The sex-bias class action pitting millions of women against the embodiment of corporate America will have a huge impact In one of the most closely watched cases on the US supreme court docket, the court has heard oral argument in the largest American employment class action litigation ever. Betty Dukes , representing millions of Walmart female employees, filed suit in 2001 alleging that Walmart engaged in a discriminatory pay and promotion practices. The women sued for backpay and an injunction requiring the company to change its practices. The class includes between 500,000 and 1.5 million current and former female employees. How the justices resolve the case will have significant impact. The litigation pits millions of female employees alleging company-wide, gender-based discrimination against the country’s largest retail establishment. Whether the supreme court upholds this class certification is being closely watched by not only female employees, but by corporate America, which is concerned that if the class certification is upheld, almost every large American corporation would be vulnerable to sweeping allegations of employment discrimination based on generalised theories of discriminatory corporate culture and subjective local decisions. The class action device permits millions of allegedly injured people to “aggregate” their claims in one representative litigation. The American class action rule has been in existence since 1938, but the procedure took its modern form through a rule revision in 1966. If a court approves or certifies a class action – as the California courts did – only the individual class representatives’ claims (such as Dukes’s case) would be tried to a jury. In the Walmart case, there are only three women who are class representatives; a court would not individually adjudicate the millions of other women’s claims. In addition, the women’s attorney proposed that each woman’s damages could be determined through a mathematical formula, rather than by examining individual work records. American class action litigation has always been a controversial means for pursuing group relief. Indeed, most civil law countries have historically rejected it – the UK, for example, has a very limited means for aggregating claims, known as a “group action”. However, in recent years, the idea of an American-style class action has gained traction in some European countries. Advocates in favour of class action view it as a means to empower large number of injured victims whose claims have comparatively little value. Such victims most likely would not be able to hire a lawyer, because attorneys have little interest in representing individuals with small claims. In this vein, the Walmart women’s attorney argued that a class action was appropriate because each woman’s claim was probably worth no more than $1,100. Without a class action, millions of Walmart employees would not be able to recover on their discrimination claims. In contrast, large corporations that are sued view this as a means to coerce them into enormous settlements without providing fair trials on individual claims. Several prominent American appellate courts have suggested that when a court certifies a class action to proceed to trial, this decision amounts to “settlement blackmail”. Corporate defendants maintain it denies them their rights to examine, challenge and defend against the individual claims of class members. With over 3,400 stores, Walmart is America’s largest private employer. Women comprise over 80% of workers and hold only one-third of managerial store management jobs. Walmart has a company-wide policy that bars workplace discrimination based on sex. Notwithstanding this policy, individual Walmart store managers have substantial discretion in making salary and promotion decisions in each individual store. The women complained that they had been subjected to an array of discriminatory actions, including denial of management training, retaliation for initiating internal grievance procedures, failure to promote, harassment and denial of equal pay. The complaint alleged that Walmart “fosters or facilitates gender stereotyping and discrimination … and that this discrimination is common to all women who work or have worked in Walmart stores”. California federal courts granted and upheld class certification, which is a green light to proceed to trial. Walmart asked the supreme court for review, arguing that the litigation should not to go forward as a massive class action. It is important to understand what the supreme court will not be deciding. It will not address whether the women employees have legitimate claims, whether Walmart engaged in discrimination, or whether either side should win. Instead, the court will evaluate whether the proposed litigation satisfied the requirements to go forward as a large class action. In order for a court to permit this, the court must be satisfied that the Walmart female employees share common legal or factual questions about their claims. In addition, the women’s claims must be typical of all the women in the lawsuit, and they must be adequately represented. Walmart argued that lower courts’ liberal application of class certification requirements was inappropriate where hundreds of thousands of individualised employment decisions were involved. Therefore, the women’s