WAGE THEFT "APPROVED" BY THE GOP ON 07/23/2014

(Photo courtesy of rocunited.org.)

WAGE THEFT IS ON THE RISE

IN AMERICA

According to a People’s World article posted 07/28/2014, wage theft is on the rise, but the GOP-run House Education and Workforce Committee chaired by Michigan Republican Tim Wahlberg is discouraging the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division from pursuing the claims made by workers and their lawyers. The GOP requested a report on the subject from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, which indicates that the steep increase in claims results from more claims by lawyers.

The House Committee is urging the Wage and Hour Division to provide more in the way of “compliance assistance” to employers, rather than fining employers for their non-compliance with labor and wage laws.

The Wage and Hour Division enforces minimum wage laws, overtime pay laws and child labor laws. In 2009 an academic report on violations in the three largest cities in the U.S., New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, found a number of disturbing issues to be prevalent. A shocking 68% of the workers surveyed in the study reported having had their wages shorted in the week prior to the survey.

Other results included:

• More than 25% of workers surveyed were paid less than the legal minimum wage.
• 60% of those workers were paid at least $1.00 per hour less than the minimum wage.
• Nearly 25% of the workers surveyed either arrived early or stayed late, and 70% of those workers received no compensation for the extra work they performed.
• Among workers who earn the bulk of their pay in tips, 30% were paid less than the $2.13 per hour employers are required to pay them.
• One in eight tipped workers also reported that their tips were skimmed by their employer or supervisor, further reducing their income.
• The average worker who reported wage theft lost 18% of their pay, and most workers do not report the wage theft.
• 43% of workers who do report wage theft are retaliated against by employers.
• 75% of workers surveyed were shorted overtime pay.
• Most of the workers who reported wage theft were women.

In the following 12 job types, more than half of the workers surveyed reported being paid no overtime wages:

1. Child care, at 90.2%
2. Stock and office clerks, at 86%
3. Home health care workers, at 82.7%
4. Beauty, dry cleaning and general repair workers, at 81.9%
5. Car wash workers and parking attendants at 77.9%
6. Waiters, cafeteria workers and bartenders, at 77.9%
7. Retail salespeople, at 76.2%
8. Janitors and grounds workers, at 71.2%
9. Garment workers, at 69.9%
10. Cooks and dishwashers, at 67.8%
11. Construction workers, at 66.1%
12. Cashiers, at 58.8%

The House Committee decided on 07/23/2014 to ignore the data, instead focusing on the increasing numbers of lawsuits. The Committee seems to identify with employers who steal from employees much more than they empathize with the workers being stolen from, and ruled against improved enforcement efforts in favor of having the Department of Labor provide more help and guidance to employers about their responsibilities. This reasoning is in line with the former Bush administration’s response to the issue of wage theft, which would seem to suggest that improving guidance to employers has done nothing to stem the instance of wage theft since that political era.

The findings reported suggest the total dollar value of stolen wages amounts to more than $56.4 million per week in the cities of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles alone. Logical reflection on the enormity of the problem tells us that the practice of offering guidance to employers about how to stop stealing pay from employees isn’t working, and that more serious enforcement against thieving employers is necessary.

And the GOP shows us yet again that they don’t care about the working poor at all.

YOUR CONGRESS AT WORK

(Photo courtesy of WikiMedia.)

DURING THE WEEK ENDING 

JULY 18, 2014

HOUSE RESOLUTION 5021:

H.R. 5021 is the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014, which will fund highways, highway safety programs, public transportation programs and hazardous materials. This bill references underground storage tanks, employee retirement benefits and the Dingell-Johnson Sports Fishing Restoration Act, oddly.

This bill passed in the House with a bipartisan vote of 367 for, and 55 against, and will provide for a temporary patch of the highway fund by adding $10.8 billion to the Highway Trust Fund in order to finance ongoing road, bridge and mass-transit projects. Unless Congress acts quickly to replenish the fund, it will fail to fund completion of many existing projects across the nation, and hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost.

