Gillibrand responds to male colleague who comments on her weight

We’ve ended almost ended made no progress on sexism, none whatsoever. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is promoting her new book and telling stories about the bad behavior of her male colleagues. Gillibrand notes she has been called “chubby,” “fat,” and “porky” by her male colleagues which shows the rampant sexism in Congress, but also how dated these dudes are. I read about all of this in Brendan James’ piece for Talking Points Memo.

Personally, I love that these old dudes think a woman would care what they think of her body. One even story includes an older senator approaching her from behind and squeezing her waist while saying, “Don’t lose too much weight now. I like my girls chubby.” Um…your girl? Funny I thought Gillibrand was a US Senator. Of course, most of these comments were allegedly made while Gillibrand was struggling—her words—with her weight during and after her second pregnancy.

In one particularly charming story in the House gym, another male colleague told her to work out so she didn’t get “porky.” In her book she says, “Thanks, a—hole.” Other examples include being told she is pretty even when she is fat, and a labor leader telling her she needs to be pretty to win elections, like she used to be.

You know, I’ve never had a coworker that stupid, then again I’ve never been a member of Congress so…I’ve always worked with women or the majority women and for progressive organizations so stupid shit like porn in the office and sexist comments just don’t happen. There is so much wrong here. Kudos to Gillibrand for not slapping any of these guys or maybe that is in the book too.

House GOP votes to cut SNAP

These people are the worst. I just don’t understand. The Huffington Post had a piece by Arthur Delaney and Michael McAuliff on the cuts. As I mentioned earlier in the week they want to take $40 billion over the next ten years starting in 2014. This bill requires beneficiaries to pass income and asset tests to prove poverty. It would allow drug tests because that is working so well with welfare. It would allow states to deny all able-bodied adults who don’t work or enroll in training for at least 20 hours per week. So let’s see what these ignorant asshats had to say:

• Eric Cantor: “This bill is designed to give people a hand when they need it most. Most people don’t choose to be on food stamps. Most people want a job. Most people want to go out and be productive so that they can earn a living, so that they can support a family, so that they can have hope for a more prosperous future. They want what we want.”
• Tim Huelskamp: “If you’re a healthy adult and don’t have someone relying on you to care for them, you ought to earn the benefits you receive. Look for work. Start job training to improve you skills or do community service. But you can no longer sit on your couch or ride a surfboard like Jason in California [man profiled by Fox News, so completely true you guys, stop implying Fox is propaganda network] and expect the federal taxpayers to feed you.”
• Frank Lucas (feel his desperation for this bill to pass): “I admit to you, that has been an unusual process. But it remains my goal to get a five-year bill [farm bill] enacted. I’m doing everything possible to make sure that happens this year.” Continuing on to say, “We have a responsibility to get this done, and quite simply, and I repeat, quite simply, it shouldn’t be this hard to pass a bill that ensures all of us in this economy has enough to eat. And that’s what a farm bill does.”
• Steve Southerland: “Work is not a penalty. Work is a blessing.”

And what are the Democrats saying?

• Marcia Fudge (O-H-IO): Today’s exercise is nothing more than a waste of out time and an insult to every American in need. The fact that we are considering this legislation makes me question whether the Republican leadership even wants a farm bill.” She added, this bill “guts nutrition for those most in need and says to the poor, to hungry children, to the disabled, seniors and our veterans, ‘You don’t matter, you are not worthy of our help.’ They deserve better.”

These bastards need to loss their jobs. Let’s see what we can cut from the federal budget if these people who voted in favor of this bill wouldn’t collect a salary next year:

In 2021: 233 Republicans in the House.

11 in Leadership collecting $193,400 and 1 Speaker $233,500.

221 members collecting $174,000

This comes out to $40,804,900 for the Republicans.

For the Democrats $35,052,200. So if everyone in the house didn’t collect a salary this year we’d have $75,857,100 to put toward SNAP. And that is before their staff.

With staff: $128,261,368 in 2012. But I’m not heartless, staffers should make a salary because they didn’t actually vote against the poor, but in DC the minimum wage is $8.25, and the living wage bill was vetoed by Mayor Gray as you remember, but there is a bill to raise it to $10.25 so we’ll pay them for a 35 hour work week at $10.25 an hour. I know what you’re thinking, but they work so many more hours that that, yeah, but this is the Wal-mart way.

This comes out to $10.25*35*52= $18,655. And multiply that by the 5,336 staffers listed in 2009 is $99,543,080, which leaves $28,718,288 from what was spent on them this year. All of this would be $104,575,388 is government salaries from the House of Representatives. Think about adding the Senate and the White House. Obviously, this isn’t going to be effective, because if we paid staffers minimum wage, even an increased minimum they’d be in poverty. Secondly, this doesn’t raise enough money. In reality I’m in favor of cutting DoD spending. I just find these numbers astonishing while they attempt to starve the poor.

