Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

On Tuesday, Democrats used National Equal Pay Day to try to exacerbate the Republican Party’s well-documented problems with female voters — and the GOP wasn’t able to come up with a very convincing response.

Throughout the day, Democrats — led by President Barack Obama — slammed Republicans for their opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, which seeks to remedy the persistent gender pay gap between American men and women.

During an event highlighting his new executive orders on the issue, President Obama threw an elbow at Republicans who are blocking the legislation from advancing through Congress.

“I don’t know why you would resist the idea that women should be paid the same as men and then deny that that’s not always happening out there,” the president said. “If Republicans in Congress want to prove me wrong, if they want to show that they do care about women being paid the same as men, then show me. They can start tomorrow. They can join us, in this, the 21st century and vote yes on the Paycheck Fairness Act.”

Republicans pushed back by claiming that, while they support the general notion of equal pay for equal work, the proposed law would “cut flexibility in the workplace for working moms and end merit pay that rewards good work,” as an RNC press release put it.

But when given an opportunity to propose an alternative plan during a Tuesday appearance on MSNBC, GOP press secretary Kirsten Kukowski came up completely empty.

While Kukowski’s effort was a dramatic improvement from March (when the executive director of the Texas GOP suggested that women close the pay gap by learning to negotiate like men), it’s unlikely to dent the Democrats’ big polling advantage with female voters.

Republicans also used Equal Pay Day to highlight a recent study from the conservative American Enterprise Institute finding that women in the White House are paid an average of 88 cents for every $1 paid to men.

When White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked about the report on Monday, he responded by stressing that “men and women in equivalent roles here earn equivalent salaries,” but acknowledged that the White House could do better.

“What I can tell you is that we have as an institution here have aggressively addressed this challenge, and obviously, though, at the 88 cents that you cite, that is not a hundred, but it is better than the national average,” Carney said.

Still, Republicans have used the study as a rare opportunity to go on the attack.

“I’m seeing the news this morning and it seems that the White House is having a little problem on this themselves,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) told reporters on Tuesday.

Cantor should be careful with his rhetoric, however. For starters, House Republicans are no strangers to pay equity issues; in 2012, female Republican staffers in the House made an average $10,093.09 less than their male counterparts. That’s 84 cents on the dollar.

Furthermore, if Cantor believes that the White House gender pay gap is a “problem,” then it naturally raises questions about why he and his colleagues in the House oppose all legislative measures meant to solve it.

Republicans would do well to come up with some sort of answer, and soon. As national polls have made abundantly clear, voters — especially women — overwhelmingly favor legislative fixes to ensure that women get equal pay for equal work. And even if their favorable electoral map allows Republicans to survive the issue in 2014, their broader problem with women is not going away any time soon.

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • Dominick Vila

    They are also struggling with the minimum wage, the Affordable Care Act, and anything that may help the middle class and the poor, at the expense of those who don’t need our help to enjoy the best that life has to offer.

  • option31

    White House should have cleaned their act up first, they did themselves no favors having the same issue going on in their midst. To blast anybody for doing something you are doing is hypocrisy of the highest form.

    • Independent1

      You obviously missed the part where Carney said that men and women doing the same jobs get the same pay: “When White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked about the report on Monday, he responded by stressing that “men and women in equivalent roles here earn equivalent salaries.””

      So the fact that women in the White House on average have a lower salary is most likely attributable to more women than men doing work in the White House that’s on a lower pay scale than the average male’s salary. Nowhere does it say that there’s been a study that proves that the disparity is in violation of the 1963 Equal Pay Act. It could simply mean there are more women than men doing work such as housekeeping or acting as nannies, etc., which would be justified as being at a lower pay scale.

      I don’t believe we’ve gotten to the point where everyone assumes that there’s one pay scale for all work and therefore men and women should all be making the same salary irrespective of the work they’re doing.

      • Harry601100 .

        Totally agree

    • The pay of White House staffers is all online. I carefully examined those numbers a couple of years ago, when the Repubs first brought this up, and women and men in the same positions are paid the same salaries; in fact, if there is a difference, the women were generally getting a bit more (1-2K) than the men in the same positions. So the WH has no at to clean up. They are clean.

