Romney flip flops four times in four days on Lily Ledbetter Fair pay Act. Presidential?

I can’t believe how the press continues to bend over backwards to give the benefits of the doubt to Republicans misstatements, lies and back tracking.

In a series of non-story coverage, ABC News actually posted this mindless eye rolling nonsense:

The courting of female voters has intensified since … Tuesday, with the candidates pivoting to focus on women after Romney’s “binders full of women” comment, as well as some waffling by a Romney senior adviser on the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan was even asked about jobs for women at his town hall here Thursday … Ryan was asked by a female attendee if his ticket had “any plan in place for jobs specifically for women.”

He immediately answered much as his running mate has in the past: “Get the economy growing, number one.”

Really, that’s an answer? More importantly…that’s a story?

Yet the real story is even more surreal and insulting. Here’s what really happened, and what the “female attendee” will never see covered seriously. If voters were exposed to the Romney campaign follow-up to the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, they would abandon these hucksters in a heartbeat:

Politifact kinda says Scott Walker was lying when he said Trial Lawyers on employer discrimination “Gravy Train”.

Trial lawyers were on a gravy train suing businesses for workplace discrimination, don’t cha know.

But like voter fraud, Walker came up with a solution looking for a problem. I swear almost everything Republican do have something to do with disabling their opponents in whatever way possible.

Politifact’s latest Walker takedown proves that point beyond any doubt:

When Politifact Wisconsin first wrote about an attempt by Republicans to repeal a law that allowed discriminated workers to sue in state court, we found a surprising statistic: The law had been in effect for nearly three years, but no such lawsuits had been filed.

And yet a month later, days after signing a repeal of the law, GOP Gov. Scott Walker suggested the law had been a financial windfall for attorneys. "In the past, it was kind of a gravy train for the trial bar," the governor told the Wisconsin Radio Network on April 10, 2012. He added: "The only change (the repeal) really makes is it no longer includes the benefit that was in place before for lawyers." Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie acknowledged that no state court lawsuits were filed while the old law was in effect. So, clearly lawyers weren’t getting paid based on their clients winning discrimination cases in state court.

But Werwie argued that the law was still a "kind of a gravy train" for lawyers because they could extract settlements from employers by threatening to sue in state court. Wisconsin Restaurant Assc. lobbyist Pete Hanson said that shortly after the old law took effect, one restaurant agreed to pay a roughly $50,000 settlement on a claim that typically would have been settled for a fraction of that because of the potential cost of a lawsuit. However, when the law was passed, it said it could only be applied to future cases -- not those already in the pipeline.

Werwie cited 2009 testimony in support of the old law by Madison attorney Paul Kinne, who represented the Wisconsin Association for Justice, Kinne argued "Limited damages make it very difficult to bring discrimination cases. Attorneys turn down dozens of cases because damages are limited and most people cannot afford to pay hourly fees."

Like Werwie’s first point, this one does not provide hard evidence that the law was a financial boon for lawyers. Werwie noted that, of six organizations that lobbied for the 2009 law, one was the trial lawyers group and four were unions. But that, too, does not support the "gravy train" statement.
We rate Walker’s statement Mostly False.

But who knows, anything can still happen. 

Rep. Michelle Litjens No Friend of Women's Pay, Thinks Disparity is a Myth.

Michelle Litjens is leaving politics, but not before she marks her territory by trashing women’s rights in the workplace. Move aside Sen. Glenn Grothman, Litjens just took the War on Women crown, turning in one of the most repugnant interviews I've seen to date. Her joyful smile over this serious topic is unsettling and shocking.

For Litjens, pay inequality is just a myth.

In a tactically rehearsed opening statement, a ploy I’ve seen parroted by other Republicans nationally, Litjens repeats the language used by equal pay supporters. It comes across oddly out of place and wrong, not to mention an extreme example of projection:

Litjens: “You know this is 2012, kinda thought we were past this. I thought women were treated equally as men, and I’m really surprised that we’re actually discussing this now. (nose scrunch) I think the left is really reaching for anything they can grab onto, so they can guarantee themselves a win in the fall…We should be celebrating as women. Is that women actually earning more, single childless women earn more money than single childless men. That’s something to celebrate.”

