June 2, 2009
WORST. ARGUMENT. EVER.... Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), expressing her support for a bill that would grant four weeks of paid family leave for federal employees, recently made note of international standards on the issue. "163 countries have recognized the importance of providing paid leave to families," Maloney said. "163 countries cannot be wrong."
The point, of course, was to point out something of a global consensus on the issue. There are certain basic employee benefits that should be available, and as the argument goes, if 163 countries already offer paid family leave, maybe it's time for the United States to step up.
In response, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), easily one of Congress' most embarrassing members, produced a video attacking the proposal. Chris Harris notes one of the video's key arguments.
Immediately following Congresswoman Maloney's remarks, the video features text asking: "Could these guys be wrong on paid parental leave?" The video then features NORTH KOREA, IRAN, VENEZUELA, and CUBA, with each country's name accompanied by a photo of its respective dictator.
Is [Issa] serious? Is his best argument actually that four countries the U.S. doesn't like "recognize the importance" of newborn children having their parents at home to care for them? That we should refuse to help dedicated public servants because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez do the same?
Apparently, yes, that's Issa's argument.
I'll concede that Maloney's line of reasoning is flawed. The international popularity of a policy does not necessarily lend merit to the idea. But Issa's response is among the dumbest things I've ever heard. Paid family leave is necessarily dubious, he argues, because families who live under some authoritarian regimes already enjoy the benefit.
By this logic, every law or social benefit offers the U.S. a template for what not to do. Cuba has public schools? Then public schools are bad. Iran has public parks? Then we should do away with our park system.
It's the kind of ridiculously lazy argument one might expect from a child. A slow, confused child.
Remember, Issa isn't just some anonymous back-bencher -- House Republicans made him the #1 GOP lawmaker on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Seriously.
—Steve Benen 10:05 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (34)
Cuba has public schools? Then public schools are bad.
--------------------
Actually, that sounds a lot like them.
Those zany Republicans ... whatever or whoever will they want to kill off next?
Posted by: Fleas correct the era on June 2, 2009 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK
do you believe breast-feeding is good for newborns?
So did Hitler.
Go to hell, you f*cking fascist.
Posted by: slappy magoo on June 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK
The Party of Stupid just keeps on truckin.
Posted by: steve s on June 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK
Darrell Issa dick.
Posted by: David Bailey on June 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK
Paid family leave is necessarily dubious, he argues, because families who live under some authoritarian regimes already enjoy the benefit.
You know who else offered paid family leave? Hitler.
Hey, I'm not comparing Carolyn Maloney to Hitler, oh no. I'm just sayin' it's an innerestin' coincidence, is all....
Posted by: Stefan on June 2, 2009 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK
"Could these guys be wrong on paid parental leave?" The video then features NORTH KOREA, IRAN, VENEZUELA, and CUBA, with each country's name accompanied by a photo of its respective dictator. - Wanker Darryl Issa (R)
Why yes, these guys could be wrong, because to a Repig, looking for enemies to make money off of by fostering hate, increased spending on 'defense', and more spending on new ways to destroy them, 'THESE' guys can do no right. Not now, not never. Just as the USA NEVER does anything wrong, nor has it ever. Repigs tend to act like typical, selfish 2 year olds, running around looking for someone to say 'NO' to, and then trying to hit them when they don't get their way. They also are afraid of their own shadow, and want you to be too. Fear is good for business, and it keeps them in power as the campaign dollars keep coming in, and the 'defense' contracts keep going out the door. And somehow they keep getting re-elected, and have any power at all in this country. I wish I could that I was surprised.
Posted by: In waht respect, Charlie? on June 2, 2009 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK
So we're accepting the GOP meme that Hugo Chavez is a "dictator"? A dictator that was popularly elected?
Posted by: ckelly on June 2, 2009 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK
Leave it to conservatives to insist on forcing women to carry their pregnancies to full term and then resist efforts to facilitate the women's ability to give their children care and attention as soon as they are born. They will fight like hell from zygote to fetus, but once a living, breathing, independent-from-the-mother baby is born, "you're on your own, kid." They will not support health care and they will not support paid leave for mommy (at least federal employees) to take of the child for 4 weeks. And, they never see the inconsistency.
Posted by: htt on June 2, 2009 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK
Issa's an idiot, but I think it's a really bad idea to be giving federal employees - who already enjoy generous benefits - yet another such benefit, during a recession, when so many Americans don't even have jobs. Let alone jobs with terrific paid leave policies.
Posted by: kc on June 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK
By this logic, every law or social benefit offers the U.S. a template for what not to do. Cuba has public schools? Then public schools are bad. Iran has public parks? Then we should do away with our park system.
Hhhmmmmmmm....Steve, you may be on to something, because you just laid out the actual GOP stance on those subjects.
Posted by: about time on June 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK
While they went about it in the wrong way, the Republicans should fight this.