This bill would raise $6.4 billion over 10 years using a scheme that involves allowing companies with defined-benefit pension plans to defer some portion of pension contributions, which would raise profits and federal tax payments in the immediate future. My take on this provision is that it sucks for employees, who I'm sure will continue to contribute to their pensions even as employers get to defer their contributions. But it appears an acceptable plan for companies, who would pay more in taxes due to increased profits, while delaying their obligation to employees over the next 10 years. (Of course, who knows what will happen over 10 years, or if employees will really have their pensions fully funded at any time in the next decade.)

The remainder of the budget will be raised by taking as much as $4.4 billion resulting from changes in customs fees, and from an existing fund that has been appropriated for the repair of leaking underground storage tanks.

HOUSE RESOLUTION 5016:

H.R. 5016 is the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2015. It will fund Department of Treasury operations through September 30, 2015.  H.R. 5016 passed in a 228 to 195 vote with all but six of the aye votes coming from Republicans.

H.R. 5016 includes some 15 amendments. In a 338 to 80 vote, House Amendment 1058 passed with the support of 222 Republicans and 116 Democrats.  H. Amend. 1058 proposes to increase funding for taxpayer services at the IRS by $10 million by reducing IRS enforcement by a similar amount. One can only imagine that this is great for corporations who do not want the IRS enforcing tax laws against them. It may also benefit citizens who skirt tax laws and hope to avoid an audit, though that seems less likely.  Audits of individual tax returns are far less complicated and costly to conduct than audits of corporate tax returns, thus there will probably be no benefit for the individual.

H. Amend. 1067 to H.R. 5016 proposes to increase the fiscal budget for the Securities and Exchange Commission by $300 million to the $1.7 billion level requested by President Obama. The SEC is charged with regulating the securities industry and providing oversight to protect investors. This amendment was NOT passed, in a vote of 184 for and 235 against. 225 Republicans voted against increasing the budget of the SEC, whereas 183 Democrats thought it wise to allow the SEC to do it's job of regulating the securities industry.

H. Amend. 1098 to H.R. 5016 proposes to prohibit the use of funds to any authority of the government in the District of Columbia for the purpose of enforcing any provision of the Firearms Registration Act of 2008. This is an interesting amendment in that it will have the effect of creating a zone where gun laws are not enforced right in our nation's capitol. Presumably, lawmakers aren't worried about becoming victims, since they spend so little time in D.C., but maybe some House representatives are secretly hoping that President Obama could become a victim ...

HOUSE RESOLUTION 4719:

The America Gives More Act of 2014, H.R. 4719, also known as the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2014, passed in a 277 to 130 House vote. H.R. 4719 includes a provision to give permanent status to tax deductions that all non-C corporations receive for donating food inventory to charitable organizations. (C corporations already get the deduction.) The bill also expands inclusion for the tax break to ranchers and farmers. This bill will increase from 10% to 15% the maximum percentage of net income that all businesses can deduct for food donations.

According to official budget projections, H.R. 4719 will add $1.9 billion to the national debt over 11 years.

To determine the fair market value of donations, H.R. 4719 states:

"In the case of any such contribution of apparently wholesome food which cannot or will not be sold solely by reason of internal standards of the taxpayer, lack of market, or similar circumstances, or by reason of being produced by the taxpayer exclusively for the purposes of transferring the food to an organization described in subparagraph (A), the fair market value of such contribution shall be determined—

(I) 

without regard to such internal standards, such lack of market, such circumstances, or such exclusive purpose, and

(II) 

by taking into account the price at which the same or substantially the same food items (as to both type and quality) are sold by the taxpayer at the time of the contribution (or, if not so sold at such time, in the recent past)."

So, it looks like businesses will be able to donate food they can't sell, even for the reason that it is substandard, and all the food must be is "apparently wholesome." It also doesn't matter if businesses produce the food "exclusively for the purposes of transferring the food to an organization" that would fit the definition of charitable. This language suggests that businesses can produce food they consider not fit to sell to consumers with the intention to donate it to charitable organizations, and receive the tax break of up to 15% of net income. Does anyone else find this to be, well, a substandard plan?

