About that ‘equal pay for equal work’ pledge….

I’ve noticed a certain pattern to some of my posts this week. Which is to say, they’re mostly about the same thing — John McCain doing or saying something offensive. I’d like to write about plenty of other things — really, I would — and I keep thinking, “Just as soon as the McCain campaign goes an afternoon without offending me, I’ll tackle some other subjects.” But that afternoon just doesn’t seem to happen.

Take today, for example, when John McCain hosted an event in Wisconsin where he touted his support for women’s rights.

“We haven’t done enough,” McCain said. “We have not done enough. And I’m committed to making sure that there’s equal pay for equal work. That there is equal opportunity in every aspect of our society. And that is my record and you can count on it.”

This is just madness. If we look at this record — the one women can “count on” — we see the exact opposite of what McCain vowed.

Adam Jentleson explained, “In April, McCain opposed a major Senate bill seeking equal pay for women…. In 2000, McCain opposed an amendment that aimed to ‘provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex.’ In 1985, McCain voted against a study to investigate pay differences among federal employees, and determine whether they were the result of discrimination.”

Indeed, after the ridiculous Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter, McCain “dismissed the importance of equal pay, saying that women simply need ‘education and training.'”

In other words, McCain was campaigning today on women’s issues, hoping desperately that voters don’t know anything about his record of women’s issues. Once again, McCain is counting on public ignorance to get him through the campaign.

What’s more, in going after Obama, McCain has apparently abandoned honesty altogether.

The presumptive GOP nominee uses a midday town hall meeting with women in Hudson, Wisconsin, to hit his opponent on taxes, health care and the economy.

Says Obama will “make it harder on women” by raising taxes and harming businesses. “I’m not going to let that happen.”

Says affordable health care “is especially important to women in the work force.”

What? Obama wants to cut taxes for Americans who make less than $250,000 a year — in fact, he wants to do more to cut taxes on the middle class than McCain does. As health care, McCain’s policy is a joke that wouldn’t cover the uninsured, leaves people with pre-existing conditions behind, and actually encourages employers to drop coverage.

Do you suppose that might “make it harder on women”?

With each passing day, McCain’s entire campaign gets more farcical, but today’s pitch on women’s issues was especially unnerving.

For what it’s worth, here’s the Obama campaign’s response to McCain comments:

“Senator Obama understands that the challenges facing women and families in the 21st century are very different than the challenges of the past, but John McCain seems stuck in an outdated view of American families. Senator Obama believes every woman deserves equal pay for equal work. He has a plan to help working women by guaranteeing seven paid sick days to the 22 million who currently have none, and by providing child tax credits, additional after-school programs, and a tax cut for 71 million working women and eliminating capital gains taxes for 8.7 million women who own small businesses or start-ups. Senator McCain thinks the Supreme Court was right to make it harder for women to challenge pay discrimination at work, and he opposed legislation that Obama co-sponsored to reverse that decision. Senator McCain has suggested that the reason women don’t have equal pay isn’t discrimination on the job — it’s because they need more education and training. Senator Obama couldn’t disagree more,” said Obama campaign senior advisor Anita Dunn.”

obama believes in giving larry sinclair equal pay for equal work – now that is a “stand” that one can believe in, right?

  • Gee, Henry. Do they pay you to be a troll, or is it something that just comes naturally?

  • What the straight talker undoubtedly meant was simply that he supports equal pay for equal work (but also simply that there is no way a woman’s work is equal to a man’s).

  • Other than us, who hears Obama’s response. Other than us what MSM organization is making McCain’s voting record on women’s issues available to the public or calling him on his lies?

    “That McCain…he sure cares about women’s issues doesn’t he.” Why?…because he says so. What a joke.

  • Isn’t it amusing that when Republicans want to attract voters they have to side with the Democrats? Whether taking credit for supporting pay equity or veteran’s benefits, they make it clear that the Democratic policy positions are more popular. Now if only the traditional media would compare their rhetoric with their votes…

  • In other words, McCain was campaigning today on women’s issues, hoping desperately that voters don’t know anything about his record of women’s issues.

    Since McCain’s ‘base’ in the MSM is the primary group for informing women about his true record, McCain’s hope is faaarrrrr from desparate.

  • I am normally a big fan of the nearly unmoderated nature of this blog, but a simple automated screener that rejected any comment that includes the words “larry sinclair” and sent it back to the author with a message that “this post would reduce the IQ of anyone who accidentally stumbled across it” (or even just “HA HA HA HA HA”) would be a neat addition. calling those spammers trolls is an insult to trolls everywhere.

