Today’s Tosser: Illinois Review, Apparently Jim Oberweis’ Web Site is Lying About Him

Illinois Review, with issues of honesty themselves, attack Bill Foster’s commercial as being untrue because it claims:

The false claim in the ad is that somehow Jim Oberweis doesn’t support employer provided health care. However, according to the correction that ran in today’s Chicago Tribune, Foster’s charge is false. You have to read the fine print, but hey, it’s there . . .

Well, let’s look at Jim’s web site:

In the long run, then, a fundamental element of health care reform must be to move away from the third party payer system, and reintroduce incentives for managing one’s own health care expenditures. Tax-free Health Savings Accounts are an excellent first step in the right direction.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/hobjGiNadCc" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

So, Oberweis does say he wants to end employer provided health care insurance.  It’s on his web site.  Did someone hack into it and put it there to smear him?

What’s the problem here?

Daily Dolt: Phyllis Schafly

Lying twice wasn’t enough over at Illinois Review, they pulled in Phyllis Schlafly to lie a third time about the ERA and Social Security.

The passage Eaton and Schlafly are lying about is on page 206 in Sex Bias in the U.S. Code

Here is what they claim supports them on page 206:

“Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes – independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family, and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household. This concept must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle.”

This, of course, is out of context given directly following this passage is:

Underlying the recommendations made in this report is the fundamental point that allocation of responsibilities within the family is a matter properly determined solely by the individuals involved.  Government should not steer individual decisions concerning household or breadwinning roles by casting the law’s weight on the side of (or against) a particular method of ordering private relationships.  Rather, a policy of strict neutrality should be pursued.  That policy should accomodate both traditional and innovative patterns.  At the same time, it should assure removal of artificial constraints so that women and men willing to explore their full potential as human beings may create new traditions by their actions.

I also cited page 45 and since Eaton and Schlafly continue their lie, let’s cut and paste pages 45 and 46 of the report.

1. Revise social security law to provide father’s benefits in all cases where mother’s benefits are provided under present law;

2. Eliminate the dependency requirement for husband’s or widower’s benefits;

3. Provide derivative social security benefits to divorced husbands;

4. Make the age 62 computation point applicable for men born prior to 1913;

5. Eliminate the 20-of-4O quarter work test required now to qualify for disability
benefits;

6. Establish an occupational definition of disability for workers 55 years and older;

7. Make eligibility for benefits available all disabled widows and disabled surviving divorced wives regardless of age, and make the benefits not subject to actuarial
reduction;

8. Provide benefits to disabled spouses of beneficiaries;

9. Define dependents to include relatives live in the home;

10. Reduce the duration of marriage requirement from 20 to 5 or 10 years for a divorced spouse to qualify for benefits on the basis of the wage-earner spouse’s earnings record, and remove the requirement of consecutive years of marriage. In the alternative, divorced wife’s right to receive benefits should be based on the economic relationship between the parties and not the length marriage;

11. Allow additional dropout years to relate benefits more to current earnings;

 12. Compute primary benefits and spoused benefits to increase the primary benefits for workers by approximately one-eighth, and reduce the spouse’s proportion from one-half to one-third, maintaining thereby the current total benefit of 15 percent for a couple while at the same time improving the protection for single workers, working couples, and surviving spouses; and

13. Amend the Social Security Act to eliminate separate references to men and women.

Phyllis Schlafley is lying and doing it badly.  When the report (it wasn’t a book by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was a report to The United States Commission on Civil Rights) was issued men did not receive the same survivor benefits women did.  That was changed not long after the report actually and as such, the lie at the center of this scare tactic was made moot nearly 30 years ago.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t arguing that survivor and spouse benefits should be eliminated to make individuals more equal, she was arguing that men should receive the same benefits in the same situation.  The reason for this is that families should decide upon the proper roles within the family, not the government. The point was to increase liberty while still providing the same level of benefits–which is what the system has done over this time.

That Eaton and Schlafly would so boldly lie isn’t terribly surprising.  Schlafly is still touting unisex bathrooms. The issue is why does anyone give them any attention or space to print this crap other than on wingnut blogs.  Eaton took her lie to the Southtown Star and got it pubished presumably because it was an opinion piece. It was an opinion piece, it just had several facts supporting the claims wrong.  And not just wrong, but the opposite of her claims.

Daily Dolt: Fran Eaton, Lying Liar

Eaton tries to lie herself out yesterday’s lie. She claims the below proves that Ginsburg thought the ERA would eliminate survivor benefits for women who choose to stay home.

“Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes – independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family, and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household. This concept must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle.”

