Gird Your Coins: Obama Endorses ‘Paycheck Fairness Act’
**Written by Doug Powers
Uh oh — Obama and the Democrats are talking about “fairness” again, which means we’re all on the brink of being screwed, but more fairly than ever:
WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to press Congress today to pass pay-equity legislation that would make it easier for women to sue employers who pay them less than their male counterparts, the White House said Monday.
“Women deserve equal pay,” White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said in an interview, citing government statistics that show women earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn. “It’s a very fundamental right.”
Obama will announce his support for the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that has languished in Congress for several years. In 2007, President Bush warned he would veto the bill, and it has been stalled by opposition from some Republicans and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The ACLU endorses the proposal, as does every visibly aroused trial lawyer from here to Neptune:
“Due to rising unemployment rates, families need to bring home every dollar they rightfully earn, making pay equity even more necessary, not only to families’ economic security but also to the nation’s economic recovery,” the ACLU’s Laura Murphy said in a July 13 letter to senators.
If women earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn, then why not call on government to immediately cut taxes 23% for working females until this gross injustice can be sorted out? (pause for laughter)
Here’s the so-called plan:
A White House task force plans to announce today that the Obama administration will:
• Improve the government’s data collection from businesses to get a better handle on the scope of wage discrimination.
• Close the wage gap among federal employees.
• Promote greater workplace flexibility. Vice President Biden, noting that two-thirds of households with children are run by working parents, said, “The workplace has, for the most part, not changed to reflect these realities — and it must.”
The irony is of course that maybe parents wouldn’t have to work so much if these alleged seekers of “fairness” weren’t strangling the private sector to death. But it’s not like they don’t know that.
Rest assured the Democrats won’t address any wage gap among government employees by bringing the high end down to match the low end, but rather the other way around.
The “Paycheck Fairness Act” will be about little except lawyers, ratcheting up pay for Federal employees (and more importantly, the dues those employees pay the unions who back Democrats), allowing the government to dig their snouts even deeper into the pie of American business (how many more IRS agents will this Act require in order to enforce it?), and, perhaps most importantly, artificially ratcheting up private sector taxable income via yet another government mandate.
Hopefully the three women and two men in the country who still have an actual job by the time Team Obama is finished will appreciate the gesture.
If we’re serious about settling pay inequities, maybe we should start with Obama’s Pay Czar — he’s made more money than any women I’ve ever met, and what’s fair about that?
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Stammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy
May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Biden: Hey, I don’t blame people for voting for a convicted felon instead of my boss
May 18, 2012 01:21 PM by Doug Powers
73 Comments
Senate narrowly votes down Obama budget
May 16, 2012 06:09 PM by Doug Powers
47 CommentsTransparency update: Donors told to hand over cell phones upon entering Obama fundraisers
May 15, 2012 04:40 PM by Doug Powers
42 Comments
Categories: Barack Obama,Joe Biden
Villainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearSister Toldjah
» Barack Obama: Can we call him a Socialist now?Redstate
» Daily Links – May 25, 2012Redstate
» #shrug
A good time to be a black woman in America.
IT WILL NEVER END! Daily they come up with crud, endless crud that makes it impossible for businesses to hire. I realize, women, (I am one) seem not to make as much as men, well sugar if you are worth it deal for equal pay not have the gov. tell your employer they have got to give it to you. I am sick to death of the gov. dictating our lives!
L
Gee, has anyone thought that the reason the statistics show as they do is because of the types of jobs most women hold as opposed the types of jobs men hold???
Just another progressive/marxist/Alinsky talking point to help usher in socialism.
Yet another political stunt by the Marxist Party to force their doctrine upon the American people. Everything that they do comes with a price. The idiots who continue to vote for them, think that they’ll get something out of the deal and that the Marxists actually care about them.
It won’t be long before a white male Christian will be banned from society. Then, of course, our society is doomed.
So then employers just won’t hire as many women. Thanks, because that 77-cents-on-the-dollar (myth) is far worse than not having a paycheck at all.
I thought this equal pay thing was solved years ago…called affirmative action!