    • dpaano

      If you read the article, you’d see that it clearly said that women in the White House are being paid the same as men who are “in equivalent roles.” You aren’t going to pay a woman who is an administrative assistant the same as you would the Chief of Staff, but hopefully you’d pay her the same as another, either male or female, administrative assistant is being paid. Make sense?

      • Harry601100 .

        of course

  • paulyz

    Do the readers of the National Memo ever check facts before they make uninformed, biased opinions? We have had equal-pay Laws since 1963, and have banned wage-discrimination since 1963 also.
    It should be obvious that Obama knows his policies are unpopular & has low approval ratings, so this is all about political sound-bites to create his class & wealth warfare to distract ignorant voters from the terrible economy & Obamacare. Please become informed for the sake of ALL Americans!

    • disqus_ivSI3ByGmh

      paulyz, you may want to also check that when a company does not disclose its pay scales, you will often find women, blacks and Hispanics being paid less than a white man is paid for the same or comparable job, despite the seniority and expertise the others may have over him.

      • Pete Prez

        You are absolutely right, and this occurs big time. It is very difficult to prove, because of all the games played with title etc.

      • Pete Prez

        Will add that I worked for a small business, starting salary same job for women $6.50 an hour, men $10.50 an hour.

    • Dominick Vila

      We are all very much aware of the Civil Rights and policies proposed and signed by JFK and LBJ. Thanks for the reminder though. Unfortunately, laws and regulations designed to help the population and protect our environment are often ignored or circumvented by those whose only interest is to accumulate wealth, regardless of who they step on or how much damage they do to our environment.
      What is obvious to most people capable of rational thinking is what happened when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. Here is a short list: 9/11, letting Saudi Arabia off the hook in exchange for lucrative contracts and bond purchases, 12 attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of Americans killed or maimed during Bush’s crusades, putting in place economic policies that transformed a budget surplus into deficit spending in one year, out of control government spending, a huge redistribution of wealthy from the public to the private sector (1T worth), the near collapse of the U.S. economy and financial system, the collapse of the real estate market, industrial icons on the verge of bankruptcy, record foreclosures and bankruptcies, rising unemployment, and a nation stunned by calamities that most of us would have never envisioned.
      Compare the misery of those days to where we are today. No foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, one Vs twelve attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities, Osama bin Laden dead, ending the use of torture and renditions, a President that is welcomed as a hero worldwide instead of one who has to cancel visits to foreign countries for fear of being arrested and charged with crimes against humanity, turning an economy on the verge of collapse into a growing economy, companies posting profits and hiring once again, the DOW rising by 10,000 points since President Obama was Inaugurated in January 2009, house prices rising, new construction on the rise, bankruptcies and foreclosures back to normal levels, Wall Street on solid footing and extending credit, a substantial reduction in deficit spending, a much smaller Federal government workforce, greater focus on domestic issues, and continuous attempts to help returning veterans, the middle class and the poor.
      You are right, the contrast could not be more obvious. Only someone suffering from an advance state of Alzheimer or amnesia cannot see what should be readily apparent to everyone.

      • All 8.8 million private sector jobs that were lost in the Republican Recession have been recouped now, though we still need more growth to accommodate some of the increase in population (not all, as most of the increase in population is in the older age groups among people who are retiring and leaving the work force).

        • Independent1

          A big reason why it’s taken us so long to get “net jobs” positive over the past4-6 years, is because of the millions of American jobs that Mitt Romney and his cronies in the corporate pirating sector destroyed here and shipped overseas. Good ole Mitt was involved in doing that within a week of the 2012 election when he was running for president; on the fairy tale that he was really concerned about creating jobs in America while he was still busy destroying American jobs. Mitt has been a much bigger American job destroyer than an American job creator.

          • Harry601100 .

            Again nothing to do with the issue being discussed

        • Harry601100 .

          Again nothing to do with the issue under discussion

      • Harry601100 .

        What has all this got to do with the question of equal pay for equal work? If laws and regulations are easily circumvented why bother to make them?

