Top 6 Lies Romney Has Told Women in an Election Season Full of Whoppers
Continued from previous page
3. Equal Pay for Women
In the second matchup with Barack Obama, Romney ducked a question on pay equity, neglecting to express support for equal pay for equal work. Hmm. Could that be because he opposed the Lily Ledbetter Act when it was being debated, as acknowledged by a top GOP adviser?
Instead of addressing this critical question, Romney spewed his now-infamous “binder full of women” nonsense (see number 6), hoping that the audience would forget the actual question.
To get a sense of where he actually stands on this issue, look no further than Romney's own Web site’s discussion of what kind of Supreme Court he would like to install: “As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.”
As Michael Keegan, president of People for the American Way points out, these are the very judges who denied Lily Ledbetter the right to sue her employer for years of unequal pay -- and made the law necessary in the first place.
4. Social Security
Let’s be clear: Any attack on Social Security is an attack on women. Despite a tsunami of lies on the subject, Social Security is solvent, it does not contribute to the deficit, and it keeps millions of women out of poverty in old age. Women, in particular, rely on Social Security because they live longer, they often have lower benefits due to time out of the workforce having babies, and they make up a greater percentage of beneficiaries.
To use the excuse of a financial crisis to cut benefits (that’s what all the talk about “tweaking” and “fixing” amounts to) is nothing more than the cynical robbery of working people, especially women in favor of the 1 percent, who do not want to pay taxes, and the financiers, who would like to get their hands on accounts to charge fees. The program isn’t “broken,” and the politicians know it. But they don’t want you to know it.
Both candidates have been deceptive on this issue, and Obama has shown every sign of making a grand bargain that sells out the women who need this program – and are already under strain because of its too-low benefits. If you are a single woman with a long life ahead of you, you’ve already got a very difficult road ahead.
Unfortunately, Mitt Romney would probably be even worse, if for no other reason than the fact that dismantling the New Deal has been a prime objective of the Republican Party ever since it was established. He has supported privitization in the past, and would likely do so again. In 1983, Ronald Reagan stole two years of retirement from people born after 1960, raising the age of full benefits from 65 to 67. Mitt has said clearly that he would welcome the opportunity to raise the age again, to 69 or 70. Never mind that there are not enough jobs even for young people, and life expectancy is actually going down for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Or the fact that census datas shows that older women in America are already so poor half of them can't even meet their basic needs, like heating their homes.
5. Work/Family Balance
Break out the Twister mat! Mitt likes flexibility. In the second debate, he professed a great understanding of the need for flexible scheduling for women as part of his bumbling remarks about binders full of women:
“I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, 'I can't be here until 7 or 8 o'clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o'clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school.' So we said fine. Let's have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.”