People who live in glass houses . . .
Turns out the White House only pays women 88 percent of what it pays men.
WHEN WILL THIS WAR ON WHITE HOUSE WOMEN STOP?? Please, if any of these poor women need counseling, they can get in touch with me on the contact page and I will see what I can do.
From CBS News:
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney sounded a bit defensive Monday, I’d say:
And I think that it is worth noting, as anyone who participates in our senior staff meetings can see, that we have here in the White House over half the women — over half the staff are women and fulfilling key senior leadership roles across the board, including Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco, Counterterrorism Adviser Lisa Monaco, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler, Senior Adviser to the President Valerie Jarrett, Direct of Domestic Policy Cecilia Muñoz, Director Communications Jennifer Palmieri, Director of Legislative Affairs Katie Beirne Fallon, Director of Scheduling Danielle Crutchfield, and Director of Management Administration Katie Kale.
Yeah, some of my best friends are women!
And BTW, the Washington Free Beacon reports today that Senate Democrats pay their female staffers only 91 cents on the dollar paid to men.
The charge that women’s earnings of 77 cents on the dollar amounts to “discrimination” is the most dishonest, thoroughly debunked, egregiously smarmy claim out there. Obama knows this, but of course keeps repeating it anyway. Because that’s how the hope and change guy rolls.
Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calls it an “unequivocally bogus statistic”:
First, when controlling for all the factors that influence pay, such as work experience, the number of hours worked per week, and so on, the raw gender pay gap almost disappears . . .
Second, women tend to work in jobs that pay higher benefits relative to their salaries. Economists Eric Solberg and Teresa Laughlin of California State University found that factoring in benefits eliminated around nine percentage points of the raw pay gap, and concluded that “any measure of earnings that excludes fringe benefits may produce misleading results as to the existence, magnitude, consequence, and source of market discrimination.”
No doubt there’s some discrimination. But it ain’t nearly what they’re saying. Discrimination should be taken seriously and prosecuted. But this cannot be used to install more Socialism in an effort go guarantee results, which is what, other than bashing Republicans, this fight really is about.
What President Obama really needs to do is invent a way for men to have babies. Now, given that Obamacare mandates maternity coverage for men, it could be that they’re working on this.
But until then, the fact is that women are going to have babies and be more likely to want to drop out of the workforce to take care of them – often as they are on the cusp of starting to make real money – or cut back their hours. In either case, their earnings relative to men decline.
But who cares about such details when you’re trying to hold the Senate?
17 thoughts on “White House on Defense Over Own War on Women”
If women truly were paid less than men to do the same work then men would not be able to find work.
Business would only hire women.
If hiring were based on cost…
That’s the best wisecrack I’ve heard about this canard since Gloria Steinem’s pet goldfish took up mountain biking.
Now, now, let’s not overlook the transgendered who could be either a man or woman, or both at the same time.
While this gender-option is confusing to most Americans, the Obama minions are sure that men, can indeed, give birth. Hence, the maternity benefits mandate of Obamacare.
And, of course,….uh…that’s all I got.
This unequal pay thingy all goes back to MrRomney’s “binders full of women”; the most awkward phrase ever uttered in a modern Presidential campaign. It just sounded so medieval, so 1950ish that it seemed like something to pounce on as proof that Repubs hate women and wish them to be “bound” or kept in their place.
The underpaid, overworked, and sad women who are forced to work for the Obamas in the Dem WhiteHouse should consider joining or forming a union to protect their rights and demand equality.
After all, the Dems and the labor movement love unions, think they’re the answer to everything.
Short of forming a workplace union, the underpaid, overworked, and sad women hired by the Obamas might consider a walkout, or a hunger strike until there is parity with the WhiteHouse men reflected in their paycheck.
People in DC have binders full of everything, briefing books basically. I am sure he did not think of it in a bondage sense. I sure didn’t.
When people pointed out the obvious fact that those “binders” were there to give opportunities to women, one Democrat woman retorted that the existence of the binders was proof that Romney didn’t actually know any women he could just call up and offer a job.
In other words, in Dem-world it’s perfectly correct to distribute government jobs to your personal friends acquaintances. It’s only those mean, nasty Republicans who would open up the opportunities to a larger pool of women.
Maybe when everyone has worked out the issues of equal pay someone can focus on the jobs for which Americans can then receive equal pay.
getting paid 0 is equal
One of the FIRST bills Obama signed was the Lily Ledbetter Act. Now we know that was a theater!
now THIS is what I call high quality reporting.
H Y P O C R I T E S !!!!!!
I am sorry the Obama Administration is just copying another page from the Clinton Administration.
Clinton even a had a better catchphrase……….”Make Love Not War on Women”.
Dishonest? Smarmey? Yep, must be a claim from the Obama White House.
OT. Holder has a “you don’t want to go there buddy” moment with Gohmert. Rings with the sound of the street. The kind of justice Eric is most familiar with.
Another factor, I’ve read, is that men tend to be more assertive in asking for more pay.
It’s also easier for men to do the jobs that rely on muscle more than brains or skill, and in those jobs they’re often represented by labor unions that use the sheer power of numbers and extortionate tactics to get paid well above their market value. Will the Dems do anything about that problem?
…how about some redistribution?
And we remember this little tidbit from Anita Dunn, former White House Communications Director: “This place (the WH) would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
Comments are closed.