        • Dominick Vila

          Because there is always the possibility of voters waking up from their stupor and electing members of Congress who pay attention, address the problems we have, and make sure our laws are protected and improved as we learn more about their effectiveness.

    • Independent1

      Obviously, employers have found ways to get around the 1963 law. Here’s an excerpt from a study done in Minnesota 15 plus years after the 1963 law was passed which actually states that from 1976 to 1981 that the disparity in pay had actually gotten worse, and although Minnesota seems to have improved things there, it’s obvious that the 1963 law, or even Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Law have done much to improve the situation in many other places:

      In Minnesota, the state began considering a formal comparable worth policy in the late 1970s when the Minnesota Task Force of the Council on the Economic Status of Women commissioned Hay Associates to conduct a study. The results were staggering and similar to the results in Washington (there was a 20% gap between state male and female workers pay). Hay Associates proved that in the 19 years since the Equal Pay Act was passed, wage discrimination persisted and had even increased over from 1976 to 1981.[32].

      The Minnesota Legislature moved immediately in response. In 1983 the state appropriated 21.8 million dollars to begin amending the pay disparities for state employees.[34] From 1982 to 1993, women’s wages in the state increased 10%. According to the Star Tribune, in 2005 women in Minnesota state government made 97 cents to the dollar, ranking Minnesota as one of the most equal for female state workers in the country.

      • Harry601100 .

        Are you the same independent 1 that sent me the semi-literate, irrelevant response with a lot of personal insults. How come?

        • Independent1

          I’m having difficulty believing that your so clueless as to not be aware that calling our president MR., is a clear sign of INTENDED disrespect.
          If you’re listening to programs or reading news articles that call President Obama, Mr., it’s because you’re reading articles from right-wing rags or programs with right-wing biased columnists who choose to show their respect for Obama by calling him Mr., instead of President.
          Calling Obama Mr., is like walking into a court room and referring to the guy behind the bench wearing a rob, Hey You!, instead of Your Honor. Or like calling someone who has worked years to attained to their Ph.D. and calling them Mr. instead of Dr. like the guy who takes care of your health for example.
          Barak Obama has accomplished something that 99.9999999% of Americans will never accomplish, he not only was voted President of our country once but twice.
          So if you were calling him him Mr. based on ignorance, that’s one thing, but I’m even having trouble believing that. They way you were phrasing your comments, it appeared to me that you were INTENTIONALLY calling him Mr. as a sign of disrespect. And given that I think President Obama has accomplished more than any current living president, BY FAR, despite a deliberate 24/7 attempt by the GOP to make him fail, showing disrespect to him is going to instill a bit of snarkiness in me.

    • You are the one who needs to do some fact checking. So naive to think that the big bad ass execs could not figure out a way to screw their own employees. What country have you been living in.
      As for unpopular policies, well, he did pretty good getting elected 2’x on those “un”popular policies. 🙂 Can’t wait til 2016

    • Independent1

      And if the 1963 Equal Pay Act is working so famously, why is it that a study done on the anniversary of the law last year, showed that women on average are earning 23 cents less on the dollar than men?? Irrespective of the 1963 law there’s a BIG PROBLEM!!!

      (See my post to Harry60110 further on in the blog with excerpts from Huffington Post on that study.)

      • Harry601100 .

        Are they earning less for equal jobs. Of course what determines equal-BIG PROBLEM

  • Bill Thompson

    Once again dart throwing or criticism by the GOP with no plan forward. From the sound of the interview it sounds like this woman is more in agreement with the Democrats then she is with what comes out of the mouths of the GOP. She jumped right to the Senate as opposed to the house that will not even take up the bill or start negotiations. The GOP once again is a victim of its own obstructionism.

  • ps0rjl

    I watched GOP Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins from Kansas speak on this issue. She is very conservative. While she was espousing the GOP talking points, I wish someone would have asked her if she was making 80% of what her male colleagues were making. I live in western Missouri near Kansas City. We have the Ozarks, Kansas City, and beautiful south Missouri, but we are most thankful we don’t live in Kansas. For those of you who don’t know, Kansas City is in Missouri.

  • Jim Myers

    GOP press secretary Kirsten Kukowski – YOU LIE!!!!

  • Harry601100 .