When government spending and debt is going through the roof, when Moody's is looking to downgrade America's debt, then maybe it's not the best time to talk about adding to this debt via more vacation time.
That's probably a better way to go about it.
And as a graphic, show that every American household owes half a million dollars in American debt and obligations.
I think people might think twice about giving federal employees another four weeks of paid leave.
Posted by: Pratterworthy on June 2, 2009 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK
Hey, wait a minute.
North Korea wants nuclear weapons, right? Then according to Rep. Issa's logic nuclear weapons must be bad. So Rep. Issa favors nuclear disarmament! Who would have guessed Darrell was a closet peacenik???
This is perhaps the most brilliant idea to come out of the new GOP. Rep. Issa is a foreign relations genius! In the true spirit of bipartisanship let's nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Then let's buy him a plane ticket to North Korea or Iran to see if he can walk the walk, since he can obviously talk the talk.
Posted by: pj in jesusland on June 2, 2009 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK
The Party of Stupid just keeps on truckin.
----------------------
That's the Republic of Stupid Party, dude, I passed a resolution a couple weeks ago.
Posted by: Fleas correct the era on June 2, 2009 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK
Did Issa build his swimming pool in San Diego before or after Kim Jong II built his in North Korea?
Posted by: berttheclock on June 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK
It is an insult to all slow, confused children to compare them to Darrell Issa.
Posted by: biggerbox on June 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK
However, Maloney's argument was weak. You know, this is the US of God damn A, we couldn't give two shits what the rest of the world does. NOr should we. WE have a manifest destiny to rule the world, and everything in it. What we like we take, what we don't we break. We are rugged individualists who are self-made so we are not 'world citizens' or some other socialist crap like that. Who cares if what we do is good or bad for the world or other people, or even our own public health? Does it make the established corporations and the elite, well connected families in the US more money and give them more POWER? This is the only real question. If so, the ends always justify the means, cuz profit is everything. Does it work is what we want to know. Kind of like that stupid torture debate. That quaint document, the Geneva Convention I think it was called, screw that socialist piece of paper. If it works for us, we use it. Torture them Muslims, lock 'em up forever, build lots of prisons, hire lots of guards, drag that 'War of Terror" out forever. Yea, of course it will be forever when it's framed as a war on a violent action. Look at history, people will never stop being violent at some level, so there will always be something we can label as 'terror'. Yep, it works. So don't go telling me about no 163 other countries. If you like what they're doing over there so much, them why don't you just move the hell out of here, you commie sympathizing pig.
Posted by: Eat my bootstraps, punk! on June 2, 2009 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK
When government spending and debt is going through the roof, when Moody's is looking to downgrade America's debt, then maybe it's not the best time to talk about adding to this debt via more vacation time.
Ahhh....because Moody's credit ratings have proven so valuable over the past several years.
And as a graphic, show that every American household owes half a million dollars in American debt and obligations.
After 8 years of bank deregulation by the GOP, skyrocketing healthcare and college tuition, plus inflated home prices caused by the world-wide housing bubble, it's amazing we're only in debt that much.
Posted by: about time on June 2, 2009 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK
When government spending and debt is going through the roof, when Moody's is looking to downgrade America's debt, then maybe it's not the best time to talk about adding to this debt via more vacation time.
What does US government debt have to do with a mandatory vacation policy? Since it's a paid vacation, you'd still pay taxes on your salary.
And I hate to break it to you, but Clinton balanced the budget. Government spending went through the roof under Bush, and debt did too because he tried to pay for two wars with a tax cut. (And Greenspan kept interest rats historically low in order to provide the illusion the tax cuts led to prosperity, thus creating the housing bubble, but that's another story.)
The only difference with Obama is he stopped the dishonest accounting practices Bush used to pretend the deficit wasn't as bad as it was.
Posted by: Gregory on June 2, 2009 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK
When government spending and debt is going through the roof, when Moody's is looking to downgrade America's debt, then maybe it's not the best time to talk about adding to this debt via more vacation time.
You've never even been in the same room with a newborn, have you?
Posted by: Mnemosyne on June 2, 2009 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK
Ahhh....because Moody's credit ratings have proven so valuable over the past several years.
Are you saying the American government is not borrowing a lot of money?
And when you have the Treasury Secretary publically assuring the Chinese that their U.S. debt is safe, then maybe other people than just those incorrect Moody's officials think we might have too much debt.
After 8 years of bank deregulation by the GOP, skyrocketing healthcare and college tuition, plus inflated home prices caused by the world-wide housing bubble, it's amazing we're only in debt that much.
I listed only government debt that we owe, since that is germane to the topic of increasing government spending.
Posted by: Pratterworthy on June 2, 2009 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK
In North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela they breathe air. I believe that Darrel Issa should voluntarily stop breathing to show he is serious about his convictions. Goddamn air-breathing Fascist.