Litjens wants to celebrate? But she was deceptively twisting bad news into "good news." Here the real story:

Also troubling are comparisons showing that women with children are paid less than women without children, but that men with children are paid more than men without children. 

It takes a really sick mind to make something so bad look like an event to celebrate. Democratic Rep. Sandy Pasch corrects every horrific lie Litjens conjures up, with facts. Upfront with Mike Gousha:

The perky Litjens acts like wage discrimination is just made up. So why was the Supreme Court dealing with the following: 

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974), U.S. Supreme Court: Ruled that employers cannot justify paying women lower wages because that is what they traditionally received under the "going market rate." A wage differential occurring "simply because men would not work at the low rates paid women" was unacceptable.

See, employers were actually justifying lower wages for women, which in turn, must mean wage discrimination is…real! Here are a few quick facts:

We don't expect the wage gap to close until 40-plus years. On a national level by occupation the findings show that median earnings for women are lower than men's in nearly all occupations.

Between 1950 and 1960, women with full time jobs earned on average between 59–64 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earned in the same job. In 2008 they earned 77% of men's wages … In 2005, women under 25 working full-time earned 93.2% of men's salaries compared to those 25 and older, who earned 79.4% of what men made. In 2009, President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. This Act is named after a former employee of Goodyear who alleged that she was paid 15-40 percent less than her male counterparts, which was later found to be accurate. Women currently make approximately 80 cents for every dollar that men earn.

Women are Clogging up the Legal System Suing over Equal Pay Violations!

Al Sharpton focused on Scott Walker's recent repeal of certain rights in the states equal pay law. In a clip he provided, Scott Walker says he's worried that lawyers (really, women who are suing) will clog up the legal system. Sharpton comes back with,

"Am I missing something, equality would clog up the legal system? I thought the system was to make sure we have equality." 

 Lilly Ledbetter takes Scott Walker on:

Will Women in Wisconsin go along with Walker's Roll back of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act? War on Women intensifying.

Wisconsin just rolled back the Equal Pay Enforcement Act.

Let's be clear, if women in the state are okay with the Republicans Party and Scott Walker making it almost impossible to sue for workplace discrimination, than we're all in real trouble. More women than men are finding work or keeping their jobs than ever before. How will this impact families? 

Scott Walker just signed SB202, which took the least costly state circuit courts from women and left just the federal courts, and eliminated compensatory and punitive damages for acts of employment discrimination. Sen. Glenn Grothman didn't trust the judgement of juries to make the right monetary decisions.

Why would Wisconsin Manufacturing and Commerce and the Wisconsin Restaurant Association back such a downgrade in the law if they didn't have something up their sleeves? They wouldn't have. Joining that list; Wisconsin Restaurant Association, Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, Wisconsin Builders Association, Wisconsin Hospital Association Inc (WHA), Wisconsin Hotel and Lodging Association, Wisconsin Insurance Alliance.

Let the lower paychecks begin. In Wisconsin, women were making 75 cent for every dollar men were making. Ah, the good old days? Aren't conservative women just a little suspicious?

The war on women, from denying state funding to Planned Parenthood, sex ed changes to new abortion requirements, is in full swing in Wisconsin. And it's only been a year.

The Equal Pay Enforcement Act became law in July 2009. The purpose of the law is to provide a stronger enforcement mechanism for violations of pay and workplace discrimination by allowing victims to plead their case in the less costly state circuit system rather than having to try to get their cases heard by federal courts. It also provides stronger penalties for employers who were found guilty of discrimination.

SB 202 removes the “enforcement” from the Equal Pay Enforcement Act. This bill repeals the ability for anyone who’s been discriminated on the job to plead their cases in circuit court.