  • ” McCain said. “We have not done enough. And I’m committed to making sure that there’s equal pay for equal work.

    Or in Cindy’s case More Pay.

  • -daze, there’s a filter that works on Firefox that allows you to filter out “tiresome” posters. You just put their name in the filter and disappears their posts. very peaceful

  • Here is what Barry would say:
    First of all, let me say we need to pass legislation for equal pay for women. I don’t pay my staffers equal pay, but my opponent, John McCain does, so legislation is necessary. Now, for all of you Hillary supporters: come on, sweeties. I know I didn’t fight for equal rights, or do any time in the trenches or anything, but I was a heck of a community organizer (whatever that is). I have to admit, it’s a good thing Emil Jones, Jr. let me take credit for all of the legislation he authored in Illinois or my thin resume would be nonexistent! LOL!! But, hey, that’s what friends are for, at least until the bus comes along. Dean, Pelosi, Moveon.org, and all the rest have pushed for me, too, along with the MSM. (A shout out to my homey, Olbermann, woo, woo!) But, sweeties, the point is this: I stole this election fair and square. Send me your money, vote for me and I might even give your girl Hillary a job writing up some healthcare legislation. Don’t expect her to get too close to the White House, though; to be honest, Michelle wants to pick out the drapes herself and she just doesn’t like Hillary. Me, I think she’s likeable enough, but–well, you know women. So stop crying and get over it. You’re going to have to settle for me, the unqualified, inexperienced guy. But, let’s be real: I’m a Democrat and it’s a rule, isn’t it? I mean, you have to fall in line and vote for me, don’t you? Nancy, you said they had to!!

  • yeah, but somehow, the sinclair spammers seem to be different every time. much like the old Paulbots used to be. and i wouldn’t want to filter Mary. then i wouldn’t get IFP’s jokes.

  • ktb: That’s “little bear” who knows that some here have blocking scripts, so it keeps changing its moniker to avoid being ignored. Haven’t tried it yet, but should be able insert multiple keywords which should smack it down. I’m guessing it’s about 25, still living with momma bear, sitting in soiled diapers, and stoned out of its mind. It was all about Obama prior to him winning the nomination. Now its obsessed with blow jobs and larry sinclair.

  • Does John McCain actually know John McCain’s record? This is like the fourth story in the last few days where he’s said he’s on the record as for something he was against, or just didn’t ‘remember the vote.’

  • -daze, there’s a filter that works on Firefox that allows you to filter out “tiresome” posters. -Dale

    Ah, so that explains why Dale never responds to me! 🙂

  • What I love is how “forgetting” a vote is somehow preferable to thinking about an issue and changing your mind after reviewing new information!

    It’s as though we’d prefer someone who is either a liar or senile to someone who changed their stance. What a crazy country we live in.

    (And McCain does NOT support women’s rights. He supports furthering the Presidency as an old boys’ club.)

  • Once again, McCain is counting on public ignorance to get him through the campaign.

    Worked for Bush. Why shouldn’t McCain try the same tactic?

  • I would love to hear McCain address the fact that consumer based insurance cost women 3x what is does for a man. Or how he plans on insuring women who insurance companies deny because the have had IVF or c-sections.

    And Flaldy, can I get your phone number? Cause if John McCain gets elected I am coming after your bitter ass to pay for my healthcare, birth control, etc…

  • Is being a Non-Feminist Feminist like being a progressive instead of a Liberal because you are ashamed to be associated with the term after the conservatives finished sliming it?

    Separating words from actions is especially important on this issue because saying you’re for equal pay for equal work is just motherhood. This applies to both Obama and McCain. Everyone agrees it is the right thing. It is a matter of implementing and enforcing this goal, going after the inequities (which always come down to quality concerns and are clearly revealed by McCain’s remark about increasing women’s education and training).

    At all levels of education except union-restricted trade-apprenticeships, women outnumber men and outperform them. Then when they apply for jobs, they are somehow less qualified. In academia, women outnumber men as grad students but are way under-represented as tenure track Asst. Professors, and it gets worse the higher you go on the ladder, even in fields that are dominated by female undergrad students (such as psychology or English). The latest studies are suggesting that unequal pay and promotion arises because women are less assertive about demanding raises or negotiating salaries, but this once again blames women for their own problems. Why do we have a system complicit in shortchanging women who don’t make a stink (because they will be called names if they do)?