    The White House commented people doing the same jobs were paid the same. Isn’t that what it’s all about. How can anyone argue with this principle. Different jobs have different pay scales and there is also the question of seniority etc. etc. Taking the average without factoring in other variables to get the 77% is, as for everything, meaningless. By way of illustration, a female janitor should be paid the same as a male one, absent any differences in their janitorial duties such as the men clean latrines and the women not, or vice versa. Also how long each has been in the position or whether one is in a supervisory janitorial position etc. etc. So, I want to know how the 77% figure is obtained. If it is the total raw average it is meaningless in terms of the gender equality question.

    Don’t understand the President’s comment referring to the Republicans; “I don’t know why you would resist the idea that women should be paid the same as men and then deny that that’s not always happening out there.” Did he mean support instead of resist or that the Republicans were doing both, say covertly resisting the former and publicly stating the latter. Very duplicitous but typical politician speak! Also using the word always means that no one could make such a statement because even if it were only occurring once it couldn’t be denied. I wonder whether politicians, in general, make such statements because they are inherently illogical. I would be very surprised if this was the case for Mr. Obama; he just says what he has to.

    • awakenaustin

      Statistically, looking at small samples (i.e., a single corporation, business, or the White House), if you just compare sex and pay without controlling for type of job or status of job and maybe some other things you would get skewed results. The smaller the sample size the more you need to control for factors, such as type of job, which may distort your claims about what your results mean.
      However, with very large samples, say the nation as a whole, then these factors have less influence though still some, and occasionally a significant influence.
      So, a raw comparison of male versus female pay with large samples is less likely to distort results than when small samples are used.
      Unequal pay for the same jobs and in general does,however, actually exist. The evidence from good surveys, and anecdotes, is overwhelming. Unequal pay, represents, unmasks or exposes the more serious problem, which is a lack of equal consideration for all jobs available.

      Everyone else seemed to understand the President’s comment.
      Ooh, word games I love them. Let’s parse each other’s statements. It is always best to do this while simultaneously ignoring context.
      You understood his comment, you just disagreed with it, and so you used a rhetorical device – feigning a lack of understanding to launch your “logical” criticism. You follow with a rhetorical question. (You did not put a question mark behind the question, Freudian slip?) Then you wonder – also a rhetorical device – and move along with your criticism, couching it as a criticism of all politicians (whom no one likes – excepting me (( this is also rhetorical, i.e., not meant to be taken literally)) before finally landing on your actual target – President Obama.

      Wow, does this mean (rhetorical question) that even real, logical non-politician types like yourself engage in rhetoric when advocating a viewpoint?

      • Harry601100 .

        Dear Awake in Austin, do read Mr. Obama’s comment again and tell me what it means, perhaps after you get some sleep! Who are all these other people that understand it? You imply that I understand it but because of my opposition to the President I’m being disingenuous. However, I am absolutely certain I voted for Mr Obama twice and don’t regret it. It is not a good idea to assume what you don’t know, and additionally to be patronizing about it? Really sorry about the ? but it was sloppiness rather than Freudian!
        My only concerns were the accuracy of the 77% thing and Mr. Obama’s uncharacteristic lack of clear English. The statistical issue re. the 77% would take a lot of discussion but I think you are wrong. There was an article in yesterday’s Wall street Journal that argues it is a myth if you control for all the other variables.

        • awakenaustin

          If I control for enough variables, I can zero out any statistical variation or deviation.
          Really? You did not understand his in-artful use of the English language? Did you seriously miss the point he was making? Aren’t you just quibbling about how he said it? It is not unlike me suggesting as I laughed at it, that I did not understand what ex-President Bush meant when he said misunderestimate.
          It drives me crazy when the announcer talks about the amount of yards the running back gained rather than the number, but I understand what he means.
          You are much too intelligent to seriously assert you did not understand him.
          So yes, I think you were being disingenuous. I didn’t think I was being patronizing. My apologies.