H.R. 4719 was passed by Republicans, who comprised 221 of the 277 aye votes. It's unsurprising that Republicans are more concerned that businesses have significantly improved benefits (15% of net income can be deducted through the donation of food they can't or wouldn't sell at market!) while placing the burden of $1.9 billion squarely on the shoulders of citizens over the next 11 years.

This highlights the lie we are so often told: that Republicans are fighting for our children and grandchildren's future financial health by attacking government expenditures now. The bills passed on to the Senate for a vote seem consistent in one area -- they all cost individual taxpayers oodles of money for years to come, while benefiting business exclusively. Sure, charitable organizations will be able to feed more hungry people food that is not fit for consumers who buy their food at the store, but doesn't this seem to be forward planning for the eventuality of there being a lot more hungry people? The House keeps passing bills that have very little chance of being enacted into law. So while it may appear that the House is doing something by passing resolutions, they are resolutions that do not pass into law.

Another disappointing week in the House.

Weaver's Tennessee: What's An Addicted, Pregnant Woman To Do These Days?

(Photo courtesy of Salon.)

Oh, Tennessee, how could you…?

Tennessee became the first state in the nation to criminalize the outcome of a woman’s pregnancy. If a woman gives birth to a baby that tests positive for drugs, the mother can be arrested on assault charges.  SB 1391 states:  

“Criminal Offenses - As enacted, provides that a woman may be prosecuted for assault for the illegal use of a narcotic drug while pregnant, if her child is born addicted to or harmed by the narcotic drug; law expires July 1, 2016. - Amends TCA Title 39.” 

(FIRST THING EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW: I am NOT saying pregnant women should be taking drugs during pregnancy. I also do NOT condone drug or alcohol use during pregnancy. This commentary is about more than the behavior of a woman who is pregnant. So, if anyone wants to discuss this matter, please, let’s limit it to the issues that will be presented rather than re-hashing the old news that drugs are bad for fetuses. I think we can all agree that’s the case.)

This new legislation has been criticized by physicians, addiction specialists and major medical associations who object to the tone of the law, which pretends compassion and medical necessity. The Republican sponsored law, according to the Republicans who sponsored it, intends to “help” women.

Teri Lynn Weaver, the law’s sponsor, spoke to Katie McDonough of Salon:

“…Weaver told me that she views police as more concerned about ‘the life inside the belly’ than the pregnant women themselves. ‘And again, these women [who would be targeted under the bill] are the worst of the worst -- these are coke and heroin ladies. These women are not thinking about anything except their next narcotic fix.’”

Weaver has pointed to the number of babies born with “neonatal abstinence syndrome,” or NAS, as being the reason this law is necessary. However, Weaver relies more on inflammatory language than actual science. By highlighting addicted mothers as being “the worst of the worst,” and babies “born addicted,” Weaver bypasses facts about the circumstances affecting these women that should be factored into any discussion about criminalizing their condition.

Not all Republicans in the Tennessee Senate agreed with passing this law. Some of them, like Republican state Sen. Mike Bell, who represents a rural district, brought up the lack of access many women in his district have to health care. This lack of access includes reproductive services (that may help prevent pregnancies in the very demographic Weaver’s law targets), pre-natal care, drug interdiction programs (that could help an addicted woman to overcome her substance abuse, at least during the pregnancy) or drug rehabilitation services.

Weaver flat-out disregards the limited availability of drug treatment and health care as being related to the issue of pregnant women who use drugs, saying in her Salon interview: 

“I don’t know what to say about [how] some [women] have insurance and some do not. It’s a terrible thing, but I don’t want to get into that because it’s another subject.”