    How many women did Obama have on his campaign staff before he started hiring Clinton’s people? What positions were they in? That would tell me more about his position on this issue than his assurances about commitment to women’s issues. McCain I don’t expect much of, because he is both a Republican and a liar. I hope for better from Obama, but he wasn’t there on this issue during the primaries and I doubt he has changed since then. He thinks fist-bumps with Michelle are a substitute for walking the walk on this issue. Yes, women like it that he is in love with his wife, but they would like it more if he cared about them and their concerns too.

  • Mary,
    Are you asking if he had women staffers working for his campaign or did he have women specifically working on “women’s issues” for the campaign or what. Before the “monster” comment, Samantha Power was a very high profile female adviser to the Obama campaign on foreign policy issues.

  • Mike P, both.

    Did he have women in permanent, high paid, visible, executive positions on his campaign. I don’t mean did he have female surrogates or policy advisors or gofers. Did he have someone specifically assigned to develop policy on women’s issues and if so, who? And if you know, what was the ratio of women to men across the entire staff?

    I looked at this early on, and these numbers were all much worse than for Clinton’s campaign (as would be expected) before Super Tuesday. I know that he has been adding a few visible women from Clinton’s staff lately, but that is too late to say anything about his genuine commitment to women’s issues. It would speak only to opportunism and campaign necessities..

    I went to Obama’s current webpage to see what he says about women’s issues. He has a lot of good stuff there, such as support for female veterans, laws to address domestic violence, but all the paragraphs are short and pretty vague. His campaign statements have included more troubling details, as I have mentioned before here. For example, he seems to think that the way to reform education is to hire better teachers, something that tends to infuriate the many women who are K-12 teachers and know first-hand the obstacles they face to doing a better job. Simply reading some of the newsletters of teacher organizations should have brought him up to speed on that issue. On the issue of Women Owned Small-Businesses who are more frequently denied loans and get only 4% of venture capital, he simply says that people should invest in them more (duh), but says nothing about what he would do to encourage that.

    He also lists generic issues that have special importance to women because women are strongly affected by them, such as social security. However, here is the difference between a male-oriented take on social security and a women’s-rights perspective. For social security, he talked about strengthening the system so it will be there, then he devoted a much longer paragraph to encouraging savings for retirement. This was on the page about women’s issues. Here’s the problem. First, women are short-changed by social security because they do not have the chance to earn as much as men in the workplace but social security is based on your salary and number of years worked, so when women are raising children or on maternity or family leave, they take a hit on their social-security earnings. They are way more likely to be the ones doing the care-taking but there is no compensation for what they lose in earnings or retirement savings. Second, women can opt for a percentage of their husband’s earnings, but they don’t get an equivalent amount as wives or widows, even if they were entirely dependent on him for a lifetime. So, being a housewife or stay-at-home mom or caring for elderly or ill family members so that a husband is free to work full-time does not result in social-security commensurate with their full-time contribution to society. They are just out of luck if they serve in that way. Third, women are much more likely to work in low-paying jobs or jobs without pensions or retirement savings plans, so Obama’s strong emphasis on encouraging individual savings is less viable as a solution for women’s retirement concerns, especially since they live longer and would need to save more, not less, to stay out of poverty. His page gives the statistic that 60% of low-paying jobs are filled by women (who are about 35% of the workforce IIRC). Those are the jobs without health care, pension or savings plans, and when salaries are low there isn’t enough left over to save. Women’s groups have long called for an overhaul of social security benefits for women that takes these realities into account and doesn’t penalize them for child-bearing or home duties. Obama has none of that on his page.

    Frankly, I think Obama’s brief paragraphs of mushy warm-hearted generalities will sound wonderful to men but will be unsatisfying to anyone familiar with these issues on either a personal level or via activism. They sound good in the same way that McCain’s statements sound good to the general public who doesn’t know him better.

  • I really wish that “progressives” would get as frothed-up over Obama’s actions on equal pay as they do on FISA.

    Why do we let him slide on equal pay? He’s allowed to pay his own female Senate staffers $11,000/year less than his male staffers because…?

    John McCain actually does this. Hillary Clinton does it. So, why can’t Barack Obama?

    If you take that $11,000/year and multiply it out over, say, 30 years, that’s $330,000 in lost earnings for these women. That affects their pensions and their Social Security benefits. And it won’t remain static because every time his staffers get, say, a 2.5 percent COLA, the earnings gap between his male staffers and female staffers increases, which means that $330,000 in lost earnings grows, too.