Working in corporate America, I have seen two legitimate reasons a pay gap could exist.
1. I have witnessed women take less money for the same job. They are offered what men are offered, but men tend to do more negotiating. Women tend to take the first offer.
2. When a woman goes on maternity leave, her pay freezes until she returns. If she misses a raise, there’s 4% right there. Two or three kids later and you’re down 10-15%. It’s not necessarily fair, but that’s the way it is.
There are further reasons, but you know for certain these legit reasons won’t get much air time.
There is so much more to pay rates than whether one has a penis or a vagina. But when the country is run by people who think their constituents are too damned stupid to understand complex issues, I suppose this is par for the course.
Perhaps they could include a provision for ‘Unemployement Fairness,’ so that it’s not just men losing all the jobs in BadumbasaRack’s economy.
The 77% argument is crap. Women make the same as men, when they choose the same work, have the same level of experience and work the same numbe of hours. Women on average work 75-80% of the hours that men work, so there is your difference.
Wage and price controls. Why do we have to continually suffer the same recycled and folly-filled socialist “solutions”? These should be grade school case studies in bad government. Hey kids: Here’s how not to do it.
I don’t like the gale wind that just blew the big pine tree down on my house but neither do I run outside and pee into it.
That’s another one. There are women in my office that work anywhere from 60-90% of what the men work. (In fact, there’s a really cute japanese one three fabric covered boxes away. She is only part-time due to having a family. Other women have other reasons.)
Again, “facts” won’t get in the way of a good manufactured crisis. Why argue with facts when smoke and mirrors are available?
Yeah, let’s keep piling on to the men who are bearing 80%+ of the unemployment in this country.
Gay, ADD, bulemic, black woman amputee.
Who gets to define the meaning of the word “Fairness“?
Conservatives think it is “fair” when there is equality of opportunity.
Socialists/Communists think it is “fair” when there is equality of results.
But, there has never been a Socialist or Communist country that actually delivered on that Marxist utopia… the reality is that the party rulers live like kings, while everyone else lives in equally miserable poverty.
While other commenters above have rightfully pointed out valid reasons for a difference in average incomes between men and women, Valerie Jarrett thinks any difference at all is inherently “unfair”, becasue she subscribes to the Socialist/Communist definition of “fairness”… equality of results, regardless of other factors.
Laws of Unintended Consequences Part 1
Employers will get away with scrutinizing and not hiring more woman, because they will be afraid of law suits.
Companies Only look at male resumes and you can’t prove a damn thing that yours wasn’t looked at.
There will be salary caps put on everyone in the company.
These are just a few bad things to happen by this kind of legislation.
I would love to see what the algorithm used in obtaining the 77% figure entails.
I’m sure that it is tailored toward showing that women are discriminated against.
I crack up every year when the statistics are released showing that Hawaii has the healthiest population in the Nation. Yeah, right…….
No, I don’t think so, ITTRP–I think she is only interested in that new Versace handbag, so she wants to stay on top.
Hooray!
This is straight out of Rand’s Atlas Shugged. When will the anti-dog-eat-dog legislation surface?
Got to pay them dem donor lawyers back for their donations.
And why exactly aren’t the laws today just fine?
Having worked in a male dominated industry, sometimes being the only woman out of a field of many men, I can say that I either equalled or surpassed in salary what my peers made. In that field it solely depended on how much you were willing to put into it. We each had between 20-40 employees, all union members.
What’s the pay ratio among lawyers with the ACLU? Are the women lawyers paid equally to the men? Inquiring minds want to know…
I’m willing to make a deal with Ms. Jarrett. I’ll trade you Paycheck Fairness for Affirmative Action. Take it or leave it.
On July 20th, 2010 at 3:18 pm, englishqueen01 said:
So then employers just won’t hire as many women. Thanks, because that 77-cents-on-the-dollar (myth) is far worse than not having a paycheck at all.
—————————————
Not to mention, that “myth” figure doesn’t take any other factors into account and assumes that any disparity in pay is “because the woman is a woman”.
