I got this email from AFSCME explaining all the results in Wisconsin.

Though Wisconsin did not recall its governor, it did recall a state senator. The state senate is now in the hands of the Democrats who can make it harder for the governor to do any more damage than he has already done.

The White House is using an abbreviated headline that essentially asks, Why Promote Mortgage Refinancing?

In this installment of the White House White Board, Brian Deese, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, explains how President Obama’s plan would make it much easier for millions of American homeowners to refinance their mortgage and save hundreds of dollars every month.

President Obama is urging Congress to take up his proposal to cut through the red tape that prevents so many homeowners from refinancing their mortgages and saving hundreds of dollars each month.

It has the potential to be a huge deal, so we want to make sure you have the facts — and get a chance to tell us what you think.

The site asked me if I had any questions after viewing the video. Here is my response:

Why aren’t banks competing to refinance homes already?

Why would banks want to compete to refinance underwater situations where such a loan would not meet the fiduciary standards of the bank?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the federal government to deal directly with the home owner about the underwater part of the loan, and then let normal competition work on the safe part of the loan?

Why are we giving subsidies to the banks again? Why can’t we give the subsidies to the innocent instead of to the guilty?

Then they asked why I thought that this program was important. Here is my response to that:

It is important to fix the housing bubble collapse created by the banks. This is a necessary condition for getting the economy going again. Any fix that rewards the people who created the problem is absurd.

I have extracted a summary of positions from the Elizabeth Warren, Senator For Massachusetts, web site. From that document we have:

It has been more than three years since the greatest financial crisis in three generations. It is past time that we stop talking about accountability and start demanding it from those who broke the system.

A deregulated credit industry squeezed families harder, hawking dangerous mortgages, credit cards loaded with tricks and traps, and student loans that carried unexpected risks.

We have to take serious and hard steps to get this housing market to level out so that we can start rebuilding our economy. That’s true here in Massachusetts and around the country.

I think Elizabeth Warren would have a much better plan than this one from President Obama. This is why I think we need Elizabeth Warren in the Senate in Washington to help shape these policies to make better justice for the middle-class.

A local newspaper has this story elevated right to the front of page A8.  On the web, they have the story behind a paywall, so I won’t bother to provide a link or name the newspaper.    They did provide these paragraphs of explanation:

Other Republican moderates, including Senators Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, who Democrats had hoped would support the bill, agreed with the Bay State Republican, saying that the legislation would impose too much of a burden on employers and spawn frivolous lawsuits.

Supporters of the bill had hoped to build on the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and more recently the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, by requiring employers to provide a reason for pay gaps when asked, and barring companies from retaliating against employees who discuss pay.
.
.
.
Republicans said the bill would restrict an employer’s ability to reward employees based on performance, provide bonus pay for hazardous work, or differentiate pay rates based on regional standards. And it would subject employers to unlimited damages, even for what they said could be unintentional pay differences.

If these paragraphs are close to being a fair description (and why should I assume that), then there are a few serious flaws in the Republicans’ excuse for not voting for this.

The law  “requiring employers to provide a reason for pay gaps when asked” doesn’t seem to be that onerous.  If any of the supposed legitimate reasons mentioned by Republicans for a pay gap were the real reason, then all the employer would have to do is to say so.  However, don’t you have to wonder why the Republicans think that there might be systematic differences in pay “based on performance”?  Do they really think men do the job so much better than women that they merit a 30% wage differential?

The Elizabeth Warren campaign is onto this issue.

See the link, Tell Scott Brown that women deserve to earn fair wages | Elizabeth Warren, Senator for Massachusetts.

Apparently Scott Brown, Senator for the rich in Massachusetts, thinks it would be too big a burden for companies to explain wage disparities.

He also seems to think that a systematic difference between men’s pay and women’s pay might be based on merit. Does that mean that on average he doesn’t think female workers are as good as male workers?

Scott Brown claims to be working for all of Massachusetts, but he always finds a reason why a particular law to help the middle-class would be bad, and he never finds a reason why a particular law to help the wealthy would be bad. Is this sort of like Faux Noise’s “fair and balanced”?