Posted by: Singularity on June 2, 2009 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK
[you're done sockpuppeting - mod.]
Posted by: Pratterworthy on June 2, 2009 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK
Sounds like Pratterworthy works for the Government!
Posted by: Harry Verberne on June 2, 2009 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK
"It's the kind of ridiculously lazy argument one might expect from a child. A slow, confused child."
So, Issa knows his market, is what you're saying? Missed the boat on this one, Mr. Benen. Issa is making an emotional appeal; attempting to logically explain how unreasonable his argument is, is like...trying to calm an anxious baby (if you have maternity leave, natch) by explaining how he has nothing to be upset about. Any parent understands the emotional, physical, and psychological benefits of maternity leave; even children understand being left behind by their more advanced peers.
Posted by: Conrads Ghost on June 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK
And I hate to break it to you, but Clinton balanced the budget.--------------
The Executive Branch does not balance the budget. That's the Legislative's role. Don't give Clinton all the credit.*******************************
Obviously, he meant the Clinton Administration, bozo. Man, are you a side-tracking nit-picker. And since you like to nit-pick, the budget is NOT the Legislative's role, it's the LEGISLATURE'S role, or the 'legislative branch's" role. Get a clue.
Posted by: Get a clue on June 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK
Pratterworthy: I'm one of those breeders that most liberals detest.
Oh. Bru. Ther.
We keep pumping out those little carbon-producers, not caring a whim about how they destroy the environment.
Your kids actually produce carbon? No. Actually they recycle carbon. They are not, contrary to what Glenn Beck would have you believe, producing new carbon. Only the burning of bio-fuels is producing carbon.
I even had enough time saved up to ensure I could take leave when the babies went through their normal viruses and whatnot.
So, you're saying everyone has to behave the way you do in order to get the time off they need? That sounds kinda "big governmenty."
He [Bush] should have at least done one thing thing to reign in spending.
Fixed it.
Posted by: chrenson on June 2, 2009 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK
...He [Bush] should have at least done one thing thing to reign in spending...
Uh...you missed one thing thing. It's "rein in" (like reins on a horse) not "reign" like a king).
Posted by: reindeer on June 2, 2009 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK
Hey, you can't say Issa isn't a good representative of his constituents. He's from northern San Diego County, where his constituents are retired Marines and Mormons. Stupid is a stupid does as stupid gets voted for by stupid people.
Posted by: TCinLA on June 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK
How the in the holy hell does paid vacation add to the national debt?!?! Seriously -- how does that work, exactly?
These people would be paid if they were at work, so how does paying them to TAKE CARE OF A NEWBORN make that any different?
Dear god, conservatives are so mind-blowingly, clinically stupid ...
Posted by: Mark D on June 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK
Pratterworthy - does that mean your drivel is worthy of being considered pratter?
You go get your other numbnuts conservative buddies and bring 'em on over. You guys are a laugh a minute with your pathetic attempts to prove you're not a pathetic moron, as you make a post full of pathetic moron stupidity.
Republicans: too stupid to know they're stupid. But it helps to be able to pass the IQ test low enough to qualify for membership.
Posted by: TCinLA on June 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK
I for one, am sick and tired of Chavez being referred to as a "dictator." He was overwhelmingly elected repeatedly by a staggering majority of voters in a series of elections, each of which has been monitored by International election monitors. In fact, the elections in Venezuela passed scrutiny with flying colors, whereas the elections in the United States since at least 2000 couldn't pass the smell test.
Posted by: getaclue on June 2, 2009 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK
Remind me again what's so bad about Chavez that the Republicans lump him in with Kim Jon Il, Ahmadinejad and Castro?
Oh, that's right, he called George Bush a bad name.
Posted by: g on June 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK
The Executive Branch does not balance the budget. That's the Legislative's role. Don't give Clinton all the credit.
I give Clinton credit for submitting a balanced budget -- and note that when the Republicans in Congress had a Republican president, spending went through the roof.
I realize spending went up under Bush - it's my main criticism of his tenure as president.
Lying the country into war, throwing away centruies-old tradition of not torturing, illegal wiretaps -- all pale behind increased spending? I smell a loony libertarian.
He should have worked hard to reign in spending.
Or failing that, he should at least have not paid for all that spending with tax cuts.
And let's cut to the chase -- the Republicans' sweet, sweet tax cuts really what all this is about, isn't it?
The Bush Administration used all kinds of dishonest accounting to disguise its deficits, and still never entirely succeeded. But, of course, the other side of the equasion is taxes, isn't it? Bush's mendacity led him to try to pay for two wars with a tax cut.
But if you're serious about spending, answer this: How much of the Defense budget should be cut?
Posted by: Gregory on June 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK
Public parks,eh?
I vaguely remember coming across a CATO white paper back in the Reagan years advocating elimination of public parks. Their view, of course, was that ALL property should be privately held.
Posted by: Doctor Whom on June 2, 2009 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK