Mitt Romney’s “Binders Full of Women”: Why This Intended Boast Was Just Offensive

As have many, I have also found myself thinking a lot about Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" remark  made during the Presidential debate this Tuesday, October 16, 2012.  Besides the reportedly  inherent inaccuracies of his statement, not to mention its characteristically “inelegant” nature, Romney’s remark has been bothering me on a more fundamental level.

 

The remark was in response to a question from a woman who asked Romney how he would "rectify the inequalities in the workplace" between men and women, specifically the 72 percent that women make of what men make for equal work.  Not only was his answer non-responsive to her specific question, it appeared to show an opposite belief on Romney’s part that women are actually incapable of equal work to men in high level positions.  Apparently, according to Romney, concessions must be made.

Romney’s answer potentially reveals three inaccurate, and, frankly, archaic beliefs.  First:  All women qualified to hold high level positions either have children they must take care of, or they would rather be a caretaker/homemaker than hold a high level position.  Neither is an absolute:  A) not all women have children—some choose a career over having children; B) last time I checked a biology textbook, it takes a man to have a child, so there are a lot of men in high level positions that have children too, so the need or desire for a flexible work schedule is not uniquely a female issue; and C) some women qualified for high level positions who have children also have partners (husbands or wives) who take on the primary childrearing and homemaking responsibilities, thus obviating the need for or want of a flexible work schedule. 

Second:  No men qualified to hold high level positions would ever want or need a flexible work schedule because they either do not have children or they have wives.  See B and C above; and D) the assumption that between a father and mother that only the mother wants or needs a flexible work schedule to care for school-aged children is a tired assumption, and it is high time fathers are given the opportunities for a flexible work schedule in order to spend more time with their children and/or step up to the plate to take on more of that role. 

Third:  Women are simply not interested in holding high level positions, so it takes a man (like Romney) to coax them into the position by promising flexible work schedules.  See A - D above.

Romney’s nonresponsive answer gives rise to more questions than it does to answer the woman’s question.  For instance, did the women Romney hire take a salary cut for their flexible work schedule?  Was the flexible work schedule offered equally to men and women in Romney’s cabinet?  Did they have the same opportunities for advancement while on a flexible work schedule as the men? Were they given fewer chances for real responsibility just because they were on a flexible work schedule? Whenever there is a discussion of women doing equal work for equal pay, or the (very real) glass ceiling in the private sector, inevitably the conversation goes right to women’s childrearing/homemaking responsibilities.  Although both issues do overlap in some places, the two are not inextricably tied together. 

Receiving equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with whether a woman has children, because men have children too.  Pay should be based on ability, not one’s lack of a uterus.  And while a flexible work schedule is certainly a welcome alternative, it should not be something offered to, or utilized by, only women.  There are plenty of really smart, qualified men who also want an opportunity to play a larger role in their children’s lives (Mitt even advocated “the benefit of having two parents in the home” during the debate), just as there are plenty of really smart, qualified women who should not only be offered the high level job, but who should receive the same pay as their male counterparts.

Apparently, Mitt did not, as he boasted, learn “a great deal” when he staffed his gubernatorial cabinet

Share

Are Republicans Intentionally Disenfranchising Obama Supporters?

As election day approaches, the courts are tackling various challenges to voter laws.  Joining the recent decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the United States Supreme Court.

Yesterday,  Monday October 15, 2012, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's April 12, 2012 decision to strike down Arizona's Proposition 200 requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the states must "accept and use" the federal form to register to vote, which requires prospective voters to swear or affirm by their signature that they are a citizen of the United States.  The Arizona law sought to require prosepective voters to produce proof of citizenship in order to register.  The Ninth Circuit upheld Proposition 200's provision requiring voters to provide identification at the poll, but stated that the NVRA supercedes the requirement to provide proof of citizenship with the use of the NVRA voter registration form.  The Court will not hear oral argument in this case until after the election, in early 2013.

In another voters' rights case, the Supreme Court today declined to stay a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal affirming an injunction by the lower court preventing the 2011 revisions to Ohio Rev. Code s. 3509.03 from taking effect to stop voters from casting early ballots during the three days before the November 2012 general election.  The Sixth Circuit held that the revisions to the statute were unconstitutional and blocked the revisions from taking effect.  The state of Ohio applied to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction "pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari."  The Supreme Court stated simply in its order, "The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan, and by her referred to the Court is denied."  It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will ultimately grant certiorari to the State of Ohio, but this will also be decided after the November election.

If anything, this flurry of appellate activity surrounding voters' rights is an indication of just how close this election is expected to be.  Every vote counts, and it appears the Republican strategy is to disenfranchise the citizens who are most likely to be a vote for Obama.  If this sounds harsh or overstated, take a look at the words of Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA), or better yet, listen to those of Penn. Republican House Speaker Mike Turzai.



UPDATE (Oct. 17, 2012): See also this reported incident..

Perhaps the Republican theme is a fear of foreigners.  In the 2008 election, it appeared to be the Birthers' fear that a foreign born President would be elected.  That red herring had to be dropped in light of the fact that Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico.  In 2012, perhaps the fear is that foreigners are reelecting him.

