families.




Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Redheads Can Whine, Too

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain couldn't stiff arm former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) fast enough after the McCain economic adviser provided a little of his own brand of straight talk, dubbing the United States "a nation of whiners" in a "mental recession."

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," Gramm said in a Washington Times editorial board meeting. He went on to say that "We have sort of become a nation of whiners... You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline..."

Gramm later said that he meant the nation's leaders were whiners, not its citizens. (That's ever so much better, isn't it?) But after that helpful clarification, the former presidential wannabe went on to illustrate why his own ill-fated campaign sputtered right out of the gate by repeating his assertion and stating, "I'm not going to retract any of it. Every word I said was true."

So, I thought I might take ol' Phil's suggestion -- or at the least make this a self-fulfilling prophecy -- because, when I really got to thinking, I realized I had some things to whine about. Here's just a few.

• I'm going to whine about Democrats in the House and Senate who have yet to figure out that, yes, Virginia, they are in charge. They don't need to check with the Republicans before taking a bathroom break. Here's hoping that if we whine enough, they'll actually act like the Majority party.


• I'm going to whine about cynical Senate Republicans, who've introduced impostor Ledbetter bills in an attempt to evade the grassroots pressure they've been feeling to fix the Supreme Court's dumbass decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. As one Republican staffer's email went, the bill was introduced at least in part because "many of our members took some heat," and the bill was dropped just before the July 4th recess so Senators would have an opportunity to brag about their co-sponsorship to constituents over the holiday. (Read: CYA)

• I'm going to whine about the Democrats who abrogated their stewardship of our civil rights and liberties in favor of CYA on FISA. (CYA activity does not favor one party or the other, it seems.) Yes, I'm going to whine about Barack Obama's FISA vote, and write a check to the ACLU for their lawsuit against Uncle Sam.
  


• I'm going to whine about a President who thinks it's a good idea to consider new regulations, six months before he leaves office, that pervert federal funding designed to prevent unintended pregnancies by redirecting it instead to providers who refuse to offer comprehensive birth control and reproductive health care services. And oh yeah, the proposed rule just happens to redefine abortion to so that it includes some of the most common methods of birth control. I'm guessing this is not a coincidence.
  


• I'm going to whine about the fact that the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill is stuck in a seemingly never ending conference loop. The House bill is much better, but Senate Democrats have pretty much refused to agree to anything that wasn't their idea first. Meanwhile, the conferenced bill won't be as good as the House version, and it still isn't done. Hmmm... wouldn't that be a nice achievement for the fall elections??
  


• I'm going to whine about the fact that, after the nation's capital put up $611 million in public money to build their stadium, the Washington Nationals baseball team is now refusing to pay their measly $3.5 million rental bill. They say the stadium is not yet complete -- funny, though, they have been holding games and charging full price for tickets.
  


• I'm going to whine about the fact that I've not had time to blog for a month. Life got in the way. That sucks. I've missed it, and hopefully you missed me too. I'm also going to whine about the fact that it's mid-July and I've still not been to the beach -- that's just wrong.
  

Wow. That was cathartic. I feel better already. Never underestimate the power of a little whining. Thanks, Phil.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Arizona Voter ID Law Nabs Grandma: Former Teacher has Voted in Every Presidential Election Since 1932

Anti-immigrant sentiment is so strong that many states have passed voter ID laws, requiring people to show picture IDs before they pull the lever, punch their card, mark their ballot, etc. Of course, these laws are nothing more than voter suppression laws in disguise -- that is their true intent and design.

Let's be clear. Illegal immigrants don't go anywhere near the polls -- are you kidding me? They don't want to be anyplace that has even a whiff of official government activity. No, what these Republican-sponsored laws tend to do is prevent the elderly, minorities, and the poor -- typically key Democratic voting blocks -- from voting. You see, if you don't drive -- so no driver's license -- or you don't have the funds to buy a state ID or to pay for a copy of your birth certificate --or no one can find your birth certificate -- too bad. No ballot for you!