    It’s really hypocritical of progressives to stand up to Democrats on issues like FISA, NAFTA, gun rights, abortion rights, but to neglect or ignore more one of the most fundamental equity issues to women: MONEY!

  • Mabelle: can you give the link to proof that Obama indeed pays his female staffers less simply b/c they are women?

    Mary: while more attention to women’s issues on behalf of Obama’s campaign would be good, did Hillary or any other mainstream candidate propose all the things you discuss (especially changes in Social Security)? They look like rather significant and may not be particularly popular.

  • Just another Crazy Uncle? It has been widly reported that Michelle Obama practically grew up in Jesse Jacksons house,and is best friends with one of Jesse Jacksons daughters! Jesse Jr is one of Obamas campaign directors, and one of Jesse Jackson kids is one of Barack Obamas daughters god parents.Do not be so Niave people,This is the Politics of Chicago and the Politice of Obama!We are all aware that the Obama Campaign uses the race card anytime it is convenient for the Obama Campaign, as it usually always benefit’s none other then the Obama campaign.This is just another example of another long time Obama cohort { Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, and now Jesse Jackson } making racial statements to deflect attention away from a very problematic time in the Obama campaign. By Jesse Jackson taking this hit in the media,he is getting all the media’s attention off of all the talk of Obama breaking his major campaign promises, in particular The FISA Bill, which Obama had promised his supporters that he would against and decided to vote for the FISA BILL.Yes he has broken another major campaign promise, and has had a very tough week or two, as he has been taking a lot of heat from the media, and even his own supporters. To “deflect” the attention away from Obamas political inexperience, and his FISA Vote yesterday, It is just a little to convenient for The Obama Campaign, headed by Jesse Jackson JR. by the way, that comments made by Jesse Jackson Sr. made Sunday suddenly broke yesterday.Just after Obamas key vote supporting President Bush’s FISA Bill that had been threatening to break even Obamas staunchest of supporters. As of yesterday Obama was being criticized daily by media outlets and supporters alike, about the many flip flops made by the Candidate of Hope and Change, and now even Jesse Jr. came to Obamas defense “Ripping” Jesse Sr’s words, thus successfully deflecting the media attention away from Obamas Hard move to the right! Well played Camp Obama. Now all the pundit’s are talking about is Jesse Jackson not Barack Obama.This is not the Politics of Change, nor is it mere Politics as usual, This is the Politics of Obama. If anyone would like to see how deeply Jesse Jackson is planted in the Obama campaign, go to C-Span and watch the JUNE 29 TH Rainbow Coalition tapes, where you can watch Jesse Jackson and other African American leaders planning the first 30 day’s of The Obama presidency.To bad that it has not been reported how Jesse Jackson Jr. has been treating any elected delegates that did not support Obama thru out this election season.
    puma/nobama

  • Mabelle, @23,

    I’m with LB, @24; can you provide a link to the source of your claim that, for the same work, Obama pays his female staffers 11K less than his male ones? And no, PUMA and Larry Johnson are *not* reliable sources.

    The only comparison numbers I’ve ever seen vis-a-vis payments were related to campaign, not Senate and mentioned Penn’s pay and, I think, Axelrod’s. Penn seemed to be getting almost as much per month as Axelrod earned per year. Which, probably, accounts — at least in part — for why Clinton is deep in debt and Obama is not.

    There had been — a few months back — a rumour that Obama was not paying his staffers’ health care, while Clinton was. But, as with so many Obama rumours, that one turned out to be no more than a piece of flying slime

  • According to MSN Money:

    http://moneycentral.msn.com/community/message/thread.asp?board=PoliticsandtheMarkets&threadid=711674&boardname=Hide&header=SearchOnly&footer=Show&linktarget=_parent&pagestyle=money1

    “On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.

    The average pay for the 33 men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)”

    That stinks!

  • Mary: thanks for the quote. Still, that answers nothing. The point is whether women are paid less for exactly the same work as men and not what is an average salary of men vs women in a given office. The highest ranked staffers in Obama’s office are men and thus the average pay for men ends up higher. It is actually a common situation both on Capitol Hill and in many other workplaces although definitely not smth to be happy about. Unless you have evidence that he either deliberately didn’t hire women to high level positions or refused to promote women due to his gender bias or paid women less for the same work as men, I don’t see this as a controversy at all.

  • Comments are closed.