Tennessee is among the states that has refused to expand Medicaid, leaving low-income and poor people without access to healthcare they can afford. According to most recent data, around 25% of Tennessee citizens aged 19 to 39 are without health insurance. Since between the ages of 19 and 39 is prime reproductive time, this is not an insignificant demographic.

When Senator Bell raised the issue during the committee hearing, he was assured by the District attorney who was testifying that law enforcement would not prosecute women who wanted to get into a drug treatment program, but didn’t have the ability to do so. Bell commented, “Now as much as I would like to believe that, I do know that you can’t always trust people to do the right thing -- and the right thing here is not to criminalize or prosecute a woman who wants help.” Which begs the question, what would “help” constitute in the state of Tennessee?

NAS is, in fact, generally treatable, which is good news for the population of Tennessee. Good health care and education go a long way to combating the use of drugs during pregnancy.  Better yet, access to birth control, especially low-cost contraceptives also does a lot to help prevent pregnancy among women who may not welcome it. But Weaver’s reference to her new law, SB 1391, as being a “velvet hammer” does not seem to be a great help to women who find themselves pregnant, addicted, and without health care or access to drug treatment programs. What IS available to these women is drug court, which is a criminal system work-around to actual rehabilitation in most cases.

Are courts capable of doing the best job in handling health issues like addiction? Even Weaver says that drug courts “are what we have right now.” According to experts on the issue of health care (the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), pregnancy  laws that criminalize pregnant women are a terrible response to the issue. Such laws discourage women from seeking pre-natal care or help with their drug abuse. Weaver contends that these experts are too concerned with “the prenatal monies they are not going to get.” Frankly, Weaver’s cynicism seems completely in line with her view that pregnant addicts are the worst of the worst, since she seems to view those who take care of pregnant women and their fetuses as greedy and self-interested.

But what can we say about Weaver? That she feels it necessary to criminalize pregnant women for issues that she knows nothing about (and cares nothing about) shows a complete lack of willingness to learn about the demographic she seeks to punish. That can be viewed as highly judgmental, which combined with deliberate ignorance, is just plain wrong. The creation of laws to lock people up without consideration of every aspect of the matter is not humane, it is not of benefit to her constituents, and it certainly is not going to be fiscally conservative, when all is said and done. To ignore the public health aspect of this issue while making plans for the incarceration of women just isn't politic.

A great article that touches on this issue can be found here.

YOUR CONGRESS AT WORK

U.S. House of Representatives (Photo courtesy of WikiMedia.)

WEEK OF JULY 7, 2014

Our elected officials were in fine form during the week of July 7th to July 11th. It seems their July Fourth festivities refreshed them enough to come back to work ready to do battle for the benefit of polluters and big business.

HOUSE RESOLUTION 4923:

HR 4923 is the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, which funds numerous projects relating to all types of waterways, as well as to all manner of energy and science programs. It also funds for "flood control and coastal emergencies, including hurricanes and other natural disasters." This bill relates to the appropriation of $30.4 billion for energy, water and nuclear safety programs in fiscal 2015.

HR 4923 was passed in a 253 to 170 vote in the House on July 10, 2014.  The bill:

• Increases spending for fossil-fuel research;
• Reduces spending for renewable-energy and energy-efficiency programs (by $112 million);
• Funds the National Nuclear Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers water projects, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Appalachian Regional Commission;
• Prohibits funding for certain environmental protections under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act;
• Prohibits the Army Corps of Engineers from enforcing its ban on firearms on its land; and
• Limits U.S. cooperation with Russia in nuclear non-proliferation programs.

HR 4923 passed with 218 Republican, and 18 Democrat, votes to approve sending the bill to the Senate.

BAN ON CLIMATE-CHANGE FUNDING:

Amendment 1040 to HR 4923 prohibits funding Department of Energy or Army Corps of Engineers policies meant to combat climate changes that are based on "biased" science. So, claiming that 97% of the scientific community has plotted to bamboozle us into accepting that climate change exists has resulted in appropriating money to deal with the effects of climate change, but not to address means of preventing the effects of climate change.

Amendment 1040 passed by 229 for, to 188 against, with 224 of the "aye" votes cast by Republicans and the remaining 5 votes by Democrats.  Only ONE Republican voted against prohibiting funding to combat climate change.

INCREASING FUNDING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY:

Amendment 989 to HR 4923 will either increase or decrease funding for Energy Efficient and Renewable Energy by $111,641,000, and either increase or decrease funding for Fossil Energy Research and Development by the same amount. To be clear, if Energy Efficient and Renewable Energy programs get the money, Fossil Energy Research and Development does not, and vice versa.

Amendment 989 was rejected by 245 votes, versus 172 votes. This means that the money goes to fossil fuels and NOT to renewable or efficient energy programs. Of the nay votes that defeated this proposal, 224 of them were cast by Republicans and 21 by Democrats.  This vote confirms that Republicans are the primary force against progress in energy efficiency or renewable energy.

BONUS DEPRECIATION!!

HR 4718 to amend the IRS Code of 1986 to modify and make permanent bonus depreciation sounds a lot more fun than it is. This bill will provide yet another BONUS to business, but only those businesses that purchase "qualified property," so small mom and pop establishments are unlikely to feel any "bonus" at all.

The known cost is $287 billion in the form of federal deficits between fiscal 2014 and 2024, according to official projections. This expense is added to current deficits.

Historically, "bonus depreciation" has been enacted on a temporary basis to stimulate purchasing by businesses during economic slumps. It allows businesses to deduct 50% of the cost of qualified properties purchased, with the deduction taken during the year of purchase. This bill makes the "bonus" permanent, on top of the regular depreciation allowances for the same items.  

Bonus depreciation is an obvious maneuver with real benefits on a temporary basis that clearly can make the decision to make certain buys more palatable when times are tough. On a permanent basis, it costs taxpayers millions, and fails to provide stimulus when needed. Having bonus depreciation all the time means that businesses can depreciate qualified purchases, while real small businesses and regular people pay the tab for the "bonus."

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE THE PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN GIFTING TO BUSINESSES RIGHT NOW?

The budgetary effects will be difficult to track, as the "scorecards" used by Congress will not be applied to this bill (see Section 2 of the bill's text here).

JOB-TRAINING REFORMS:

In a 415 for, and 6 against vote, the House sent President Obama a bipartisan bill regarding job-training reform. HR 803 will consolidate dozens of federal programs into a single program administered by States. All job-training, adult education and literacy programs will be offered in a workforce program funded by grants which Governors will control.

The potential downside is that applicants to each of the former programs will compete with each other for acceptance in the broader program.  This bill is a five-year renewal of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), and will be funded at $6 billion or more annually.

Aside from HR 803, which will go to the President, the other approved bills and their amendments will go on to the Senate for a vote.

Big winners last week:  Not us.

A HISTORY OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

(Photo courtesy of Flickr.)

In 2012, Mitt Romney famously said, "Corporations are people, my friend," which resulted in his being accused of being out of touch with real people. Romney later explained his meaning, saying raising taxes on corporations affects real people because, "everything corporations earn ultimately goes back to people." Whether or not his explanation helped his presidential campaign is unclear. The fact of the matter is that corporate earnings do go back to real people, but not to the real people who most rely on their earnings to support themselves and their families. Employees and vendors who provide a corporation with labor, materials or services do benefit from corporate earnings insofar as they continue to realize income from uninterrupted employment or contracts.  Shareholders and CEO's benefit primarily from improved corporate earnings in the form of increased dividends and larger bonuses.

In the recent Hobby Lobby case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that corporate personhood is, "a familiar legal fiction that retains its usefulness." Alito also wrote, "It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings."

Thus far, corporations have been granted protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, under the Fourth Amendment, Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906). The following is an excerpt from the Syllabus on the Supreme Court case:

"A corporation is but an association of individuals with a distinct name and legal entity, and, in organizing itself as a collective body, it waives no appropriate constitutional immunities, and, although it cannot refuse to produce its books and papers, it is entitled to immunity under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, and, where an examination of its books is not authorized by an act of Congress, a subpoena duces tecum requiring the production of practically all of its books and papers is as indefensible as a search warrant would be if couched in similar terms."

