2016 – The Early Players - Update– Elizabeth Warren (D) Continues War on Women, Rand Paul (L-R) squarely in the Middle, Jeb Bush (R) – Name Brand

First and foremost, one must understand that Hillary Clinton is most likely, not going to run for the 2016 nomination – despite all rumors to the contrary – and hints from the Clinton’s – part of the reason is one Elizabeth Warren – newly elected Progressive Democrat Senator, former Professor (Part-time) from Massachusetts – as the Washington Post suggests: “A case for Elizabeth Warren in 7 Minutes”. The drumbeat is just beginning. Warren, the female equivalent of Barack Obama, is a darling of the far political left, and with past “Super Delegate” experience, Clinton certainly knows that the Progressive Wing is capable of ousting the actual popular vote winner, in a heartbeat. With this is mind, and years of service, she is undoubtedly tired and wary.

Therefore the equal pay for women drumbeat has begun, yet, it may sound, at this point, overly familiar to those who are in the trenches, or feminists who have seen passages of Equal Pay Acts since 1963. Although denying she is seeking Warren, she is the best bet the Democrats have of even making a dent in 2016.

Unless of course, the RNC is ridiculous enough to run Jeb Bush – former Governor of Florida, son of President George H, and brother to President George W. Political dynasties are well-liked by the public in the same vein as lifetime Senators and Congressional Representatives. Yet, as CBS asks the question Can Jeb Bush win over the Christian right in 2016? , the answer is – yes. The next question would be – to what avail? The Christian base is put a part of the electorate that either shows up or not, and is unforgiving and unpredictable at best. The ranks and file would be expected to vote for yet another Bush, but that leaves the independents, the Libertarians, the Tea Party and a slim yet viable chance for Warren.

However, there is one Libertarian that has the RNC wary, as well as the DNC, that doctor from Kentucky – Rand Paul, the Libertarian leaning Republican – In the Politico article the Libertarian Surge, it is apparent that suppression of freedom, the growing and ever domineering Federal government, loss of free enterprise, and jobs, is becoming more popular with the general public. What Paul represents is a hybrid of both, the Republicanism of the 1960’s aligned with the Libertarian small government ideology and his popularity is growing, along with his donor base.

It is, of course, far too early to suggest one may best the other, as pitfalls happen to candidates in the primary stages, and in the general election and the players change – constantly up until those in New Hampshire, Iowa, and the Carolina’s suggest who may or may not be the next President, but who will continue to move forwarded on that particular quest. For now, we watch we wait and we listen for someone who is not necessarily wedded to the “Party” but to the people’s best interest – so far, we have one who can break the mold, so to speak, set by his father.

Yet Another Equal Pay Act for Women – Obama Administration Women in White House Make Less than Male Counterparts – A Political Motive – with no Real Consequence.

The New York Times is reporting on the Obama administrations attempt to roll out yet another equal pay act and begin by citing the fact that the White House staff is under “scrutiny” due to the fact that they pay women less than their male counterparts. (New York Times)

The first Equal Pay Act was passed by John F. Kennedy in 1963 (JFK Library), and the act was basic in its suggestion that men and women doing the same job, should receive the same pay. Consider that this was an Act signed by a beloved President, fifty-one (51) years ago – yet, women still earn less on the dollar than men.

One might consider the fact that the White House and Obama administration in paying women less than men, are only part and parcel of the larger Federal government, where women face the same challenges (Time).



John F. Kennedy signing the Equal Pay Act - in 1963 - that's 1963 - image from Contemporaryfamilies.org

Therefore, as nothing has changed with the passage in 1963, by a very well-respected and popular President – one might suggest that nothing will change in 2014 either – with the exception that in 1963 Kennedy signed the bill without concern for an election year and getting out the gender vote for the Democrats.

Once again, women will be targeted in an election year, and since the “take away your birth control” scam (which is now costing women a nice hike in premiums), isn’t working this time around, perhaps, just perhaps, women will blindly follow the Democrat Party which has not enforced the first Equal Pay Act, which Kennedy signed into law in 1963.

It is the same with all women’s issues, from abortion (pro-or anti) to equal pay, unless women become serious consumers of all things political, and stop putting party ahead of their own best interest and that of their families, and then one can expect the status quo to remain the same. Imagine if, instead of being partisan and split on specific issues related to women, it were possible for those in the gender to work together on an issue, and put non-Party A or B individuals in office who would be more concerned with the cost of food, clothing and why the pay scale isn’t equal, rather than the next DC dinner – women voters would then be a real force to be reckoned with.

As to the latest Bill, one shouldn’t put too much stock in this – except expect a ton of mailings, phone calls, and advertisements, etc. suggesting that “Republicans” will take away your equal pay, while “Democrats” will protect it – expect to be duped again.

Note: Consider under George W. Bush, there were fewer women working in the White House (granted – smaller staff in general), but “Top female employees on average earned nearly 4 percent more than top male employees under Mr. Obama” (Ashlyjudd.com). That figure, although slightly better, did not constitute equal pay for equal work.