You see, the only possible reason a woman wouldn’t be making the EXACT same amount of money as a man with the same job is because of gender discrimination.
Maybe the brainiacs in our government could enact a “man tax” to even things out, since most of the schemes they come up with move tend to depress achievement to the lowest common denominator. Next they can start dictating job values, such as paying a receptionist the same as a plumber, all in the name of “fairness”. Who the hell is running the show up there, Fred Rogers?
Hey Chap are you visibly aroused yet, or shall we call you ED?
The ACLU endorses the proposal, as does every visibly aroused trial lawyer from here to Neptune:
—————————————
If they start to get “carried away”, they can cool themselves off by repeating two words to themselves:
“Tort reform . . . ”
Those words are music to my ears, but a cold shower for them.
O should appoint a gender czar!
This should scare everybody. X-files was never this weird. I wonder what else will be in that data collection.
Evil is never content, evil never dies.
Whatever guise, evil shows up as, its all the same result, tyranny.
Wow, more fairness and in this case more rules and regulations, more paperwork, more people to hire to push the paperwork, more lawsuits for lawyers, sounds like another liberal dream come true.
I thought that the Left had fixed the pay disparity problem years ago. Their solution was NOT to raise women’s pay, but …..
….to emasculate and feminize males, starting in the public school system and finishing in the popular culture.
Ritalin anyone?
And in the end, evil always loses.
Sorry, not a trial lawyer. But you go ahead and imagine me at whatever state of arousal that floats your boat.
Ok, is the administration lying again? Distorting facts? Taking data out of context to reach a preconcieved notion?
First, Is there a pay gap between women and men working the same job?
Second, if there is, then why? Is it because they don’t negotiate well, is it because they take time off to have babies, is it because, they need flexibility to take care of their families and they accept less to get that? Is it because a man started the company and makes more than the woman he hired for her specific expertise? Is it because he hired her based on looks and she can’t actually do the job?
We all negotiate our pay. Sometimes we accept what is offered because we need a job even if we know we are underpaid. When other jobs become available, we will quit that low paying job. If we keep working, we accept the pay. This is a free country.
Who decides how much people should get paid? The government? Now thats an inequity.
ED it is then.
Its a tax increase on women, just like the minimum wage is.
I don’t want “fair” – I want “Free”. Fair is a matter of opinion. Maybe it’s fair to get paid for doing nothing. Maybe it’s more fair to have those who can work harder, support those who don’t. Where does this end? Does the gov want to pick out my wardrobe and dress me in the morning too? There are not enough bureaucrats on the planet to implement all the half-baked ideas this administration cooks up.
Get your socialist/marxist/communist arses back to working on fixing the economy and bringing the unemployment rate down, you mindless fools!! You are doing everything but what you were elected to do!! Lord, I hate these people!! Please send them to a very special place in hell.
Ahhh yes, the ol’ fairness schtick.
Everybody likes fairness. Who could be against fairness?
On July 20th, 2010 at 4:24 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:
ED it is then.
—————————————-
Ooh, ouch!
HARRISON BERGERON by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
i don’t know…
but if I had to guess…
i would say that women’s average physical strength is somewhere about 77% that of men, maybe less..don’t know about mental acuity, but i believe there have been studies that show men to be a bit sharpoer there as well…also women tend to leave the workplace more oftendue to pregnancies, etc. so therefore fewer are given higher paying jobs in which it is imperative for the business that the employee stays on…
so… fair or not (and guess what folks? life ain’t always fair!)…
seems about right paywise to me…
but these are merely facts
On July 20th, 2010 at 4:45 pm, Ditkaca said:
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
HARRISON BERGERON by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
—————————————
A world without exceptional intelligence, exceptional beauty, exceptional ANYTHING . . . I think Kurt Vonnegut had a pretty good idea what Hell would be like (whether or not he believed such a place existed).
Does it matter if the man has more experience, education or seniority than the woman?
You; now that you’ve asked.
max; agreed
Thanks Spacey!
-Max…
I would like get me some of Jarret’s fairness pay
It isn’t about pay and women. It’s about more control over businesses and the economy. Fairness in pay is the excuse. Take a little control now, and a little control later, and, one day, the liberals in D.C., will run all businesses.
