Originally Posted by BigLouie
At least some of those blocked bills are legislative achievements. The bills were bad to begin with. So stopping them is GOOD.
You don't judge a bill by its title, which clearly you do. They are have catchy monikers designed to gloss over the warts they cover. That is a common, insulting tactic played by both parties.
Immigration "reform"? What is that? Building a better wall and fining businesses that hire illegals? Or just saying "fuck it" and granting amnesty to everyone? Who says it's a good reform? Do I have to take your word for it?
Oil spill liability? What's that?
Anti-Rape Amendment? Normally you would say "Who can be against punishing rape?" But what if it is just Congress giving itself a general police power to punish rape? That is unconstitutional since the general police power to punish crime is a power that resides in the states. And I am against allowing the federal government to have a general police power.
Health care for 9/11 First Responders? Stop making laws on the basis that some victims are more deserving than others. Yes, it is tragic if firemen clearing rubble at Ground Zero develop lung problems. But it is also tragic if a volunteer fireman fighting wildfires in California suffers severe burns. Why do we single out one first responder for extra benefits from Uncle Sam, but not the other?
The Fair Pay Act? What is that about? If it provides for equal pay for men and women with the SAME LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE doing the EXACT SAME JOB, I'm all for it.
On the other hand, if it is one of those weaselly provisions in which activists demand that DIFFERENT government jobs that have similar education or experience requirements receive the same pay, then I am dead against it. This typically arises when a job position that is mostly filled by women is paid less than a different job position that is mostly filled by men. (Side note - you never hear them complain if it is the other way around). If the two jobs require, for example, a 4 year degree, then "progressives" demand to know why they are not paid the same - even though one is a nursing supervisor and the other is an IT specialist.
They act as if supply and demand do not exist. So, if there is an oversupply of nurses in the market places and wages are depressed (at least relative to the IT guy), then "progressives" will insist that the government overpay for nurses to match the pay of the IT specialists.
There is a big oversupply of lawyers in the country right now. Legal profession wages are depressed. Do you favor artificially inflating the pay of lawyers working in state government so they can keep pace with, say, doctors at state hospitals, because both professions require post-graduate degrees?