If you click here, you will be directed to Jason Howerton\’s article for theblaze.com, in which he interviews enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporters, has them wax poetic about her demands that there be equal pay for women…and then informs them that, as Senator, Ms. Clinton paid her full-time female staff members just 72% of what her full-time male staff members were paid.
As you might expect, the reactions are less than stellar. Mostly a spontanous shocked look, followed by some hasty rethinking about Hillary Clinton.
Personally, I don\’t blame these folks for being shocked. They should be. But not just about the salary information they just became aware of.
They should also be shocked – maybe even more shocked – by the fact that they had not been made aware of this information already.
Excerpted from my February 21 blog:
At last night\’s Oscars, some of the biggest cheers were given to best supporting actress winner Patricia Arquette, for her impassioned demand that women be compensated equally with men.
That\’s hardly a surprise since a lot of people – quite possibly Ms. Arquette among them – are still of the belief that women\’s salaries average just 77 cents on the dollar versus men.
With that in mind, I wonder if Patricia Arquette is a Hillary Clinton supporter.
The reason for my curiosity is that, according to a wage analysis of Ms. Clinton\’s senate staff conducted by the conservative Washington Free Beacon (who did you expect would do this? The Washington Post?), female staffers averaged all of 72 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts.
Funny thing, though: for as long as I can remember, Ms. Clinton has made exactly the same demand for wage equality that Ms. Arquette was talking about.
Would that dissuade those who advocate equal pay for equal work (like me, for example) from being a tad wary of Hillary Clinton\’s commitment to this objective? Would it make a few of them wonder if – again – Hillary Clinton talks a good game but, in reality, is full of crap?
