ENDA’s game: pandering and distraction at high cost
November 8, 2013 Leave a comment
This past Monday, President Obama and Apple CEO Tim Cook released twin editorials urging Congress to pass ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Consider this portion of Cook’s appeal, as cited in the Washington Times:
“For too long, too many people have had to hide that part of their identity in the workplace,” he wrote. “Those who have suffered discrimination have paid the greatest price for this lack of legal protection. But ultimately we all pay a price. If our co-workers cannot be themselves in the workplace, they certainly cannot be their best selves.”
Mr. Cook refers to the LGBT community. But notice that that special class goes unmentioned in the passage. One can easily imagine he is writing about another group of persons who “have had to hide that part of their identity in the workplace.” Which makes me wonder, would this Silicon Valley captain of industry–a scion of progressive, elite culture–have gone to bat for Republicans, gun enthusiasts, or Evangelical Christians? In sociologist George Yancey’s 2011 book, Compromising Scholarship, it precisely these groups that face the most bias from university faculty hiring committees.
But that point is not germane to the merits, or demerits, of the legislation. Earlier this week, Melinda at Stand to Reason noted that while religious institutions are exempted from ENDA, small business owners are not. It’s the same befuddling logic that granted Obamacare exemptions to big businesses, but not to small ones. The editors at National Review pointed out some more liabilities, including an increase in bureaucracy and lawsuits.
A factcheck.org piece dismissed as spin House Speaker John Boehner’s claim that ENDA will result in “frivolous” lawsuits. But in doing so, the factchecker had to affirm a Congressional Budget Office estimate that $47 million will be needed for new oversight and processing of 5,000 new legal claims annually. The writer couches the real economic cost this way:
As for Boehner’s claim that ENDA would “cost American jobs, especially small business jobs,” that may well be the outcome in some isolated cases, but the law specifically applies only to companies with 15 or more employees — which exempts nearly 90 percent of all small businesses (and nearly a third of those employed in businesses with under 500 employees).
This supposedly inquisitive journalist’s lack of concern for “isolated cases” reminds me of President Obama’s now immortal prevarication, “If you like your plan, you can keep it.” Five million individual market health insurance plans are not good enough. Off to the exchange you go! If you are on the wrong side of “history,” as outlets like The Week want to label it, you will get steamrolled under Progress.
Speaking of Obamacare, isn’t this trotting out of ENDA just a timely distraction from the trainwreck? At least one advocacy group sees the move for what it is: a shameless pandering to a constituency, but only when it’s convenient. LGBT activists are right to take the move as an insult.
This is really nothing new for Obama or the Democratic Party. Manipulating a menagerie of supporters through identity politics is straight from the party play book. Talk about a wedge issue; our president is the great Divider-in-Chief.
Real people are being thrown under the bus. With Obamacare and ENDA, we have the Forgotten Man. Person A takes from person B to benefit person C. That is, if person C really gains any significant benefit. The one thing we can be sure of is that person A is looking out first and foremost for himself.
Ronald Reagan’s admonition is timeless: the nine scariest words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”