Today is the anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which granted the right to vote to women. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has decided to use this day of equal rights for women to argue that women are now to blame for unequal pay in the workplace. On the organization’s official blog, ChamberPost, Senior Director of Communications Brad Peck today makes the argument that the pay gap between men and women in the American workforce — women currently earn roughly 77 cents to every dollar a man earns — is “the result of individual choice rather than discrimination.” He argues that, instead of bold legislative action being taken to help correct this pay gap, women should pick the “obvious, immediate, power-of-the-individual solution: choosing the right place to work and choosing the right partner at home“:

Most of the current “pay gap” is the result of individual choice rather than discrimination. [...]

It is true that culturally speaking women are more likely to have to make the tough choices about work-life balance. But as we all seek to fit our values into a dynamic 24/7 economy, let’s not overlook the obvious, immediate, power-of-the-individual solution: choosing the right place to work and choosing the right partner at home.

Peck’s argument that women could close the pay gap by simply choosing jobs in better paying fields and marrying wealthier men is based on a faulty premise — that the pay gap in the United States between genders exists because women choose to work for less and men choose to work for more.

While it’s true that women sometimes migrate into fields that have lower pay, what Peck ignores is that even within the same occupation, women are paid less. For example, data collected by the Census Bureau in 2007 shows that “female secretaries…earn just 83.4% as much as male ones” and female truck drivers “earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts.” A report put out this year by the University of Minnesota finds that women in that state are “are paid $11,000 dollars less each year than men with the same jobs.” A 2007 American Association of University Women report compared men and women with similar “hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors normally associated with pay” and found that “college-educated women still earn less than their male peers earn“; the report concludes that workplace discrimination is the culprit in the wage gap.

It is important to note that this pay inequity is so pervasive that it even affects people who undergo a sex change. In 2008, researchers Kristen Schilt and Matthew Wiswall examined the wages over their lifetimes of people before and after a sex change operation. Even “when controlling for factors like education, men who transitioned to women earned, on average, 32% less after the surgery. Women who became men, on the other hand, earned 1.5% more.”

Unfortunately, the Chamber of Commerce has a long history of overlooking women’s struggles in America and of actively opposing movements for gender equality. While opposing the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, the Chamber argued that pregnancy was a “voluntary” act and thus should not have discrimination protections in the workplace. In 1987 it ominously warned that the Family and Medical Leave Act would set a “dangerous precedent” of employer-sponsored benefits. And last year, the organization lobbied against legislation that would allow rape victims to bring lawsuits against their employers.

Yesterday, the Iowa Independent broke the story that Jeremy Walters — a Republican candidate for the Iowa State house — posted Facebook messages in which he quoted biblical verses saying that gay people should be “put to death” and suggested that AIDS is a punishment for the sin of homosexuality:

Walters’ statements were immediately condemned by One Iowa, the state’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) advocacy organization, and the Iowa Republican party, leading the candidate to remove the posts. But in a subsequent interview with the Wonk Room, Walters explained that his outburst was motivated by the recent Prop 8 decision and that he was still uncertain if God was trying to kill gay people. Read the interview here.

There is already a disturbing trend of profiteering among the Tea Party movement, from Glenn Beck’s Goldline scheme to conferences that cost $550 per ticket. Another such scheme unraveled in Ohio today, involving a discount program for Tea Party members at businesses near Dayton. Local businessman Donald Hutchison, who will speak at the Tea Party gathering in Washington, DC on Sept. 11, started the “Tea Party Exchange” last year, in which about 30 local businesses agreed to give discounts to local Tea Party members. The businesses, which believed they would see increased patronage, paid $150 to participate in the program. Yesterday, however, Hutchison abruptly shut down the program, and there is “no word” on whether the participating businesses will get their money back. Bill DeFries, owner of the local Beef O’Brady’s Family Sports Club and participant in the Tea Party exchange, is not pleased:

“I feel like I was hoodwinked,” said DeFries. “I think he was trying to make money.”

“I think he should refund everybody their money, including me,” said DeFries, who didn’t get a single TPX customer since he joined June 1.

The participating businesses varied widely, from restaurants to roofing companies. Many were in or near the congressional district of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R). (HT: TP reader EW)

Today, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) appeared on radio network WABC-77 and fielded questions from a host about a variety of political issues. At one point, the host asked Dean what his position was “on the controversy surrounding the mosque at Ground Zero,” referring to the Park 51 Islamic community center and mosque. Dean responded by saying he favored some sort of “compromise” of the issue that involved using the proposed site for “people of all faiths.” He called the presence of the mosque an “affront to people who lost their lives, including Muslims.” He then went on to say that while the congregation building the mosque probably has good intentions, “there’s no point trying to do something good if it’s met with enormous resistance from a lot of folks“:

HOST: Governor, what is your position on the controversy surrounding the mosque at Ground Zero?

DEAN: I gotta believe there has to be a compromise here. This isn’t about the right for Muslims to have a worship center, or Jews or Christians or anybody else to have a place to worship, any place at Ground Zero. This is something we oughta be able to work out with people of good faith. And we have to understand that it is a real affront to people who lost their lives, including Muslims. That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion, it belongs to all people of all faiths. So I think a good reasonable compromise could be worked out without violating the principle people oughta be able to worship as they see fit.

HOST: You’re calling for a compromise, are you calling for the mosque to be moved?

DEAN: Well I think another site would be a better idear. Again, I would look to do that in collaboration with the people trying to build the mosque. I think the people who are trying to build the mosque are trying to do something good. But there’s no point in trying to do something good if it’s met with enormous resistance from a lot of folks. This is a very delicate, difficult religious and cultural issue. I think it’s great to have mosques in American cities. There’s a growing number of American Muslims. I think most of those Muslims are moderate. I hope they’ll have an impact on the world, because Islam is really back in the 12th century in some of these countries like in Iran and Afghanistan, where they’re stoning Muslims to death. And that can be fixed. And the way it can be fixed is not by pushing Muslims away, it’s by embracing them and having them become just like any other American, Americans who happen to be Muslim. So the way you do that is to integrate people into the fabric of the United States, which is what I think this congregation wants to do. But I do think we should work out a compromise so that everyone is accommodated by this.

Of course, if progressive movements throughout history had followed Dean’s advice, there’d be very little progress. During the health care debate, Howard Dean boldly said, “I’m going to fight for a public option until we get one. It really is that simple. … We will not stop because Democrats in Washington say it’s done. We will not wait 20 years — 10 years — we will not wait a single year — because we will not stop until every American has the option to voluntarily buy into a program like Medicare.” It appears that running into the “enormous resistance” of the U.S. Senate and political opposition from the insurance, drug, and medical-industrial industries did not stop Dean from fighting for a public option. One has to wonder why he feels like it would be enough to sacrifice the rights of American Muslims to peacefully worship where they please.