Many years ago I worked at Whirlpool. Each and everyone of us made the same thing. There were several jobs that made more, that you had to train for. There were jobs that most women absoloutly were physically incapable of doing. These jobs paid more. I have seen women get those jobs, and have to ask men for help on the physical part, and that was unfair to hold the job, and need a man help to do it. Either do exactly the same of don’t expect the same.
Government get you nose out of our lives. We do just fine, or better than fine without you. Your original interference was originally why a woman was given a job that she was incapable of doing in the first place.
This is why a full time legislature is a bad idea. These idiots think they need to pass new laws to justify their existence.
For comparative purposes I give you
A: Wyoming with it’s part time legislature. they meet once a year with every other year being a full session to develop a two year budget and every other year is a short session to do a little fixing that needs being done. Result, healthy budget, fairly hands off government.
And
B: California and it’s full time legislature. ’nuff said about that.
Congress is the same way, they seem to think they need to just make laws for the sake of making laws (and keeping lobbyist happy).
When I got drafted, I didn’t hear women demanding that it was unfair they weren’t getting drafted too. When I got out and went to teach I didn’t hear women demand that I get the same credit for my military service they got for teaching (instead of risking their lives).
Funny how the concept of fairness works. I didn’t see Senators demanding that I get unemployment compensation either.
On July 20th, 2010 at 4:34 pm, rambler said:
Very well said. I think I’m going to adopt that.
I don’t want “Fair” – I want “Free”.
Freedom is what it’s all about.
Will we be free, or will we be controlled and enslaved by a massive government?
Don’t we already have equal pay laws on the books?
This is about unequal pay. Multiply every woman’s paycheck by 1.00/.77 and you get equal pay (even though you now make 77% of a woman’s salary for doing the same job). See how that works?
If all else fails, manipulate the data!
Lots of good points made here. One thing I read several years back that hasn’t been mentioned yet (or I missed it) was that a study showed male veterinarians would stick to their pricing, even in emergency or hardship cases, while female vets were more sympathetic and likely to reduce their fees to those they deemed unable to pay the full fee.
Who decides fairness? What factors are considered? I think professional athletes are paid too much and male athletes are paid way more than their female counterparts. Who is going to even that up without having to get involved in the whole financial and logistical workings of the industry.
Lets just redistrubte some pay from Omar Garciaparra to Mia Hamm. They both deserve the same pay. Oh and that pay should be no more than $100k per year. That should be enough money for them to live on for that occupation.
Sheer stupidity cloaked in victimhood. stop the insanity.
If I have a man and woman doing the same job at the same pay rate, and the woman gets pregnant and she can’t work as long or as efficiently, can I let her work less and lower her pay?
Or do I have to fire her for lack of performance?
Perhaps I was wrong to hire a woman in the first place…
This won’t remove any sexism in the work place. It will just shift any inequalities from disparity of pay to disparities in male/female hiring rates.
HHHMMM equal pay? If you work for a union your pay scale male or female changes as you gain senority. So NO ONE is really at equal pay. So can union woman sue????
Certainly can fire her for “lack of performance” if she gets pregnant. The laws of unintended consequences will mean lots of women either will not get interviews or be dismissed for “performance reasons” when something like this happens.
Hard to prove they fired you for being pregnant when they say it’s because of a mistake in your performance…
I am sick of being micromanaged by the government.
Controlling every last part of society and the economy is not their job.
It’s unconstitutional. It’s illegal. It’s hostile to freedom.
They do it anyway.
I started my first “real job” around the age of 24. It was a chance to prove my skills and I started off at a rather low wage – although at the time it was mroe than I had ever made. After a couple of years I had honed my skills and after a few conversations with my male peers did find out they were making more and doing the same work. So I guess what I did was rather un-American. I went to my boss, talked about my work, what I had done, how I had improved and why I deserved a raise that would bring me more in line with my peers. And I got it. No lawyers, crying to the government, or finger pointing. When I got my current job, they asked my salary requirements. Again, I had done my research and had my portfolio to back me up – and they agreed to my request. It doesn’t matter whether you’re male or female – show that you deserve the salary and you should get it. Why does the government have to intervene?