Corporations have the right to free speech under the First Amendment, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. (2010). The ruling allowed for a flood of private money from corporations and labor unions to enter political campaigns. This ruling equated free speech with money and resulted in the unique situation we now see in American politics. The more money an individual, corporation or union has to donate to a political candidate, the more free speech they enjoy.  Greater donations to a candidate truly equate with greater access to, and responsiveness by, an elected political office-holder.

With the recent Hobby Lobby case, First Amendment protection of religious liberty has also been extended to corporate entities.  Justice Alito wrote in his majority opinion that, closely held corporations are, "often small, family run businesses," and that the ruling, "protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them."  No definition of "small, family run businesses" has been offered that makes much sense.  On the one hand, Hobby Lobby is a closely-held corporation, with shareholders from the Green family.  However, Hobby Lobby has 579 retail locations, averaging 55,000 square feet.  There are 23,000 employees (as of 2013).  Hobby Lobby is listed by Fortune and Forbes as a major private corporation, and is one of America's largest private companies.  Hobby Lobby carries no long-term debt.

These facts suggest that referring to Hobby Lobby as "small" is a misnomer, at minimum.  And suggesting that the daily operations in each of the 579 stores are handled by a family member is silly, so we must extrapolate that Alito's reference to "family run" implies that running the business from afar by the Green family must meet the criterion, at least in Alito's mind.  However, it is difficult to reconcile the image of Hobby Lobby as a "small, family run" business with the reality of Hobby Lobby being among the largest companies in the U.S.

Corporations do not presently have rights under the Second Amendment.  The Third Amendment does not apply, since it specifies that people can not be forced to quarter troops in their homes.  Corporations do not have Fifth Amendment rights, which deal with the rights of a person accused of crimes.  The Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments do not apply to corporations, nor does the Ninth Amendment which holds that people's rights are not limited to those listed in the Constitution.

We can probably expect more freedoms to be granted to corporate entities under the First Amendment, however, before we can expect to see any correction of judicial rulings in the future.  It is highly likely that corporations will take every advantage of First Amendment rights, in a multitude of ways before all is said and done.  And the Ninth Amendment opens the door to the creation of rights and protections that aren't enumerated in the Constitution, if we hold that corporations are people.

The granting of rights to corporations has been allowed under the Fourteenth Amendment.

As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions.

"The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association."

In fact, corporations began exploring avenues to gaining protections under the Bill of Rights in 1809, (Bank of the United States v. Deveaux), and started making significant gains during the 1880's.  So while none of this is new, it wasn't until 2010's Citizens United decision that corporations began to enjoy actual political influence not limited by campaign funding and finance regulations. 

image credit: wolfpac.com

FEW ORGANISMS CAN ASEXUALLY REPRODUCE...

...AND NONE OF THEM ARE WOMEN!

I get tired. Tired of reading about how women are such hoochie-mamas these days. About how women are selfish and we all want something for nothing. About how women want "free birth control" because they can't keep their knees together.

Babies aren't the result of asexual reproduction. Babies don't appear as if by magic. Babies aren't brought by the stork.

Men have as big a stake in the event of pregnancy as women.

But no one mentions that.

There are several categories of men, and many men who can't be easily categorized. Think about it:

• A responsible family man realizes the limits of his (or their) earnings, generally, and has an idea of how many children he (or they) can afford. This category can be broken down further; a family man who is also devoted to his wife, or one who is not, a group that can be divided further into those who remain in a relationship with the mother, and those who do not.
• Any disaffected dad soon realizes that parenting doesn't get easier from outside the home. And he is heartbroken because he was left, or begins to regret doing the leaving. And it's expensive. 
• Deadbeat dads are a category worth bringing up. There are plenty of them, though they haven't been mentioned in regard to the birth control debate. This category can be further split into those who flee the state each time a garnishment order is placed on earnings, and those who don't flee, and can't imagine how they will dig themselves out of the hole they've created by getting in arrears of child support. Oh, and some of them manage to work for cash, screwing the woman who raises his child, the child, and the taxpayers who fund the government to take care of the kids and help support the mother.