claims did not share common facts and were not typical of each other. The company argued that the class action effectively denied the corporation’s right to present evidence concerning how individual women were treated with regard to promotion or pay decisions. In particular, it also objected it was unfair to determine possible backpay awards based on a mathematical formula. Women’s groups, on the other hand, are concerned that the court may seize the Walmart appeal as a platform for tightening class certification requirements in employment discrimination cases, thereby increasing the difficulty for female employees to seek recovery. Thus, if the court reverses class certification, the Walmart case could signal a significant regression in women’s rights in the workplace. Walmart Women Gender Retail industry United States Linda Mullenix guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Yes, it’s back on our screens! No, it’s not a new series but a run of repeats starting on BBC4 in the year 1976 . . . Age: 47. Appearance: The oldest swinger in town. Good old TOTP! Not just British TV’s longest-running chart show, but a reminder that there’s more to music than expensive videos. Such as? Such as embarrassed pop stars miming to their own recordings. Is the BBC still threatening to shut it down? Not any more. It’s been off air since 2006, if you don’t count Christmas specials. And I thought it had been buried on one of the digital channels. I’m devastated. On the other hand, I’m delighted. Because? Because if we’re talking about it now, it must be making a comeback. Got it in one. From next Thursday, TOTP will be on BBC Four in its old time slot of 7.30pm. So it’s about to be buried on one of the digital channels. Still, that’s prime time. Didn’t the show die because everyone stopped watching it? Pretty much. At its peak audiences were 15 million. By the end 14 million of them had vanished. How’s the BBC going to make it work this time? Can we look forward to a big-budget Doctor Who-style revival, ideally featuring Karen Gillan in an extremely short skirt? Only if she really can travel through time. The BBC’s not so much rebooting TOTP as repeating it – one episode a week, starting in 1976. A golden year for pop? More like a golden year for the Beeb not losing its recordings. No 1s in 1976 included Brotherhood of Man’s Save Your Kisses for Me, The Wurzels’ Combine Harvester and Showaddywaddy’s Under the Moon of Love. As for the show’s DJs . . . Or smug gits, as they were officially known . . . They were led by Jimmy Savile, Tony Blackburn and Dave Lee Travis. This suddenly sounds a lot less appealing. Especially since I’ve just realised it could drag on into the 2040s. Don’t worry. Punk will be along to shake everything up in 2012 – or, as we must now call it, 1977. Do say: “Now that’s what I call music!” Don’t say: “Now that’s what I call cheap TV!” Television guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
It could be a political ploy, or maybe Ed Miliband has given into the pressures that assail unmarried parents When you have kids outside wedlock, and they stay outside wedlock, that looks like a decision. It might be a cynical one, it is most probably an atheistic one, and I cannot rule out the possibility that it speaks of insufficient commitment on the part of one partner or both. But at least it’s something they decided. When you have kids outside wedlock and then get married, it just makes you look really badly organised. That’s what I’d be worrying about if I were Ed Miliband . Not “Is this a vote-winner?” Not “Am I going to lose more single parents than I win right-thinking conservatives?” Not “Does my bum look politically motivated in this?” But rather, “What kind of man does this make of me, that I can’t even put the points in the right order on my personal life to-do list? Imagine me in government! I’d do everything in the wrong order, first I’d bomb somewhere, then I’d look for a diplomatic solution, then I’d check to see if I could afford it …” We have to assume that the forthcoming nuptials of Miliband and Justine Thornton are not politically motivated; the territory is too vexed for marriage to be a straightforward solution to anything. He might conceivably warm the cockles of middle England, but I suspect the people who care about this sort of thing care about other things more, and don’t care at all for a brave new imagining of leftwingery, married or not. On the other hand, Thornton could be doing it for her career. It is common for lawyers to think that parents who aren’t married – being unable to extract any protection from the law – are stupid. When you say to them, “But I don’t want to get married,” they say, “Well, that’s because you’re stupid.” They might even have rules that forbid you from ascending to QC if you are unmarried, on account of your huge stupidity. I’m going to go ahead, though, and write off career advancement as a motivation. It’s just too late, they’re strategic thinkers, and they could have leveraged more advantage out of this union at pretty much any time in the past six years than they’re getting now. So here are some other possibilities. Miliband is notoriously counter-suggestible. He only went to the march on Saturday because all his advisers told him not to. Come on, he was speaking fourth. In line-up terms, that makes