I’m also a mom – never whined that my employers weren’t paying maternity leave (did they tell me to have a baby? no). I have a lot of work/home flexibility – and I trade that for pay raises, an arrangement with which I’m perfectly happy.
“See how that works?”
I know how the math works Mister P. We already have laws regarding this matter. Laws for equal pay has been around.
I work in nursing. The reality is no matter how much a woman makes in nursing, they think they are getting screwed because they don’t make what doctors make.
I can assure you as a male nurse I don’t get one more dime an hour because I have external genitalia.
There was a survey released 2 years ago stating that the pay gap is narrowing, that women earn 80% of what men earn. Mentioned far into the text is that women worked a little less than 80% of the hours that men work. So if we want progress, have women work the same number of hours as men.
I also saw a survey in US News & World Report (I believe in Spring 1995) by the US Dept of Labor (maybe Bureau of Labor Statistics) where women made 99% of what men made. They arrived at this report because they compared men with unmarried women (to factor out the differences in hours worked because many married women work part-time), while working comparable jobs and comparable levels of experience. None of the other surveys have ever done this.
People who cite the survey results regarding the inequality of pay are never logically-inclined or quantitiatively inclined. BTW I have a professional background in finance and employee comp.
No. Mutiply what a man makes by the ratio of hours a woman makes to the hours a man works.
Aren’t women predicted to be the majority gender by 2011? If that’s the case, they’ll have all the money. If they have all the money, men won’t have to work.
Talk about role reversal.
That sounds like the name of a band.
Men Not At Work
If women truly earned only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, what company could stay in business competitively by hiring men in any capacity?
Excellent point!
At most jobs I’ve had, women had been my manager or supervisor. I didn’t give it a second thought. But once one travels down that gender or race road, there’s no going back.
How can women get paid 77% of what men make and still hire good woemen? Why do women managers hire women on at 77% of what men make (they are the majority % in middle management)? Why do the women in HR aid and abet in this injustice?
The answer my friends is in my previous posts.
Pardon me, but these particular “statistics” always struck me as more manipulatable than a Clinton White House intern’s thong strap.
If Valerie Jarret can cite statistical evidence based on parity of underlying factors, I might lend an ear.
But on the other hand, investing any confidence in Valerie Jarret’s proclamations is hardly worth the effort.
*The legal profession loves legislation such as this; It’s money in the bank for them; Unfortunately, it will lead to higher unemployment for women; Bank on that!
And we all know this isn’t about equal pay for women. Its about pandering to the womens vote.
It’s always about the vote to this administration.
I was wondering when they were going to get around to paying off the trial lawyers.
Who’s left? Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the non-citizen muslims who illegally contributed to his campaign for Prez….(or, should I say ‘which he illegally kept?’) What’s their payoff, …Israel?
Maybe I should sue because I haven’t made 23 cents more an hour than my female counter parts?
Speaking of data collection, colleges who get federal money (almost all of them) have new federal reporting requirements for employees and race.
They want to know what race everybody is.
Why?
People say that death is the great equalizer, but that statement is not entirely true. Even after death, MLK has received much greater attention than Rosa Parks. And when it came to killing the sea monster, who gets more credit: Perseus or Medusa? Who does he think he is anyway holding her head in such a dominant manner? Just a purely physical observation of human skeletons will reveal that male skeletons are bigger and command much more presence than female skeletons.
Clearly these wrongs must be righted.
We must work to improve the image of Medusa. Skeletons must be adjusted so that male bones are equal in all aspects to female bones.
This whole concept it wrong. Why the hell is the government even snooping around inside of people’s paychecks? It is none of their or my neighbor’s business what I make.
Every day, in every way, we are being pushed screaming into Atlas Shrugged – Who is John Galt?
While my following comments are generalizations, when hiring employees, generalizations are applicable as hiring guides.