Arizona's voter ID law has nabbed one such suspicious person -- and she is being punished accordingly. Shirley Preiss was born in Kentucky in 1910, before suffrage rights were even granted to American women. Shirley has actually been quite the conscientious voter, casting her ballot in every presidential election since 1932. But, all that's about to change. As Art Levine reported in the Huffington Post, Shirley effectively lost her right to vote when she moved to Arizona.

After living in Arizona for two years, she was eagerly looking forward to casting her ballot in the February primary for the first major woman candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. But lacking a birth certificate or even elementary school records to prove she’s a native-born American citizen, the state of Arizona’s bureaucrats determined that this former school-teacher who taught generations of Americans shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Arizona's voter ID law requires voters to produce ID at the polling place and to provide proof of citizenship in order to register. But birth certificates weren’t provided in 1910 in Clinton, KY, where Shirley was born. To top it off, her elementary school no longer exists. And since no one who witnessed her birth is alive to attest to the fact that Shirley was, indeed, actually born -- a way to get a delayed birth certificate -- Shirley is shit outta luck. And there is absolutely no provision in the Arizona law to get a waiver. So Shirley, after being a good citizen for decades, sat out the spring primary and gets to sit home again on November 4th -- watching democracy pass her by.

The scary thing is that the US Supreme Court recently upheld a similar Indiana voter ID law, saying that it didn't seem to impose an undue burden on citizens. Levine further reported about a similar situation in Missouri, a state that is also rushing headlong into passing an ill-conceived, draconian voter ID law. When you hear what these nuns -- yes, nuns -- have to say, you see just how big of a burden these laws can be:

At a fair-election coalition press conference at the League of Women Voters' headquarters in Jefferson City, a few nuns came forward to express their concerns that the Catholic sisters in their convents lack the required ID. In fact, before the news conference, Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary in St. Louis reported the results of an informal survey of nuns in her order."Fifteen [of 35 voters] did not have state-issued photo IDs," she observed. "This may sound like a good idea at first, but once you stop to think about who would really be affected, this is going to keep a lot of our loved ones from being able to vote."

The strict documentary requirements can be hard for Missouri nuns and other senior citizens, even married women of all ages, in obtaining their birth certificates. A survey by NYU's Brennan Center for Justice found that 52 percent of married woman don't have a birth certificate in their current name, and 17 percent of citizens age 65 and over don't have access to any citizenship documents.

If you thought Florida in 2000 was bad, wait until you hear the stories of disenfranchisement that will come out of this election as a result of these ill-conceived voter ID laws. And it will be all the more ironic -- not to mention sad, disheartening and infuriating -- coming in a year that has seen record voter turn out this primary season.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Ledbetter Update: Test Vote Fails But More Votes to Come

So, once again, the Senate is the place where all good bills go to die -- for now. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act faced a tough cloture vote tonight, which fell just shy of the needed 60 votes to move on to final passage. The final vote was 56-42. All the Democrats stayed in line, which needless to say is a pleasant change of pace.

Some Republicans also saw the light: the enlightened included the two original co-sponsors, Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME) and Arlen Specter (PA), as well as a few folks in tough re-election races -- Susan Collins (ME), Gordon Smith (OR), Norm Coleman (MN) and the biggest surprise of the night, John Sununu (NH). These senators received the full court press from both advocates back home as well as DC-based lobbyists, and it paid off.

Of course, the business interests pushed just as hard, and were able to get enough Republicans to toe the line to block the measure. Aside from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), only one other senator didn't bother to vote at all: Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was apparently in the bathroom -- or somehow otherwise occupied -- when the critical civil rights bill came to the floor.

Both Democratic presidential candidates came to town for the vote, and spoke on the floor -- in fact, the vote was moved from Tuesday to Wednesday in order to get them back to DC and improve the chances for passage. Both Clinton and Obama also had photo ops with Lilly Ledbetter herself (above), who spent the evening in the Senate gallery and the Senate reception area, pigeon-holing senators as they walked in to vote. Trust me, it's hard to look this woman in the eye, hear her story, and not be moved.