him Mumford & Sons . At the precise moment that the pressure abates, and even the most rule-bound adviser is saying: “Well, you can’t get married now. It looks like an afterthought” – that’s when he wants to get married. Now he burns with a love like no other. Yesterday he could live with her. Today he can’t live without her. But really it’s the zeal of unbelievable stubbornness. I have a brother like this, most of us do, I’m sure. You just want to hope he’s not in the same field as you. On which note, let’s imagine that some commentators are right, and Ed’s entire life is one long David-Ed tournament, in which the prize is always a millimetre out of reach, since the true blank is no particular accolade, but the annihilation of one brother by the other. What has David got left that Ed doesn’t have? A number of improbable plans, some spare time in the evenings, and a wife. This theory will gain credence when Ed gets a hair transplant. Though both men’s hair is quite self-determining, David’s is much tuftier . It could all be an elaborate ploy to get the kids into a faith school. Qualifications vary wildly from faith to faith: Catholics have a points system, where the younger your baby was when it was christened the more weighting you get. (Have you ever heard anything more ridiculous in your life than a six-month-old being more religious than a one-year-old?) This is a wild stab in the dark, but might they be going for a Jewish education, in which case the heat is totally off the baby and all on Justine for an imminent conversion. But all religions like you to be married before they’ll educate your children. It keeps the riffraff out. Any idiot can get up early on a Sunday: only people with 20 grand can get hitched. I’ve heard people say that they were able to resist all pressure to marry until their own children started on them, and then their resolve evaporated. This is impossible at present, since their oldest is not yet two : but the day is not far away when both scions will be wondering why it’s fine to be on kids’ show Dramarama (Justine) and lead the opposition (Ed), and yet be way too shy to make a sound commitment to one another in a decent, unshowy Nottingham location. And at the outside (I am offering internet odds of 2/17), this is a gesture of self-abasement before the royals: you show the way, oh dyad of loveliness; we follow, squinting in your blazing light, inviting only 50 people and none of them with huge oil reserves in the Middle East, eschewing even a best man, because who could be finer than Prince Harry? No one will be knitting dolls of us, oh royal ones, though it’s not out of the question that we might generate an ironic commemorative plate. We are, your faithful servants, Ed’n’Justine. Or maybe he really does think there are votes in it. Congratulations, nevertheless, to everyone involved. Ed Miliband Weddings Faith schools Schools Zoe Williams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
They’re big business, but not all consumers seem to be aware that some contain more sugar than a bottle of coke Earlier this month, the global drinks giant Coca-Cola dropped out of an annual list of the world’s top 10 brands for the very first time; having come third in 2010, the company found itself in 16th place, and the fall, analysts said, was in part fuelled by the fact that consumers are increasingly choosing “healthier drinks” over traditional fizzy pop. The shift in our drinking habits over the past two decades has been remarkable: the global rate of bottled water consumption quadrupled between 1990 and 2005, and today the industry is worth some £2bn in the UK alone. Over the last few years we have seen an explosion in enhanced waters – not only flavoured waters (Volvic’s Touch of Fruit, Britvic’s Drench, This Water, Pret a Manger’s Pure), but also waters with added vitamins and minerals (Vitaminwater), electrolytes (SmartWater), not to mention waters that promise to aid energy levels, concentration, sleep, sex and relaxation (Neuro drinks). The predicted growth of the market can be judged by Coca-Cola’s 2004 buyup of Energy Brands Inc (which makes Vitaminwater), which was the largest purchase in Coca-Cola’s 115-year history . But are these drinks any healthier than, say, lemonade or cola? Certain flavours of This Water (the flavoured water range that shares a parent company with Innocent) contain 42g of sugar per 420ml bottle (a 500ml bottle of Coca-Cola contains 35g of sugar). “The nutritional information is clearly stated on all our drinks labels,” says Sarah Smart, This Water’s marketing manager. “This Water drinks are made from pure squeezed juices from real fruits, spring water and sugar. The sugars found in our drinks are made up of the sugars in fruit juice and sucrose, which is needed to ensure that our drinks taste great – without it, they would taste too sharp. Unlike other flavoured water brands, our drinks will never contain concentrates, colourings or preservatives.” The problem with the enhanced water market is in part one of perception – as consumers, we associate the words “vitamins” and “fruit” and even “preservative-free” with a healthy diet, and give little thought to less desirable ingredients. In January, the Advertising Standards Agency declared an advert that claimed Vitaminwater was nutritious “misleading” ; while the drink