Most men need a job and don’t get pregnant. While there is risk in any employee, the risk of a male employee is easier to evaluate.
Women, often have parents or a husband to fallback on, which makes their reliability less than a male. The pregnancy factor is justification for less pay until the performance and character of the employee is determined. Women out of child bearing age are easier to evaluate.
If you are faced with two equally qualified candidates, one male and one female capable of becoming pregnant, the male is the choice every time and if the female is hired, she must receive less compensation until the pregnancy issue is determined.
I employed many people in my business, and I was never disappointed in the females’ change of focus when they became pregnanct. They all prolonged their return to work with excuse after excuse such as lingering headaches, postpartum depression and the like. Two female employees, after promising to return to their jobs after the birth of the baby, called in on the day they were supposed to come back and changed their minds. In both cases, this created a great deal of disturbance in the activities of the business. After that, I hired females but always paid as little as possible, refused salary increases and let them go as needed only to be replaced by others just like them. I structured the jobs for the females employees to be boring, non-essential in the scheme of things, and kept them as easily replaceable. It worked well until I sold and retired.
I would never hire females again unless I had to. I found them to be distracting, cliquish, deceitful and undependable.
I know there are great females out there, but they are rare indeed. They still can’t be counted on because once they get pregnant, or decide they don’t want to work, the employer gets screwed. It’s just the way it is and to ignore it is folly.
Just wait until they institute the Bureau for Economic Justice!
Whatever happened to the saying
“Equal pay for equal work”?
It went the way of “Equal opportunity.”
Communists are only interested in equality of results, since that empowers them to enforce those results.
Gee, you’d think if that were really true the workforce would be overwhelmingly female. After all, why pay a man a dollar to do a job when you can pay a woman 77 cents to do the same job?
Congress-critters (and their staffs) aren’t just ignorant, they’re stupid. Stupidity coupled with power make them very dangerous.
and they’re always in the toilet! Jeez! I swear some of them live in there.
I guess the other third are on public assistance?
Or are they just unemployed because of the failed Obama-Biden economic policies?
The end result of all this will reduce overall hiring and lower salaries in general. I worked my axx off to get where I am and sure in the heck didn’t need help from the government. The one way they can help is to cut taxes so my bonuses mean something.
Thomas Sowell debunked this 77 cents on the dollar myth long ago. This is just lying with statistics. It’s disgusting, but entirely predictable, that the lapdog media doesn’t challenge these bald faced lies.
But go ahead and artificially force millions of young men out of work in the name of “fairness”. Force them to stay at home, angry and resentful. I can’t see any potential negative consequences with that, can you?
Freaking idiots.
Stubby, listen to yourself. That much trouble telegraphs a problem with the interview criteria. Maybe checking for credentials rather than skirt length would have helped. I work in a male dominated industry but the gals they hire at this outfit are right on par with success or failure with the guys. Typically, the only trouble women cause is for other women since we’re all vying for visibility with the male seniors. Your company is probably responsible for some of this legislation. Fie to you.
with a spanish surname.
I guess I should have put tags around it
I understand 60 percent of students now graduating from college are women. Soon we shall see that women make much more than men.
I sure hope these same folks applauding one guy’s opinion of “fairness” remember the concept when the next guy outlaws preferences in hiring, education, and set asides. Live by goreing someone elses ox, die by having your ox gored.
The irony is thick in this story. IIRC, it was revealed during the 2008 campaign that McCain’s woman employees were paid slightly better than the men. Obama’s woman employees were paid 78% of what the men made.
Now he’s for equal pay.
I think this has very little to do with fair pay and very much to do with filling the trough for parasite trial lawyers.
For every person who may have actually been injured by some form of discrimination and then handsomely compensated for that injury, there WILL be ten more right behind them falsely claiming the same thing. Making it easier to sue just means that that number goes from ten to twenty thus supporting even more parasites.
We need a “LOSER PAYS ALL COSTS INCLUDING OPPOSING PARTY LEGAL COSTS” approach to tort reform that includes a provision whereby whatever cost cannot be paid by a losing plaintiff – must be paid by the lawyer who represented them.