McCain did not bother to come back to town for the vote, though his front desk staff was helpful enough to tell constituent callers that A) not only would he not be present for the vote, but B) he would not vote for it even if he was. Gee, thanks, Maverick. Reporters asked McCain about the legislation on the campaign trail, and AP wrote stories with headlines like "McCain Opposes Equal Pay Bill in the Senate" and "Senate Republicans Kill Pay Disparity Bill." This coverage is good for Big Blue, especially since recent polls show women -- especially young women -- really care about pay equity this election season. With the economy tanking and gas prices soaring, it's no wonder fair wages are on women's minds.

It should be noted that the pure vote on the cloture motion was 57-41, but in a procedural move Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote to "no." This allows him to bring up the vote again at a later date. And Reid, as well as lead sponsor Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and women's and civil rights advocates, have vowed that they will bring this vote up again.

It's not over. The pay equity issue is too important, and the Supreme Court's decision in the Ledbetter case was just too damn dumb to let stand. And, oh yeah, it's an election year -- so this issue is another good way to hold elected officials' feet to the fire come November. No doubt that the Ledbetter vote will be showing up in a lot of congressional voting records very soon -- on both the right and left.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The Real Price of Economic Stimulus

As an early valentine to the entire nation, George W. Bush recently signed a $168 billion economic stimulus package. About $110 billion of that payout will go to individuals and families, in the hopes that folks will go on a patriotic shopping spree with their surprise buckage. So, courtesy of Congress (and your tax dollars), millions of working Americans will be the recipients of hundreds of dollars in tax rebates right around Mother's Day.

But, really, how is this fiscal package going to affect us? And can it really provide a much needed boost to our faltering economy? My friends at OMB Watch have boiled down all the particulars into a user-friendly chart that will help everyone figure out if they should expect a check and just how fat that windfall might be.

The economic stimulus measure represents the largest legislative package ever passed in an effort stem an economic slowdown. Much political energy and capital was spent to push the measure through. Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even put down their dukes long enough to agree on this one. But can the bill really deliver on all that it promises? According to OMB Watch, the weighted value of the package comes out to about $160.4 billion, or $7.6 billion less than the actual cost of the total package. As a result, in OMB-Watch-ese, the "package can be expected to yield slightly less in short-term consumer purchases than it removes from the economy in the long-run in terms of additional debt, and considerably less when interest expense is factored in."

Ugh. In other words, or Zaftig-ese, not only does the economic stimulus package not do the trick in terms of stimulating the economy, it's going to cost us in the long run. Why? Because we have to borrow the money (from China?) to hand out all those checks, and pay the interest on the debt the nation incurred during its collective field trip to the mall.

For my money, as I wrote in an earlier blog, if you want long term economic stimulus, Congress should take a long, hard look at pay equity issues -- and remedies for the lack thereof. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act (S. 1843) -- a bill the House has already had the good sense to pass months ago -- is still languishing in the Senate. The bill rights the Supreme Court's wrongheaded, unrealistic -- okay, I'll just say it -- dumb ass decision in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. If you really want economic stimulus that sticks to your ribs, write your senator today and tell them it's time to pass this bill. Tell the Senate that then -- and only then -- will you spend your rebate check. Happy shopping, folks.


Some Additional Info from the IRS:

How to make sure you get your rebate check
Facts About the 2008 Stimulus Payments

Tea Party on the Potomac: It's Time for DC Voting Rights

Tuesday marks the Potomac Primary -- all eyes are on Maryland, DC and Virginia as the presidential primary season marches on. As a resident of our nation's capital, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the rest of the country that while our votes at the polls will give delegates to the Democratic and Republican nominees, the same folks who go to the ballot box have no voting representation in Congress.