Of course, this is directly contradicted by the text of page 45 in which the recommendations for Social Security changes include making the language gender neutral so that men and women have equal access to survivor benefits regardless who who works and who might stay at home.

But what is even more telling is how she uses the quote above that doesn’t even make the argument she claims it makes.  It talks about making the code gender neutral, not eliminating benefits for women who didn’t work outside the home.

What Fran cannot do is cite the next paragraph that demonstrates just how much of a liar Fran is:

Underlying the recommendations made in this report is the fundamental point that allocation of responsibilities within the family is a matter properly determined solely by the individuals involved.  Government should not steer individual decisions concerning household or breadwinning roles by casting the law’s weight on the side of (or against) a particular method of ordering private relationships.  Rather, a policy of strict neutrality should be pursued.  That policy should accomodate both traditional and innovative patterns.  At the same time, it should assure removal of artificial constraints so that women and men willing to explore their full potential as human beings may create new traditions by their actions.

Combine this with the recommendations on page 45 and what is clear is that Ginsburg argued for expanding benefits to widowers as well as widows, not to eliminate benefits to widows.

Why Eaton feels the need to lie about the report is beyond me, but she clearly did.  And the Southtown Star helped her in that endeavor.

Ouch, The Stupid! It Burns! Daily Dolt: Fran Eaton

Fran Eaton pulls out the Phyllis Schlafley lie book on the ERA

Pro-traditional family activists are very concerned that with the ERA, states will be forced to issue marriage licenses to any two persons who request them because the ERA eliminates discrimination based on sex.

The horrors.  But more to the point, passing the ERA would require than any differentiation based on sex by the government at any level be a suspect classification that would require a strict scrutiny test.  The ERA wouldn’t eliminate any differentiation based on gender, it would simply put the burden on the state to demonstrate there was a compelling state interest in treating the sexes differently.  Abortion rights and same sex marriage rights in states that have adopted them have primarily relied upon privacy rights. Those that do rely upon state level ERA provisions largely have more sweeping interpretations of text.  To put it simply, the ban on same sex marriage hits both genders the same way so no differentiation occurs.  The exceptions to such an interpretation are far smaller than the interpretation of the few states that have even considered the argument. Abortion wise, there are only two states where such an argument has been successful.  Federal law bases abortion on privacy grounds, not gender differentiation.

But Madigan may not be aware that stay-at-home moms and widows will be affected by the passage of the ERA. Women who have chosen a career of taking care of their families instead of a career outside the home no longer will be able to tap into their husband’s Social Security reserves upon his retirement or death.

Because sex no longer will be a factor, provisions within Social Security set aside for women who haven’t paid into the system will be discontinued. This is the opinion of none else than U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

This is where one asks if the Southtown Star has editors. For those interested in the report, I have uploaded it here.

The problem here is, this report was written 30 years ago and much has changed. The  gender bias in the Social Security code is largely eliminated with survivors or either gender eligible for Social Security benefits under the same conditions.
But where Fran is lying outright is in stating the opinion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  First, though kind of a secondary point, the report doesn’t address what the passage of the ERA would do, it simply lays out where the authors find evidence of differential treatment by sex in the US Code.

More importantly, Eaton specifically lies about Ginsburg’s position in the report because Ginsburg and her co-author argue to make it easier for women or men who stay at home to collect Social Security benefits, not that eliminating the bias would lead to a loss of benefits.  Don’t believe me?  Read page 45 of the report.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually argued for improved support for individuals who stayed at home and worked instead of entering the formalized workforce.

In other words, the Southtown Star has let one of their columnists brazenly lie about a matter of public policy in their pages.  It’s not an opinion Eaton is offering, she states the argument based on what she claims to be a fact about the report which is demonstrably false.  There is simply no excuse for this sort of shoddy work by a newspaper.  One expects it out of Eaton who seldom concerns herself with accuracy, but putting it in the Southtown start is inexcusable.

But not only will the ERA’s passage stir the hackles of little old ladies and helpless widows, 18-year-old college women may be up in arms

No longer will military registration be required of just males, it also will be required of females – again, no discrimination based on sex. While more and more young women are choosing the military as a career option, if the draft were to be enacted in a stepped-up defense in the war on terror, our 18-year-old women would be forced into service along with our 18-year-old men.

This is, of course, completely baffling.  If the country were to require the draft to be reinstated, there is no argument made by her against drafting women other than women might not want to go.  Most guys don’t either.  Hence, why one has a draft.  Given physical standards would largely separate women and men, women could take over a large share of the support functions along with the men who don’t meet physical standards for combat.