Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon


The Democrats' Equal Pay Hypocrisy


RUSH: So now here comes Barack Obama and a couple of executive orders to all of a sudden equalize the pay that women get in America.  Because don't you know, for go on 20 years now, women only make 77¢ for every $1 that men make.  There's been no progress on this issue for 20 years! The Democrats drag this issue out just as they drag out the minimum wage. 

It is in the hopper. It's in the playbook (it's an early page) and whenever they get in trouble they bring it out. Now they're in trouble with Obamacare, so it's time for a distraction. "Try to further the War on Women!"  None of it's real.  It's all smoke and mirrors because the place where women are paid less than men the greatest is in the Obama White House, and before that it was the Clinton White House! 

It's the Democrats once again projecting on the Republicans what they, the Democrats, are doing.  The Democrats are paying women less than men.  That's ignored.  They come around and they act like it is a fault of America.  It is a problem rooted in what?  "American freedom! American capitalism!  You let this unfettered, unregulated capitalism go, and the natural hatred for women -- harbored by Republicans -- will be shown in how little they are paid."

That's the message.  All the while, they are the ones underpaying women.  In Obama's case, it's not just underpaying them. It's understaffing.  For the longest time Obama didn't have any significant women in his inner circle, outside of Valerie Jarrett and Michelle (My Belle).  Dick Durbin?  Dick Durbin's out there making a lot of noise about this pay disparity, about how unfortunate it is, about how mean-spirited America is, how rotten to the core America is, how unfair America is. 

Dick Durbin is leading the equal payday push by Senate Democrats. They want to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, and who could oppose that? Who could oppose the Paycheck Fairness Act, the way that's written and worded?  So Dick Durbin takes to the Senate floor today to preach on the importance of passing legislation aimed at solving the gender gap. He said, "How serious is equal pay for equal work to working people across America?  I think it's critical."

Well, get this.  The average female salary in Durbin's office is $11,500 less than the average male salary.  So the Senate Democrat leading the push for equal pay for women on the basis that capitalism and Republicans discriminate against women as part of the War on Women, is paying female staffers $11,500 a year less than he's paying men.

"Four of the five highest paid staffers on Durbin's staff are men, according to the analysis. Not a single member of the Senate Democrat leadership has a female chief of staff or communications director," according to the Washington Times and the Washington Free Beacon.  Now, obviously this is hypocrisy, but that's not really the story because the Democrats are never held accountable for hypocrisy. 

Well, their intentions, see? See, Durbin didn't intend to do this. He probably didn't even know.  That's the answer.  I'll betcha he was shocked when he found out, and he's gonna found out whatever the paymaster is in his office and gonna heads are gonna roll! Because of course he didn't know! If Durbin would have known, this wouldn't have happened.

Because Durbin loves women, and Durbin loves fairness, and Durbin loves equal pay. And Durbin would never, ever intend for women to not make as much as men! No, because he's leading the effort.  That's how we know.  But the reality is, women are chumps in his office.  That's not insignificant, that $11,500 less a year, on after average, than the men make.  That's not accidental.  That's purposeful. 

A guy in the Senate Democrats leading this equal pay crap act.  But, see, he gets a pass 'cause, "Well, he didn't know! He didn't mean for that to happen.  He didn't intend that."  Well, it was heavily reported back in 2012.  Back in 2012, Durbin paid men $13,000 more than women.  That's 23% difference.  So Durbin says (summarized), "Hey, I'm making progress, because in 2012 it was 13 grand.  Now it's only $11,500, so shut up." 

See, he's going in the right direction.

He cares.

What a great, great guy is Dick Durbin!


RUSH:  Let's go to the audio sound bites.  CBS This Morning, cohost Norah O'Donnell is talking to Major Garrett, formally of Fox News.  Now he's the chief White House correspondent for CBS talking about Obama announcing his executive orders today to strengthen enforcement of equal pay laws for women.  Norah O'Donnell said, "How do White House officials describe this disparity where, at the White House, women make 88¢ for every $1 the men make?  How do they explain that, Major?"

GARRETT:  The White House is getting, as you indicated, Norah, roughed up by its own pay equity rhetoric.  The White House said its gender pay gap is tied to job experience, education, and hours worked, among other factors.

RUSH:  Wait a minute!

GARRETT:  This matters --

RUSH:  No, no.  Keep going.

GARRETT:  -- because those explanations, according to the Labor Department, explain a good deal of the gender pay gap nationally.  The big difference in these stories when President Obama discusses this issue nationally, is he doesn't mention those other work variables, only the broad figure that 77¢ per dollar is what women earn compared to men in median wages.