Really. It's true. Taxation without representation is alive and well and being inflicted upon the denizens of Washington, DC. Imagine my surprise, moving here as I did to work on Capitol Hill, to find that my newly minted DC driver's license also instantly disenfranchised me. Yeah, yeah -- we have a non-voting Delegate, but Eleanor Holmes Norton is only allowed to vote in committee and then only if she doesn't cast the tie-breaking vote. In other words, she only gets to vote when it can't make a difference. She has no vote on the floor whatsoever. Meanwhile, DC residents -- many of whom are also, ironically, involved in politics like myself -- also have no senators whatsoever. The District of Columbia, in other words, has the same congressional status as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. But, um, those folks DON'T PAY TAXES to the United States Government. DC residents do.

How can this be, you ask? Well, the U.S. Supeme Court, in its recent decision, said it's because DC is not a state. They were sympathetic to our plight, but the U.S. Constitution says only states get such representation. So, the only alternative is for DC to become a state, or for there to be a constitutional amendment allowing DC representation without statehood. There has also been this fairly silly compromise that's been voted on in the House and the Senate this Congress that would give DC voting rights in the House in exchange for Utah also getting an additional seat. Why? Well, the Republicans would only go for the radical idea of DC voting rights if the additional vote -- most assuredly a Democratic vote -- would be a wash. Utah has been whining since the last census -- they felt they got the shaft, with all the Mormons off on missions -- and that they actually should have gotten another congressional seat back in 2002. Of course, this compromise comes with all kinds of Constitutional questions, and of course does nothing whatsoever for Senate representation. That particular conundrum is further complicated by both politics and procedure, since the Republicans do not want the Democrats to gain two Democratic Senators from the District, and Senate rules allow filibusters and holds that would make any kind of vote on this issue -- voting rights, a constitutional amendment, whatever -- a very, very high hurdle indeed. The fact that my voting rights, however, are subverted for such narrow partisan interests is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The worst part about all this is that, despite the lack of representation, Congress still feels free to impose its will on Washington, DC in the worst ways possible. They like to use us as an incubator for their crazy ideas -- the Republicans are particularly good at that. Can't get school vouchers that siphon off public monies to private schools, that bypass civil rights, passed nationwide? Nope -- but go ahead, impose them on the District, whose people don't want them. Mad that those same people voted in a gun ban, which has made the streets safer and kept the nation's capital from being the murder capital of the country as well? Sue the city, and take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court because you don't think district residents have the right to govern themselves -- never mind that the gun ban has been in place for decades. Oh yeah, and forbid DC from doing any kind of needle exchange program, too, despite the fact that 1 in 20 residents is infected with HIV. There are lots and lots of examples where congressional conservatives try to -- and sometimes successfully -- impose their narrow will on a population that doesn't even have a vote in their chambers. How friggin' insulting is that?

Remember what happened the last time Americans got fed up with that kinda treatment from the powers that be? With taxation without representation? Patriots dumped a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor and the rest is history. My friends, after over 10 years in DC with very little progress made on DC voting rights, not to mention being treated like a guinea pig by Congress whenever they couldn't manage to impose their will nationwide, I'm about to throw some Lipton in the Potomac River and see if I can't foment a little rebellion myself. I'm glad we're getting some attention this primary season, but it's past time for real DC voting rights.

Long Term Economic Stimulus: How About Fair Pay?

Extra!! Extra!! The Sharks and Jets have come to terms on an economic stimulus package! Yes, folks, the powers that be in our nation's capital -- also known as Republicans and Democrats -- managed to channel grown ups and hammered out a deal involving $145 billion in rebate checks to poor and middle-class workers. And, because this is America and you can't give a dime to the working man without padding the pockets of big business, the plan also includes one-time business incentives to invest in new equipment and write off tax losses. The plan includes nothing for unemployment benefits, nothing for food stamps -- stuff that might actually "stimulate" the economy since they're targeted towards folks who are practically guaranteed to spend it, you know, cuz they must to make ends meet. Imagine that.