Aside, thirteen people were killed last night in Chicago in a mass shooting. After my post yesterday, and how the nation forgot to grieve for DC, we’re not grieving for Chicago either. The Chicago PD isn’t releasing any information at this point about the shooting. They did release some information about the victims (pulled from the article linked to):

• The 3-year-old boy, shot in the ear, in critical condition at Mount Sinai;
• A 17-year-old girl, shot in the foot, condition stabilized at Holy Cross Hospital;
• A 15-year-old boy shot in the arm, stabilized at Holy Cross;
• A man, 27, shot in the leg and wrist, serious condition at Mount Sinai;
• A man, 24, shot twice in the stomach, serious condition at Mount Sinia;
• A man, 21, shot in the leg, serious condition at Mount Sinai;
• A man, 41, shot in the buttocks, serious condition at John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital;
• A woman, 33, shot in the shoulder, condition stabilized at Northwestern Memorial Hospital;
• A man, 31, shot in the buttocks, condition stabilized at Northwestern;
• A woman, 23, shot in the foot, condition stabilized at St. Anthony Hospital;
• A man, 37, shot in the leg, in good condition at Stroger;
• A man, 25, shot in the knee, in good condition at Northwestern;
• And a man, 33, who drove himself to Little Company of Mary Hospital in Evergreen Park with a gunshot wound to the leg and who was treated and released.

Paying disabled workers less than minimum wage is wrong...

I swear to god the federal government is trolling me. So Goodwill and I have a complicated relationship. A family member of mine is employed with them as a technical writer and she also works with their consumers (mentally disabled individuals). Additionally, Goodwill does do some good providing employment with the mentally disabled and providing goods to the low income.

All that said, the more and more I hear about Goodwill the more disturbing the whole non-profit seems. Like many non-profits, Goodwill is operating much more like a corporation because non-profits have to compete with private for profit companies. On Friday, Katie Mcdonough wrote a piece for Salon on disabled workers pay from Goodwill, specifically, that Goodwill is paying less than minimum wage.

In 2011, Goodwill Industries (a multibillion-dollar non-profit) paid workers with disabilities in Pennsylvania wages as low as 22, 38, and 41 cents an hour, according to Labor Department records obtained by NBC News. Goodwill isn’t the only non-profit doing this. Apparently, there is a loophole in the federal labor law due to a Depression-era loophole in federal labor law, as reported by NBC:

“Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was passed in 1938, allows employers to obtain special minimum wage certificates from the Department of Labor. The certificates give employers the right to pay disabled workers according to their abilities, with no bottom limit to the wage…The non-profit certificate holders can also place employees in outside, for-profit workplaces including restaurants, retail stores, hospitals and even Internal Revenues Service centers.”

Goodwill defends its practice as an attempt to provide jobs to people who need and want them, but disability and labor rights advocates call the loophole exploitative. It traps disabled workers in a system that places their value below those without disabilities. The Fair Waged for Workers with Disabilities Act of 2013 (H.R. 831) currently being considered in Congress to repeal Section 14 (c) and mandate employers fairly compensate workers. This faces fierce opposition from trade associations representing employers who benefit from the loophole.

Obviously, this bill should pass, but probably won’t. Awesome. *facepalm*

This week in stupid shit our representatives do: House will vote on a national abortion ban

Tara Culp-Ressler had an article for ThinkProgress on this waste of time. The House is going to vote on a national abortion ban that is obviously going to be defeated in the Senate. All these people should lose their jobs. The House is going to vote on the 20-week abortion ban next week; this is the same kind of ban that was struck down by the courts last month in Arizona. 

 

This is being pushed the hardest by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and of course is endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee. The bill would criminalize abortion services after 20 weeks of pregnancy—this is based on disputed “science” that says fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks. However, Roe v. Wade gives women a constitutional right to abortion services until the point of viability, generally understood to occur around 24 weeks of pregnancy. 

 

Now, this will probably pass the House because we elect people who hate women at an overwhelming majority, but the Senate (controlled by Dems) aren’t going to let it pass. Apparently, they are frustrated that they have to waste their time with a doomed bill anyway. Last time this happened, even moderate Republicans complained they would rather spend their time on other priorities, like jobs. This year, maybe they could focus on the sequester, but let’s make sure these anti-women zealots get their chance to talk about things they have no understanding of in some symbolic vote on abortion. 

 

Franks has been trying to make restricting women’s rights a priority for a while. First this bill was supposed to only apply to women in DC, but he decided why just restrict DC women’s rights? With this kind of stupid idea, let’s do this thing nationwide. Of course, he was inspired by the Gosnell case…I guess he wants to make more women suffer through horrific conditions because they can’t receive affordable, legal abortion services. This idea that Gosnell was allowed to happen because of legalized abortion is idiocy and a straight up delusion that ignores systemic racism and classism in health care. Gosnell happened because poor women don’t have access to safe reproductive care. 