If you want to talk about welfare moms, you should be willing to understand that it is also the obligation of fathers to take responsibility for the children they create. It's high time we take a good look at the consequences that result when a father won't be a dad.

Fatherless children are likelier to live in poverty. Single mothers often rely heavily on public assistance and social welfare programs. These humans, these mothers and children, bear the stigma of "our" rage at the "takers," those who don't take "personal responsibility" for themselves, and who take advantage of us "decent, hard-working, taxpaying citizens."

Single mothers don't spring into life without the help of the man who planted his seed.

SO I SAY, MEN HAVE AS BIG A STAKE IN THE EVENT OF PREGNANCY AS WOMEN.

Characterizing all women who believe in the importance of easy-to-get, affordable contraception as sluts really isn't doing much good for the overall relationship between the sexes. Slut-shaming is all around us, and it is now being directed at women because they express concern about losing control of their reproductive health and choices. No, not overtly and IN YOUR FACE like... Worse. It's sneaky and passive aggressive instead.

A friend I really like asked me what the big deal is that Hobby Lobby won't "cover" 4 of the 20 "FDA approved" methods of birth control mandated under the ACA. He said women want it both ways: we want the birth control and we want somebody else to pay for it. He made other comments, none of them a direct insult. He just knows that I, and women who think like I do, am wrong morally, logically, emotionally. The words "crying" and "selfish" came up, but not directed AT me. The argument that religious views are more right and valuable than the way the left sees things was mentioned. The assertion that birth control IS affordable tied back to the selfish characterization. The fact that he'd paid out of pocket for his vasectomy was brought up repeatedly, to contrast with how unrealistic and selfish women are. Or to illustrate how things "should" be done. It was stated that a woman doesn't have to keep her job if she is so mistreated...

But aren't all those arguments pretty self-righteous, instead of realistic? Aren't they short-sighted, and especially unforgiving of women? Don't they completely leave out the importance of men in every possible way, from the sex to the parenting and financial stability of the child? Don't such arguments punish women for allowing men to have sex with us? If women are sluts who get pregnant and just take from society, what are the men who don't contribute to the financial health of the mom and child? What should they be called?

Since men have as big a stake in the event of pregnancy as women do, why aren't men speaking up about how access to affordable birth control benefits them, too?

Men, too, benefit from sharing in the reproductive choices that affect the union of marriage and the health of the family. Men do better when they have a say about how many children the family can afford. And single men who actively participate in being sure they don't become daddies definitely benefit from affordable, available birth control.

So who wants to start talking about how much MEN need birth control, too?

Image: Asexual Reproduction in Plants Wikispaces.com

Get your do-it-yourself legal forms at Nolo and save 30% on your purchase with code summer30off Mineral Cosmetics - Reveal your natural beauty with the mineral cosmetics offered by BeautyBridge.com.

Citizen's United, Hobby Lobby Decision: A Breakdown Of How We Got Here

HOW WE GOT HERE

1) Citizen’s United, 2010’s WORST Supreme Court decision (which still ranks up there in the top two, in my opinion), imbued the corporate entity 
with “personhood.”


The purpose of this decision was to allow for unlimited political donations by corporations to political candidates, PACs, and political parties.  Unlimited.  Since America’s corporations have been doing very well, thank you, for many years, this resulted in money being the equivalent of speech. 

The more money I give you, the more profound and important my speech is.  

If what I say is more important, especially to the politician I employ, then I get my way more often than other, lesser donors to the politician.

The outcome of Citizen’s United can now been seen clearly.  Not only have we personified the corporate entity, we are now granting the entity with rights that have previously been held only by individuals.