 Share

Would You Like Broccoli With That Health Insurance Plan? The Supremes Discuss The Slippery Slope Of ObamaCare

Broccoli, cell phones and burial services, oh my! What will the government force us to buy next? The parade of horribles was the topic du jour at Tuesday's oral argument before the US Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the individual mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act. The Supremes expressed concern over the slippery slope potentially created by the ACA and where the line should be drawn. At issue is whether the individual mandate of the ACA is authorized by the United States Constitution art. 1 sec. 8 clause 3, the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has, over the past 190 years, interpreted the Commerce Clause to allow congress to regulate all sorts of industries, from ship navigation, to the Chicago meat industry, to wheat production for personal use.


Justice Scalia, notorious for his conservative legal opinions, asked the first question of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, setting the tone for the day. Scalia queried, perhaps disingenuously, why couldn't the federal government just directly address the problems of individual access to health care rather than the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The answer of course, is that the present Congress will not create a public health care option. Appropriately, Mr. Verrilli did not give this answer, but offered instead that the ACA is in fact addressing the problem directly.


The Justices' questions centered around the concern that if Congress can require individuals to purchase health care, why can't Congress require the purchase of a cell phone, of broccoli, of health club memberships or of funeral services? Verrilli;s answer to these questions pointed out the health care market is different because (a) it is the only market where you can show up without the means to pay and you will still be provided the service at the expense of those who do pay; (b) everyone will eventually need health care and thus everyone is a market participant; (c) the ACA seeks to regulate the health care industry, not the insurance industry, and requires the method of payment for health care be through health insurance; (d) the ACA uses the most efficient method that allows consumer choice among insurance policies; and (e) the ACA does not provide any enforcement powers--if insurance is not purchased, the penalty is not anymore than what one would have paid for the insurance.


The respondents arguing to strike the mandate did not have any easier a time with the Justices. Attorney Paul Clemente, arguing for the respondent 26 states, argued the ACA forces individuals to purchase a product. Clemente argued that defining the market as those who access health care was improper, and that the market being regulated was those that purchased insurance. Clemente suggested it would be constitutional for the ACA instead to only require that insurance be purchased at the point of sale; i.e. only when one gets sick and shows up to the Emergency Room. The Justices focused their questions to Clemente on issues regarding the definition of the market being regualted (insurance versus health care), the fact that uninsured patients already shift the cost of their health care to paying patients, and what difference does it make if the ACA requires the purchase of insurance prior to getting sick or at the time of receiving health care services.


Justice Breyer proposed a hypothetical situation several times to the respondent attorneys, asking, what if "a disease is sweeping the United States, and 40 million people are susceptible, of whom 10 million will die; can't the federal Government say all 40 million get inoculated?" Mr. Clemente avoided answering, which perhaps accounts for Justice Breyer's attempt three more times to get an answer. Justice Breyer then changed the hypothetical to whether the EPA could require all automobiles have anti pollution equipment if it turned out 60% of them caused pollution. Attorney Carvin conceded the commerce clause authorized Congress to enact such a law but pointed out only those who bought automobiles would be required to do so.


The problem with the respondents' argument is they attempt to limit the individuals affected in the market being regulated by the ACA to those purchasing insurance, leading to their protest that Congress is requiring an affirmative purchase of a product that would not otherwise be purchased. To hear the respondents say it, the 40 million uninsured are uninsured by choice, rather than because they cannot afford the premiums, and thus should not be forced to purchase an unwanted product. Justice Ginsberg's comparison of the ACA to the social security system is well taken, albiet, social security is funded by a tax, making it a different animal. The truth is, as many of the Justices pointed out, every person from the time they are born will at some point need to use health care. That is the industry that the ACA targets. The ACA mandates that health care is paid for by insurance, which the respondents concede is a proper Congressional power under the commerce clause. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, "the young [healthy] person is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that s not true in other industries." Thus their participation directly affects the price others will pay not just for insurance, but for health care. Health care costs go up because hospitals are required by federal law to treat those who cannot pay for their services, thus shifting the costs to everyone else. The respondents' solution that those who "choose" not to purchase insurance can be required to purchase it at the time they do need health cares serices, is not only unreasonable and naive, but implausible.

As Mr. Vermilli pointed out, 40 million Americans can not obtain health care insurance because of the cost of the premiums. If a point of sale requirement were placed on these individuals as argued by the respondents, the cost of insurance would essentially be the cost of the health service. Actuarially, the premium you pay is based on some calculus of the chance you will get sick and how much the health care you might need could cost. If someone shows up at the Emergency Room and endeavors to purchase insurance then and there, the chance that you will get sick is 100% because you are currently sick, and the cost is more or less calculable. So, the premium, from an actuarial point of view and the point of view of the insurance company should be the cost of the treatment you are seeking. Which brings us back to the uninsured showing up to the Emergency Room with no means of paying The cost would still be shifted to others with insurance.

Share