 

20 week bans are attempts to backdoor Roe v. Wade. They also haven’t held up in court as previously mentioned. We really have nothing else to do in Congress than make symbolic gestures to legislate hate against women? I hate everything. 

 

 ***Update, after I wrote this, Rep. Franks decided to talk about things he doesn't know, "The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low." Oh really? I guess someone wasn't paying attention during the Susan B. Anthony speakers, or maybe the gentlemen of the GOP just stop listening when the womenfolk are talking. Franks dismissed the estimate that 32,101 women become pregnant after a rape. He walked this statement back after some backlash. ThinkProgress noted that at least one study found that 32.4% of rape victims didn't find out they were pregnant until their second trimesters (after Franks' 20 week restriction). Half of those victims choose to undergo an abortion rather than keep the fetus or up it up for adoption. Other research suggests that rape victims are more likely to become pregnant, which puts the number of women who become pregnant from rape in one year around 83,000.

They’re cutting food stamps because people are terrible, time to storm the castle.

The Nation reports that Congress will cut food stamp funding during an economic climate where more people are relying on the program than ever before. To which I say, everyone involved in this has a special place reserved in hell. George Zornick wrote about it on Tuesday.

On Monday night, the Senate passed the five-year farm bill that includes $4.1 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or Food Stamps) over the next ten years. This means now they just have to decide how much to cut, and it will probably be more than the $4.1 billion. The House Agriculture Committee passed the farm bill last month that cut $20.5 billion from SNAP by removing “categorical eligibility” (a method that forty states employ to make ensure needy families receive food stamps; they are generous rules when compared to straight up starving children), which takes food stamps away from two million Americans and hundreds of thousands of children. *slow clap*

The bill hasn’t been fully debated on the House floor yet, but they will push for even more cuts because Paul Ryan wants to starve children (his 2013 budget called for $135 billion in food stamp cuts). On Tuesday, 25 Republicans wrote to Speaker Boehner to remove food stamp funding all together. They want the SNAP funding to be debated on a different track, but what they really mean is they don’t want to have to agree to just $20.5 billion in food stamp cuts at the risk of killing the farm bill.

Once the House bill passes, it will head to conference committee, and the negotiators will have to reach a consensus figure. It won’t be lower than $4.1 billion. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand introduced a bill last month to block any cuts to food stamps, but only 25 Democrats supported the bill and 0 Republicans. The bill failed 70-26. Senator Debbie Stabenow, chair of the Senate Agriculture committee, defends the cuts as a way to stop “waste, fraud and abuse” in the SNAP program. She urged Democrats to vote against Gillibrand’s bill. Sen. Stabenow said this on the matter, “Every family that currently qualifies for nutrition assistance in this country continues to get that assistance. We do make sure there is integrity in the programs.”

Except that isn’t how this works. The $4.1 billion cuts will eliminate the “Heat and Eat” programs adopted by several states to coordinate low-income heating assistance with SNAP benefits, which allows for a slightly larger benefit. You know who needs to coordinate low-income assistance programs, best make these people file with a lot of different programs. It is better that everything is more confusing and cumbersome.  The Center for American Progress estimates that for every $1 billion cut from SNAP, 13,718 jobs are lost. Awesome, I hope these people don’t need SNAP. So by that calculation this bill will cost 56,243 jobs.

At this point the hope is that House Democrats who pledged to fight food stamp cuts hold their group. But Democrats are like Cleveland sports teams, snatching defeat from victory every time, and they are going to lose this fight. Assuming they even try to fight. Everyone who voted in favor of this bill deserves your disgust, and so do those who are opposed just because they want to cut more from SNAP. Yes, that includes Sens. Brown and Warren who voted in favor of it. In case anyone is wondering, now would be a good time to organize and storm the castle. People use this program because they don't have reliable access to food. Do you get what that means? Access to food.  I'm disgusted this is even up for debate. Especially, given the amount consumed and wasted by the US, but nope, we can't feed the hungry among us. They are lazy and need to get jobs...bullshit. Special hell for everyone involved in this.

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---66
Alexander (R-TN) Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Chiesa (R-NJ) Coats (R-IN) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Donnelly (D-IN)	Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Fischer (R-NE) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Heinrich (D-NM) Heitkamp (D-ND) Hirono (D-HI) Hoeven (R-ND) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)	McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Moran (R-KS) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-NM) Vitter (R-LA) Warren (D-MA) Wicker (R-MS) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---27
Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Coburn (R-OK) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) Cruz (R-TX) Enzi (R-WY) Flake (R-AZ)	Hatch (R-UT) Heller (R-NV) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (R-WI) Kirk (R-IL) Lee (R-UT) McConnell (R-KY) Portman (R-OH) Reed (D-RI)	Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rubio (R-FL) Scott (R-SC) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Toomey (R-PA) Whitehouse (D-RI)

Not Voting - 7
Begich (D-AK) Manchin (D-WV) McCain (R-AZ)	Murkowski (R-AK) Paul (R-KY) Udall (D-CO)	Warner (D-VA)