promises much by way of added vitamins, including 100% of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin C, and while it does qualify as a “low-calorie” drink by EU guidelines, each 500ml bottle also contains the equivalent of around five teaspoons of sugar – about a quarter of the consumer’s guideline daily amount. “We have always been completely transparent that the drinks contain 23g of sugar in each 500ml bottle,” a spokeswoman said, adding that its flavours and colourings are now “naturally derived” and that the drink “provides a convenient way to help people hydrate and get more of the vitamins and minerals they may require”. Of course a drink that promises extra vitamins, not to mention improved focus, sex or sleep, cannot help but seem alluring. Neuro Bliss, for instance, claims to be “designed to promote happiness and eliminate stress without affecting your energy levels” and states that it “works immediately”. It contains L-Theanine, an amino acid found in green tea, to aid relaxation and mental function, phosphatidylserine, which “may help to maintain and improve healthy mental performance” and vitamin D3, which “supports healthy bones; may help support cognitive function and immunity”. Should we be sceptical? “For these claims to appear on a label,” explains Bridget Benelan of the British Nutrition Foundation , “they have to either comply with the European Commission approved list, or be going through the process of applying for that approval.” But the EC regulation has only been in place since 2007, and since thousands of appeals have been submitted, it is understandably taking a long time to check them all. “A lot of them haven’t got through,” Benelan says. “For example, some probiotics, as well as the link between omega 3 and cognitive function. But vitamin D’s link to bone health has been proved, and as long as there’s more than 15% of the recommended daily amount in the drink, they can make that claim.” Neuro Bliss contains 50% of the RDA of vitamin D3. While such drinks can do no harm as an occasional treat, it is the cumulative effect of drinking them regularly, and in large quantities, that could prove harmful: a 2009 study found that Americans now obtain 25% of their calories from liquids . “If people are consuming large quantities of things with a high calorie content, then there is reason to worry,” says Benelan. “If we want something to drink, it’s usually because we’re thirsty, not because we need energy – and it’s unlikely to mean that later we don’t eat something because we’ve consumed calories from that drink.” Food & drink Health & wellbeing Coca-Cola Food & drink industry Laura Barton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Nationwide’s says house prices rose by 0.5% in March, with the three-month index showing a 0.6% increase Bad news for first-time buyers: house prices rose by 0.5% in March, according to latest figures from the Nationwide building society. The rise leaves average house prices in the UK just 0.1% higher than a year ago at £164,751. The three-month-on-three-month index, the preferred measure of house price inflation for economists because it smoothes out blips in performance, shows an increase of 0.6% to the end of March. The first quarter figures have also been released, showing prices rising by at least 1% in eight out of 13 regions. Yorkshire and Humberside saw the strongest quarterly rise of 3.4%, while Northern Ireland’s house prices were weakest with a 2.2% fall. Prices in London rebounded in the first quarter with a 2.3% increase. But Robert Gardner, the Nationwide’s chief economist, remained gloomy about prospects for the housing market: “The outlook remains uncertain, but all things considered this is unlikely to mark the beginning of a strong upturn in prices. “The economy entered a soft patch at the back end of 2010, and there have been few signs of a strong bounce-back. The jobs market remains challenging and Nationwide’s consumer confidence index suggests sentiment has fallen to an all-time low in recent months.” But this does not necessarily point to big falls in prices that would suit those struggling to buy their first home. Gardner continued: “While demand is likely to remain fairly soft, a rapid increase in the supply of properties also appears unlikely. Low interest rates and a stabilisation in labour market conditions have prevented a rise in forced selling, and the subdued market outlook is deterring many sellers. “With the economic recovery expected to remain sluggish, the most likely outcome is that the property market will follow suit, with low transaction levels and prices moving sideways or modestly lower through 2011.” He pointed out that expected interest rate rises will exert a greater drag on household income now than it would have done before the recession, because the proportion of mortgages on variable interest rates has risen from 48% in 2008 to 62% now. He added that for a house with a repayment mortgage the typical monthly payment is around £455, equivalent to 23% of individual take-home pay. A 1% rise in interest rates would see this rise to £494 – 25% of current take-home pay. But if the Bank of England rate rises to the average of 4.5% it was at in the five years before the crisis, typical payments will rise to £621 if fully passed on to borrowers. This would represent 29% of take-home pay should wages keep rising at the current rate of 2.3% a year. House prices First-time buyers Property Housing market Jill Insley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