2) The Hobby Lobby decision on June 30, 2014, did just that.  By granting a corporation the right to exert it’s religious preference on employees, the Supreme Court has now legalized the concept of corporate religious freedoms and liberties, thus invalidating the personal liberties and freedoms of the unfortunate individuals who work for them.


But a corporation does not go to church.  And it should not have a “right” to impose its “religious” beliefs on its workers.

Until a corporation can attend church, until it can be sentenced to jail for its wrongdoings, until it can go to the ballot box and vote like a person, there is simply no way for it to be considered a person, deserving of religious freedoms and liberties.

Unless a corporation tithes 10% of its income to the church, like a very religious person might tend to do, why does it count as a religious believer?  And if a corporation having very religious ownership (the closely-held standard we've heard so much about lately) were expected to tithe 10% of its income to the church in addition to paying corporate taxes, do we think that corporation would gladly do so, for the good of the church?

Or, do we think that corporation would petition the court to be exempted from “personhood” altogether?

When we consider that Hobby Lobby’s entire case was based on the fact that it got its FACTS wrong about what is, and is not, an abortifacient, it boggles the mind that the Supreme Court bought into the legal theory at all.

A court of law traditionally does not allow mistaken beliefs to properly establish the case in chief.  Historically, if someone has held a false belief, it was the false belief that was addressed, not the value of the belief as it pertains to the petitioner's religious freedom.  

In other words (and as an example), just because many, many white people did not want to send their children to school with black children because they were misinformed about the consequences of segregation (uncleanliness, lesser intelligence, disease, etc.), the Supreme Court did not decide to forego integration because of the sincerely held beliefs of white folks.  NO!  The Supreme Court, taking facts into account, insisted that integration was to be the new standard, because it supported the civil rights of ALL people (Brown v Board of Education, 347 U.S.483, 1954).

And yet THIS Supreme Court did essentially just that.  They decided that the misinformed, incorrect beliefs of the ownership of a corporate entity were so sincerely held, that their beliefs are deserving of protection from having to abide by federal law.

What’s worse is that the Supreme Court used this decision to further establish that a corporate entity is to be personified with religious freedom, at the expense of the many people it employs.

3) A corporate entity is desirable as a business structure for the liability protections the entity provides.  It can also be desirable because of the various tax implications relating to the corporation's profits.  A corporate entity allows individual owners to keep separate their personal assets and debts from those of the entity.

A business owner who incorporates is not compelled to create a board of stockholders, per se. Rather, the owner can appoint family members to hold the required corporate positions needed to maintain corporate structure.

Sister Sally can be the Corporate Secretary, and be responsible for taking minutes of the required ONE meeting per year.  Brother Bob can be the Corporate Operations Officer, and simply maintain his responsibilities as manager of operations.  Big-dog Don can assume the title of Corporate Executive and Financial Officer by just doing what he’s done since opening the doors on day one - put up the money to start the business and handle the accounts payable and receivable.

The essence of incorporation is not necessarily so different than the essence of small business.  The major difference is the protection incorporation offers it’s ownership from being held personally responsible for liability.  

The decision to incorporate is NOT a religious decision.

It is a business decision.  People are religious (or not).  People go to church, they tithe, they pray.

Has a corporation EVER been in a prayer circle?  NO!

Has a corporation ever lit a candle?  

NO!

Has a corporation ever prayed to God, or repented, or been baptized?  

NO!  NO!  NO!

It is for these reasons that a corporation is not deserving of protected religious freedoms or liberties.

On a brighter note, by "breaching the wall" between corporations and their shareholders, the Justices may have allowed for the future reversal of corporate protection of the personal assets of its owners in cases where the corporation is found to be at fault, or in debt.  Wouldn't that be something to see?  Shareholders held responsible for the damage their corporation does to real people?   We do live in interesting times...

Overturn Citizens United meme credit:  Daily Kos
Hobby Store/Holy Bible meme credit: Democratic Memes