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.

Letterman – Last of the Late Night Retirement’s - for now

From the New York Times David Letterman is set to retire – according to the New York Times, he will retire after his contract expires in 2015. That will bring him through the mid-terms, but one has to wonder, to what effect will this “icon” have on anything future? Jimmy Fallon appears to have swung squarely to the middle, with guests that are both ideologically right and left, pleasing both halves of the nation – Smart move. This is where Lettermen’s relentless and often tactless attacks with those whom he politically disagreed, may have led to faltering ratings.

In some respects one might be sorry to see him go, along with Jay Leno, mostly due the age of the viewer and nostalgia more than any real desire to tune-in nightly. On the other hand, with these types of venues and political figures from both sides, patronizing the platform in order to reach the late night crowd, perhaps not – it just always struck this individual as somewhat – demeaning to the office they held, or the office they hoped to hold.

Scott Brown – Compared to Daniel Webster – Ted Cruz – Heads to Liberty – The Natural Order of Politics and the U.S. Constitution

There is much ado about Scott Brown, former Senator from Massachusetts now living in New Hampshire and potentially seeking the Senate Seat in the Granite State. A piece in the Concord Monitor suggests that this maybe the natural order of all things political in the states that made up the beginnings of the United States – the article entitled “Daniel Webster Scott Brown - Can you tell them apart”? is chock full of Brown’s quotes – and one sees the resemblance in the thought process of a thoughtful Senator . (Concord Monitor) The problem with Brown is the lack of support for anyone in politics who happens to run contrary to the standard Political Party dogma, the left-media dogma, and happens to have a bit of Constitutionalism in mind. Darn, someone is seeking a seat, who believes in doing the will of the people!

Similarly, Ted Cruz, the much maligned by his party, the media, the other party, also a Constitutionalist, is headed for Liberty University – shocking to some who believe that Liberty U, the Christian University in the U.S., is a right-wing bastion of all things socially-morally acceptable to the status quo(Washington Post). With a long history of conservatives of all strips giving speeches, commencement addresses and the like, Liberty is yet another spot on the college trail for politicians doing outreach to the youth vote. In today’s society, however, anything that isn’t secular is obviously odd. This given the interpretation of the 1st amendment as meaning “no religion allowed” rather than its intent, giving citizens freedom to choose any religion they please, without fear of a state religion overruling their religious beliefs. Therefore, the media can now brand Senator Cruz as both a “Tea Party” and Religious Right” individual, who is in no-way qualified (due to the aforementioned) to hold public office.

The problem both of these very different individuals have is that they share a common denominator – a belief in the constitution and the role given to the Citizenry and governing – as it was written, rather than how it is interpreted for convenience of one political school of thought. The same may be said of Rand Paul, the 2016 Presidential front-runner (according to polling at the moment), who is wedded as well to the Constitution but from a Libertarian point of view. In this Commonwealth, those holding the Constitution in the same regard, are considered “Jeffersonian Republican’s” a growing segment of the Party, none too pleasing to those who would prefer – a more moderate approach, let’s say.

Good for these men, and good for anyone holding the same core ideologies and good for the country, overall, were we fortunate enough to have more leaders of the same ilk.