40-year-old dog handler held after vehicle searched in a car park off Pudding Mill Lane A female security guard has been arrested near London’s Olympic stadium site on suspicion of possessing explosives, it has emerged. The 40-year-old dog handler was held after her vehicle was searched in a car park off Pudding Mill Lane on Tuesday, but police said the incident was not thought to be terror-related. Scotland Yard said the woman was arrested on suspicion of possession of a “very small amount of a substance” that was being forensically examined. The suspect is currently being held in custody at an east London police station. The arrest was made by the officers from the Olympic Site Support Unit following information received by police. Officials said another car was stopped and searched on the M11, but nothing was found in the car, and the driver was not arrested. Searches were also carried out at residential addresses in Kent and London, but no further substances were found. In a statement the Met insisted that the incident “did not represent a threat to the safety and security of the Olympic site.” A spokesman for the Olympic Delivery Authority said: “There are robust measures to ensure the safety and security of the Olympic Park. We are working with the police in their investigation. At no point has the safety and security of the Olympic Park been put at risk.” A spokesman for G4S, which provides security for the Olympics, said: “G4S take breach of operational processes very seriously and are assisting the police with their inquiries in relation to this incident.” The arrest came on the same day that building work at the £486m Olympic stadium was completed. Olympic Games 2012 Police London Crime G4S Rowenna Davis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
David Sokol, considered the most likely candidate to succeed the billionaire investor, resigns after purchasing Lubrizol shares The heir apparent to business icon Warren Buffett’s investment firm has quit under an oily cloud. David Sokol, long considered the most likely candidate to succeed the billionaire investor as the head of Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, resigned after purchasing shares in an oil company that he suggested Buffett should buy. But Buffett moved to scotch rumours that the purchase had anything to do with the resignation. In a statement Buffett said Sokol had told him he owned shares in the chemical company, Lubrizol Corp, when they first discussed the deal in January. Buffett said that neither Sokol nor he felt that “his Lubrizol purchases were in any way unlawful” and that they were not a factor in his decision to resign. “Dave brought the idea for purchasing Lubrizol to me on either 14 or 15 January. Initially, I was unimpressed, but after his report of a 25 January talk with its CEO, James Hambrick, I quickly warmed to the idea,” Buffett said in a statement. “Though the offer to purchase was entirely my decision, supported by Berkshire’s board on 13 March, it would not have occurred without Dave’s early efforts.” According to Buffett, Sokol purchased 2,300 shares of Lubrizol on 14 December, which he then sold on 21 December. In early January Sokol bought 96,060 shares with a price limit set at $104 (£64) per share, Buffett said. Berkshire agreed to acquire Lubrizol for $9bn, or $135 a share, on March 14. Sokol’s stake potentially earned him a profit of about $3m in less than three months. Buffett said Sokol told him “that they were not a factor in his decision to resign.” Sokol’s resignation “came as a surprise to me,” said Buffett. “Dave’s contributions have been extraordinary,” he said. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Sokol said his resignation has “had absolutely nothing to do” with Lubrizol. He admitted “it would look bad 60 days later” if his stake in Lubrizol was disclosed in public filings and Berkshire hadn’t said anything about it. “We wanted it all out,” he said. Part of Sokol’s resignation letter was contained in the statement. “As I have mentioned to you in the past, it is my goal to utilise the time remaining in my career to invest my family’s resources in such a way as to create enduring equity value and hopefully an enterprise which will provide opportunity for my descendants and funding for my philanthropic interests,” he said. Sokol’s resignation is a major blow to Buffett. The 80-year-old investor is known as the Sage of Omaha and is arguably the world’s most respected businessman. While he has said he has no plans to step aside, the race to succeed him has been keenly watched and Sokol, 54, who helped run several Berkshire subsidiaries has been seen as the front runner. The resignation comes as Buffett prepares for his annual meeting in his home town of Omaha next month. Often called the Woodstock of capitalism, thousands of shareholders attend and Buffett is bound to be grilled on his succession plans and the reasons for Sokol’s resignation. Warren Buffett United States Oil Dominic Rushe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Why Is The Politico’s Mike Allen Pimping Noted Smear Merchant And Faker Andrew Breitbart’s New Book?