But, don't start spending your windfall yet, my friends. This is only a House deal (all spending bills must originate in the House) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has already indicated that the Club of 100 will want to "make improvements" to the House package. Given that it will take at least 10 weeks for checks to start flowing, it seems to me the Senate oughta just leave well enough alone. But we have to remember, the Senate is filled with 100 extraordinarily important people, each and every one of whom will want to add his or her two cents to this economic policy debate. Several times. With charts and graphs. Preferably on television. With cute kids standing around them. So, hmmm.... Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's estimate of May Day being Check Day might well be pushed back to the dog days of August once the Senate process gets a hold of things. Here's hoping Harry can herd those cats, um, I mean Senators, and drive this bill through quickly. Not that I am completely convinced of this whole economic stimulus thing, mind you, but if you're gonna do it, do it -- don't pussyfoot around.

Now, for my money, if you want long term economic stimulus, Congress should take a long, hard look at pay equity issues -- and remedies for the lack thereof. The Senate had a hearing today on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act (S. 1843) -- a bill the House has already had the good sense to pass. The bill is a time warp of sorts, taking us back to May 28, 2007 -- one day before the Supreme Court's wrongheaded, unrealistic -- okay, I'll just say it -- dumb ass decision in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. Folks, this 5-4 decision was so backward that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg felt compelled to read her scathing dissent from the bench -- a pretty rare action by the usually mild mannered Justice intended to heap additional disdain on the Court's majority.

So why was Ruth so steamed? Well, to put it mildly, the Ledbetter decision hamstrings the ability of victims of pay discrimination to sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without a legislative fix, employees will have very little recourse against continuing pay discrimination and employers will actually be immune from any kind of accountability for their actions once 180 days have passed. That's right, folks. If employers can hide pay discrimination for six months, they are forever free from responsibility for that bad act -- and can profit from it from that point forward. Profit from the money they save in an employee's lost wages, in lost benefits, in lost retirement contributions. WTF?

Let me try to break this down. Prior to Ledbetter, more than 30 years of legal precedent and EEOC practice held that each paycheck tainted by discrimination was -- in and of itself -- an act of discrimination. Makes sense to me, since a paycheck has always been recognized as a legal, contractual document. As a result, the 180-day statute of limitations in Title VII was deemed to be retriggered with each paycheck. However, in Ledbetter, the Court said -- nope, no more. You have 180 days from the time of the discriminatory pay decision -- say, when you were hired -- to get a clue. If you haven't gotten the lay of the land by then, you're shit outta luck.

Never mind the fact that lots of folks are actually forbidden by their employers to discuss their wages with co-workers. Never mind that we are more likely to share the intimate details of our sex lives with co-workers than we are salary information. The Court's reasoning assumes that new employees will wander down to the cafeteria, or gather 'round the water cooler -- in their first six months on the job, mind you -- and quiz their new colleagues about their automatic deposits. What a great way to win friends and influence people in a new job.

The Fair Pay Restoration Act clarifies -- again, for the folks on the Supreme Court that seem stuck on the short bus -- that each discriminatory paycheck is in fact another act of discrimination, restoring the law to how it was previously applied. It's a simple, commonsense fix that must be passed. 'Course, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is lobbying heavily against it -- the Ledbetter decision was an unexpected plum that fell in their lap and they don't wanna give it up. But really, guys, even with this bill the system is still stacked against employees -- the burden of proof is all on them. And you're still playing women 77 cents on the dollar to the average white guy. Heck, even when you crunch the numbers for the kinds of things that should effect wages -- experience, education, responsibilities -- there is still a significant but unexplained gap. It's discrimination, that's what it is. And denying women any effective legal remedy when discrimination is alive and well and living in your cubicle villages and board rooms -- well, now you're just being greedy.

Fair pay. Now that's a long term economic stimulus plan we could bank on. If Congress and the courts -- as well as employers -- would take proactive, effective steps to ensure fair pay, just imagine the additional X-boxes and Lazy Boys people could buy. Oh, and they might be able to pay the mortgage and save for retirement, too. Is it too much to ask -- more than 4o years after passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act -- that women and people of color bring home the bacon at the same rates, for the same jobs, as the white guys? I really really really don't think it is. Oh, and it would be fair, too. Now that's a stimulating idea.