          • Harry601100 .

            comment I was concerned with was this; During an event highlighting his new executive orders on the issue, President Obama
            threw an elbow at Republicans who are blocking the legislation from advancing
            through Congress.

            don’t know why you would resist the idea that women should be paid the same as
            men and then deny that that’s not always happening out there,” the president

            On further reflection I understand, I think, what
            he was saying and the answer is self evident; because politicians obfuscate in
            order to win elections. So actually Mr.
            Obama was being disingenuous, or as you put it “artful” as in the
            “Artful Dodger”. He knows perfectly
            well why the Republicans do that, if indeed they did in this case because I
            haven’t checked it out by reviewing the comments of prominent republicans on
            this matter over the past few years, but they wouldn’t admit to it. They would likely say that there is
            sufficient legislation on this matter and within statistical error and opinion
            of what constitutes equal work in each case women and men are paid equally for
            equal work (do read the WSJ article if you have access). I would really like to
            know if he Mr Obama thinks the evidence shows there is not equal pay for
            equal work, and so would I. His press
            secretary when asked why the average wage for women working in the White House
            was 82 cents to the average man’s dollar said that everyone there is paid
            equally for equal work. Of course that begs the question of what is equal work
            but presumably there are regulations defining rather than, as is often said,
            everyone knows equal work when they see it, but that was the right answer.
            However, he then went on to weaken his answer by saying that 82% is better than
            the national average, and also they need to do better. Better then equal pay for equal work; that
            would be discrimination!

            As for the statistical question I am retired now
            but was a research neurobiologist, where we used statistical tests to see if
            the differences we found in our studies were statistically significant, which
            is taken for publication as a rather low bar of p<0.05; i.e. there is a less
            than 1 in 20 chance the differences were by chance. Of course p can be far more significant;
            <0.01, ,0.001 etc. In a lab. expt.
            the idea is to control for all the other variables that are known which could
            also give the desired result., except the one you are investigating. When you submit your article it is first
            reviewed, and a common concern is that you hadn't controlled for this or that
            variable so you need to do it before the paper can be accepted, or you could
            try to rebut it. But the easiest course is
            to do what is asked. Sociological and economic studies now also try to have the
            known and relevant variables corrected for, but it is not so easy. Also many of these studies are
            retrospective. There is the whole field
            of Statistics that has worked out the right tests of significance to do under
            each circumstances. So you see the idea
            is to control for other variables to isolate and show that the variable you are
            interested is doing what you conclude it is and is, I think, opposite to what
            you wrote that if I control for enough variables, I can zero out any
            statistical variation or deviation.
            Controlling other variables allows you to isolate the one variable you
            are interested in and showing that it, A, is responsible for an effect B. Since
            there are, in the present state of knowledge unknown variables you can never be
            100% sure. That is the limit of the
            scientific method.

          • Harry601100 .

            It seems that the above mouthful silenced all further discussion, but I have added further brief responses above because, while I am not that interested in the issue per se, I am interested in the use of language and the correct interpretation of data because I spent most of my life involved with both of these. Finally, it is quite possible to criticize a position or person on some specific issue and to support both on most other things. That’s the ideal in our political system – it means having differences of opinion but still respecting your adversary.
            So to everyone, good thinking and have a pleasant day. Goodbye

        • Independent1

          Say Mr. Snarky!! If you have a problem with President Obama, let’s hear it!! What’s your problem??

          is it because he’s the smallest spending president since Eisenhower – increasing spending only 1.4% on average over 6 years compared to more than 5%/yr averages for the last 4 GOP presidents with Reagan and Bush 2 exceeding 8%/yr??

          Is it because he’s reduced deficit spending faster than any president since Truman keeping his promise to cut deficit spending in half over 4 years??

          Is it because he followed trough with the auto bailout and stimulus which not only saved America from another GOP created depression but also saved the auto industry which is now seeing profits they hadn’t seen since the 1990s – and over 1.5 million Americans their jobs?

          Is it because he kept his promise and got us out of Iraq quickly not only saving us billions of dollars but possibly hundreds of American soldiers their lives?
          Is it because he started a war on fraud in the defense and healthcare sectors recovering more fraud money than any previous president?

          Is it because he’s been a bit tough on illegals, rounding up more troublesome illegals that have been costing America big time and deporting them?

          Is it because he took it upon himself to do something about the high cost of our kids going to college when the GOP idiots in the House wouldn’t do anything and cut the banks out of the loan process making loans more affordable for high schood grads.

          Is it because his policies have resulted in more than 48 straight months of job growth which has increased American’s GDP over the past two years faster than any other time in history??

          Just what is it SNARKY??? Why don’t you grow up and act like an adult???

          • Harry601100 .

            Join the discussion it says. Rather in your case join the rant. You can’t have read what I wrote but as soon as you saw some criticism of Pres. Obama it seems like you go off half cock with a prepared tirade. Here are my responses;
            1. First I agree that he has mainly done good things. That’s why I’m glad I voted for him twice.
            2.I didn’t mention any of the things you brought up. Plus I always referred to him as either the President or Mr. Obama. What do you object to; he is often referred to as Mr. Obama in the newspapers, TV news etc. The other form of address is Mr. President, but I believe that is only used when addressing him directly.
            3. Complaining (incorrectly) that I did not address the President respectfully you then go on to refer to me as Mr. Snarky, SNARKY, low life and that I should grow up , without knowing who I am.
            These are the failings of these anonymous, unedited responses which serve no useful purpose except to demonstrate that, as has been said, democracy can only be defended on the grounds that it is better than all the other systems so far tried. You, I have to say, betray a level of ignorance and impoliteness which is beyond my comprehension. Please don’t bother to reply, I couldn’t stomach you twice.

          • Harry601100 .

            Here’s what the New York Times Manual* states at the entry president:

            • “It is President Lamm(without a given name) in a first reference to the current president of the United States. In later references President Lamm; the president; Mr….Lamm”

            This style is seen in today’s New York Times, as in the example in this article:


            Is the NY times the right wing rag you had in mind?

          • Independent1

            Notice in your example, that they switched to referring to Bush and Obama as Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama AFTER they had acknowledged them each as President at least a couple times. Notice that you never did that. Which is exactly what the majority of trolls on the NM and right-wing columnists quite often refuse to do – they refuse to acknowledge that Obama is “their” president.

            If I appear to be overly picky and have misinterpreted your intentions, I apologize. Unfortunately, I’ve about had it up to my eyeballs with the right-wing trolls on the NM who delight in nothing more than instigating as much negativism with their lies, distortions and made up fairytales, as they possibly can – trolls like joe schmo and itsfun and Todd Nelson and others. Fortunately, a few trolls seem to have fallen by the wayside over the past month or so.

            Notice too that the example you gave from the NYTimes was dated in January of 2009, just before bipartisanship seems to have also fallen by the wayside. It was a much friendlier time before right-wingers chose to use every opportunity that they could find (including in their columns and blog postings) to get the message across that they simply would not want o ever accept Barak Obama has having been a bona fide president of the U.S.

            But again, if I’ve been wrong in interpreting your intent. I apologize.

    • Independent1

      Not sure what youre hangup with the word “resist” is. The word “resist” applies anytime someone refuses to go along with a command or the way the majority are going.

      The latter of which obviously fits the GOP – the GOP “RESISTS” GOING ALONG WITH THE MAJORITY WILL OF THE COUNTRY ALL THE TIME!!

      When the majority of Americans were in favor of background checks in order to purchase a weapon: the GOP resisted going along with that idea. Similarly the GOP, RESISTED with going along with the fact that the majority of Americans think unemployment benefits should be extended, and that the minimum wage should be raised, and that they should stop trying to repeal Obamacare.

      All the GOP knows how to do IS TO RESIST EVERY IDEA THAT WOULD MOVE AMERICA FORWARD!!!! (They don’t want to go along with anything that’s not an effort to set America backward or destroy the country.)

      • charleo1

        Another big one is, the majority of self described Republicans
        believe taxes on the wealthy should be increased. They also
        support the government creating jobs by building roads, fixing bridges, and improving the Nation’s power grid. And
        this is hugely important, even if doing so increased the debt. The majority of Republicans also do not support privatizing Social Security, or transitioning Medicare from a guaranteed benefit government run program, to a privately run premium support program, as proposed in the Ryan budget. Also the
        polls reflect that self described rank, and file Republicans,
        believe the military budget should be trimmed, not increased.
        So once again we see the Ryan budget diverges from the
        majority views of his own Party. Other factors, such as a
        wide majority of the fastest growing faction in the Country,
        those who identify themselves as Independents. Have
        came not from the Left, for being too Liberal. But from the
        Right, for being too extreme. I could easily go on. Because the difference between those setting GOP policy, at the top, and the Party’s rank and file, are just too numerous, and wide ranging to name them all. But, it does beg the question, how long can they reasonably expect to win political contests, being so at odds with the majority of their own Party?

        • Harry601100 .

          irrelevant to the topic

          • charleo1

            I thought the topic was struggling Republicons?
            Plus, I was responding to my friend’s very astute
            observations, that the GOP seems to be completely
            incapable of getting out of their own way. Much less
            the Country’s, on just about any issue that happens to come up. Now, you know, if I wanted your opinion, if I cared about your opinion, I would have directed my comment to you. I did read your post.

      • Harry601100 .

        Not relevant and I am familiar with what this simple word means. why would you assume otherwise? My questioning the second part about why Mr. Obama put the two phrases together was incorrect because it is a very clumsy sentence. It’s a rhetorical question because the President must know the answer. The issue is the data shows that women are paid on the average around 20%less than men, but is that for EQUAL work, whatever that means.

        • Independent1

          Everything I’ve read is that those estimates are supposed to be based on everything being reasonably equal. I’m not sure that it’s possible to guarantee that two different people doing the same job and having the same responsibilities will in fact handle the positions exactly the same so everything is comparable, but it’s supposed to be close to equal.

  • Todd Nelson

    This author wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him in the ass. The REAL pay difference in America is between 3 and 5 cents. The only 2 places you will find a huge pay difference are the White House and democrat congressional offices. There are already numerous laws on the books that make what the democrats are doing illegal. Another law is not going to change anything

    • awakenaustin

      Mr. Nelson, how do you know this?
      Got a source?

      • Independent1

        Of course not, because it’s a blatant lie!! (See my response to him – the truth is, the disparity is about 23cents on the dollar.)

      • Todd Nelson

        Try the bureau of Labor Statistics

        • awakenaustin

          Really? That is helpful!
          Next time someone asks me for a source, I will tell them to look in the library.

    • Independent1

      Really? What planet have you been living on?? That’s one of the biggest outright lies I’ve seen on the NM in a while. FACT IS, a study done a year ago says that the disparity was 23 cents (women only made 77 cents for every dollar a male makes and that the disparity was even greater for minorities. I’m fairly certain that 23 cent difference hasn’t been wiped out over the past year. Better go back to your bag of lies before you try snowing people on the NM.

      Excerpts from an April, 2013 Huffington Post article on the pay gap between women and men:

      On April 9, 2013, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which President John F. Kennedy declared to be the end of the “unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job” when he signed it.

      The anniversary, known as Equal Pay Day, marks how far into 2013 women must work to earn what men earned in 2012. That doesn’t exactly sound like the Equal Pay Act achieved its goal, does it?

      Women in the United States today are paid on average 77 cents for every dollar paid to men — the gap is even worse for African-American and Latina women — and according to a new study done by the National Partnership For Women And Families, the gender-based wage gap exists in every state and in the country’s 50 largest metropolitan areas.

    • Harry601100 .

      Probably right but would be better without the personal insults

    • itsfun

      never confuse these people with the facts.

  • Allan Richardson

    What? Merit pay would suffer if the workers could voluntarily compare paychecks? Isn’t part of the benefit of merit pay the honor of being RECOGNIZED for having done a better job than your colleagues? Maybe the “merit” part of that, being a subjective judgement, isn’t always deserved, and the rest of the crew can tell when an idiot is being given an undeserved raise? And comparing checks would unmask the secret?

    • Exactly. If you knew everybody else’s pay, you’d know if the guy who spent more time hanging around with the Boss working on their fantasy football leagues than working was getting more than the woman (or men) who actually did the work.

  • sealbeams

    The party of No just keeps on giving. I do believe if Obama would have come out against this, it would have passed easily. Instead, they attempt to make it sound complicated. It is not complicated for Women and the GOP will find this out in the next election.

    • dpaano

      Maybe President Obama should try a little “reverse psychology” and see if that works. Anything that he agrees to gets a block from the House…..but, if he vehemently disagrees with it, they might actually pass it!!! Worth a try, wouldn’t you say? After all, the ACA was originally a Republican idea, but once they decided to call it “Obamacare,” it got pushed back by the Republicans.

      • sealbeams

        Everything to gain and nothing to lose. Especially for a Congress that now holds number one spot for least bills passed. They would probably say, well I was for it before I was against it. Or maybe, I was for it before you became President.

  • Irishgrammy

    Yesterday, the word of the day from Republican “women” was “condescension”, heard it out of the mouths of at least 4 GOPTP women and a few men, and again this morning……find it absolutely humorous…… they all get together in the morning with a less than stellar “game plan”, totally void of any intellect or creativity of any kind, to attack the President or Democrats and their policies with a “special word of the day”, always a nasty insult, blah, blah, blah… ad nauseam, as if no one can figure it out……..really! Pay equity is really just the tip of the iceberg that negatively affect the lives of women in this country by antiquated, misogynistic policies, “we know better than you little lady so we’ll make your choices for you”……… from the GOPTP nationwide…..and what’s pathetic is the GOPTP is proud of themselves and at the same time totally clueless of the anger they incite from WOMEN!

  • itsfun

    It was reported today on a local radio show, that the Democrat Senators have zero female communications chiefs, while the Republicans have 5 female communications chiefs, making $18000 a year more than their democratic peers.

    • Which “local radio show”? Rush or Hannity via your local Repub talk radio?

      • itsfun

        I said a local show, not national. Just a local show that has both liberals and conservatives debating issues.

    • Harry601100 .

      Again not what we talking about.

      • itsfun

        Isn’t the article about the conservatives having problems with the gender gap and equal pay for women? If the local show is correct, then maybe the liberals have a problem paying women as much as the men for equal jobs. Its easy to check what the senators are paying their staffs and what gender they are.

  • The pay and jobs of White House staffers are all on line. I went through those numbers a couple of years ago when the Repubs first brought this up, and men and women in the same jobs in the White House were paid the same.

  • Why can’t they just come out and admit that anything the dems do, they will attack it. They are going to bury themselves with all this BS. It will be great satisfaction when we take the WH “again” in 2016.

    • I hope you are right, but the Repubs reflect the attitudes and feelings of a significant number of people in this country. Racism, sexism, general ignorance is STILL rampant here.

      • dpaano

        I agree; however, most the states that include these people who are racist, sexist and generally ignorant, failed to agree to Obamacare. Soooo, that means that, without healthcare available, they’ll die off quicker. In time, those states will turn Democratic…..just my opinion.

      • I truly believe that the good people in this country will not let a conservative back. I like to believe that all the people who voted for Obama have not changed their attitudes about the intolerance & elitism that the republican party stands for.

    • Patricia Robertson

      Then what we have to do is to help get people register to vote, make sure they get to voting polls, with polls being close early, making sure people have their voting id and encouraging young people to register to vote. Many of them still don’t under stand why it is important to vote in all election, it has to be pointed out to them that the in between election is what really decides their future. Voting for president just helps it along. That have not been made clear to them until now when things have been cut so deeply and begun to affect them more and more.

  • Pamby50

    Well the paycheck fairness act failed in the Senate today due to no votes from the Republican party & that includes the republican women. That these women fall in line, is sad. So lets pay all the men in congress more than the women. I’m sure they would go along with that cause that is what their party believes. Sad that they vote against themselves.

  • Daniel Jones

    Henry, that is a misleading article header.
    They are struggling *against closing* the gap.

  • dpaano

    Maybe the GOP needs to realize that the President has nothing to say about how much women get paid at the White House…..salaries are set by Congress, I believe.

  • joe schmo

    What an appropriate ploy at a perfect time just before an election. Another devious tactic created by the Democrats to get more votes. LOL, It’s so in your face that it isn’t even funny…..

    • Harry601100 .

      Well that’s what politics i.e. getting elected involves in the old US of A. To find it funny is the only refuge