March 30, 2011 No Comment
I make it a policy to avoid The Politico for the same reason I avoid Fox News Channel. Both are filled with ridiculous right wing propaganda and live for nothing more than mention on Matt Drudge’s braincell-killing site under the pathetic notion of Drudge’s influence. An influence felt only inside the Beltway bubble. However, many people I know in DC politics (including a dismaying number of liberals) go to Mike Allen’s Playbook column for the daily round up of notable news of the day. It’s a pithy, mostly right-wing focused (unsurprising from the son of conservative journalist and John Birch Society member Gary Allen ) collection of quotes, links and heads up on stories. Yesterday, one of the top stories of Allen’s Playbook yesterday was a jocular and whimsical pimping of Andrew Breitbart’s new book, complete with helpful Amazon.com link. enlarge The text read as follows: FIRST LOOK – “RIGHTeous IndigNATION: Excuse Me While I Save the World!” by Andrew Breitbart (out April 15 from Grand Central Publishing): “I live on the battlefield. … If the American media were run by biased but not evil Tim Russerts and David Brinkleys, I wouldn’t have joined the fight. …. The left made me do it! I swear! I am a reluctant cultural warrior. … If you met me in 1992, for some odd reason, I would have told you I was a libertarian, and I voted for Ross Perot. The only awkward memory that haunts me more is my roller-disco period. … [I]t was the Drudge Report that really grabbed me … To borrow a phrase: Drudge was hope and change. … He was not just a threat to the political order – he was also a threat to the business model of the mainstream media. … “News flash to the media: It’s not your business model that sucks. It’s you that suck. … But the Democrat-Media Complex isn’t enormously powerful because they give up easily. … It’s a long war. I know. I’ve lost friends. I have the scars. My wife married an almost inappropriately always-lighthearted guy fourteen years ago. Now she wakes up next to a firebrand who is one of the most polarizing figures in the country. … These are the years that we will look back on and question whether we did enough for our country and for our children. That’s why I’m so determined, so pissed, so righteously indignant.” $14.73 on Amazon Wow. Grandiose much? Hey, Breitbart, Charlie Sheen called and said you need to stop stealing his act. Now I’m not begrudging Breitbart his right to find a publisher willing to publish his special brand of parenthetical stream of consciousness writing and self-aggrandizement. Bully for him, everyone has a talent and he’s clearly using his to the fullest. But I have to ask at what point will Mike Allen not wanted to be tainted by association with the man who was caught selectively editing video of Shirley Sherrod to smear this decent and dedicated public servant and inspiring civil rights leader ? The same man who brought punk hack James O’Keefe to the national forefront with his doctored videos that have taken down ACORN and the head of NPR? And don’t get me started on his pussy attempt to cage Amato’s notes in a panel discussion . He’s lucky that Karoli was there instead of me, because you can be damned sure I’d have made sure everyone in the audience knew. You’ll note that these black marks go unmentioned in Allen’s recap. Had Breitbart been a liberal or a Democrat with this kind of serious hits on his integrity and credibility, you know that Allen would not deign to mention him, or at best, do so in a sneering way. But proving once again that in the “librul media” IOKIYAR, Allen seems blissfully fine with the Breitbart taint on his pimping (pun intended). Allen is still going to act like Breitbart is relevant and worthy of attention. Which makes–as far as I’m concerned–everything else that Allen pimps equally suspect. If the book sounds intriguing to you (or at least, good for a laugh or two), don’t worry, folks. If you’re a little patient, I’m sure you’ll find it in the remainder bins for 99¢ soon enough.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Michele Bachmann is worried about liberals putting John Boehner in a box and the Tea Party’s rigid budget stance being viewed by “Howard Dean’s liberal press buddies” as political? Oh, please spare me. Now right after she says this, she blames “Obamacare” for having to raise the debt ceiling, because she wants to “change the arc of history.” Swearing she will vote against any raise in the debt ceiling while “Obamacare” is still funded, she lays down the tea party challenge. Which isn’t political. Not at all, no way, no how. Click here to view this media Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies. Bonus: CBO Director rebukes her directly for lying about ” hidden healthcare spending “.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Michele Bachmann is worried about liberals putting John Boehner in a box and the Tea Party’s rigid budget stance being viewed by “Howard Dean’s liberal press buddies” as political? Oh, please spare me. Now right after she says this, she blames “Obamacare” for having to raise the debt ceiling, because she wants to “change the arc of history.” Swearing she will vote against any raise in the debt ceiling while “Obamacare” is still funded, she lays down the tea party challenge. Which isn’t political. Not at all, no way, no how. Click here to view this media Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies. Bonus: CBO Director rebukes her directly for lying about ” hidden healthcare spending “.
Continue reading …