RUSH:  Wait, wait.  We're supposed to give Obama a pass? So women at the White House make 88¢ for every $1 that men earn, but that's because it's tied to job experience, education, and hours worked?  So at the White House, it's not because there's any sexism, and it's not because they think women are inferior. 

"Oh, no! They love women at the White House."  No, it's because the women they have there don't know what they're doing compared to men? Is that it?  So they get a pass but everybody else is being sexist, bigots, and there's a War on Women?  Is that what we're to say?


RUSH: Now, one of the reasons that the Regime has gone back to this equal-pay-for-women thing, which is old hat and not even applicable anymore. Do you know what RAE stands for?  RAE stands for Rising American Electorate. 

According to Stan Greenberg of the Democracy Corps... He's the Clinton/Carville pollster guy.  The Rising American Electorate is unmarried women, young voters, and minorities.  That's the Rising American Electorate. That's who they think will determine who wins elections, that combination of people.  Unmarried single women, young people, and minorities.  So they have been polling these groups. 

Here's a poll done by Stan Greenberg of Democracy Corps for Women's Voices Women Vote.  They have a poll that finds voters nationwide in this group, Rising American Electorate -- unmarried women, young voters and minorities -- as of today, are significantly less likely to vote in 2014 than other voters. In other words, the base of the Democrat Party -- unmarried women, young voters, minorities? The base is unmotivated. 

Greenberg conducted polling and discovered that unmarried women, young voters, and minorities are not eager to go vote and that the only that might entice them is Santa Claus.  I'm not making that up.  They're not thrilled.  It isn't working for 'em, is the bottom line.  They may love Obama, but it isn't working.  They're not working.  They've got no careers.  They've got no prosperity.  It isn't working for 'em.  


RUSH:  You know how long the Democrats have been using this equal pay thing?  JFK signed the first one in 1963, when women were one-third of the workforce.  1963.  That's how long this has been a campaign issue -- and it's got the word "equal" in it again (which is the magic, as far as they're concerned).  So they're just going back to it to try to get their base, because their base is bored, folks. 

Their base, the Democrat Party base is not excited.  The reason the Democrat Party base isn't excited is the bloom's off the Obama rose, first and foremost.  Secondly, All of that hope and change? I mean, they bought it. They invested in it. They really believed that we were on the road to an equality-based utopia -- and as is the case when liberals run things unchecked, everything's worse. 

By every measure, folks. 

I think I saved something from yesterday in order to be able to make this point.  By every measure, the economy is worse today than when Barack Obama assumed office.  This from the Independent Journalism Review. Here are "Seven Stone-Cold Facts About the Economy That [the Left] Cannot Wish Away -- Compare these changes for the last year of the Bush presidency, 2008, versus the last full year of the Obama [Regime], 2013: Full time workers: 120 million vs. 116 million.

Four million fewer full-time workers. Despite all the stimulus, despite all the QEs that the Fed's done, despite all the job summits, despite all the Obamacare, despite all of everything was gonna create jobs -- the "laser-like focus" -- there are four million fewer full-time workers. "Workforce participation: 66% vs. 63.2%." People have left the workforce; 92 million Americans are currently not working.  

"Home ownership: 70% vs. 62%" today under Obama. Now, again, remember, this was supposed to be a utopia.  After five years of Obama, man, we we're gonna be a utopia! The world was gonna love us. Were gonna stop partisanship and we we're gonna end racism. We we're gonna erase slavery. Eeverybody was gonna love everybody. Everybody was gonna be getting along.

It was gonna be post-partisan, post-racial! It was just gonna be everything! Equality was gonna be on the rise. Everything, everything was supposed to be just markedly improved, and it's not.  Democrats have running this show for the vast majority of these five years.  "Median income: $55,484 vs. $52,098" now, and falling. "Poverty rate: 13% vs. 15%" today. By every measure, this have worsened.

This next number is striking and depressing. In 2008 there were 31.6 million Americans on foot stamps. Today, there are 47.8 million." We went from 31.6 million to almost 48 million. Now, this next number... These are all, by the way, reasons why there is a Tea Party, but this next one is huge. "Debt-to-GDP: 64.8% vs. 101.6%." In 2008, 64% of GDP was debt.  Today, 101.6% of the GDP is debt. 

In other words, we owe more annually than what our economy is producing. (interruption) That right. Plus Obamacare is why there is a Tea Party.  That debt number is what tells people their kids have no future.  "Why, Mr. Limbaugh? Why would that tell people their kids have no future?"  Because taxes are gonna have to be raised to even make it look like you're trying to make a dent in that debt.

And as you raise people's taxes, you make them poorer.  When you raise people's taxes, you reduce their standard of living.  When raise people's taxes, and you reduce their liberty and freedom.  When you raise people's taxes, you make 'em more dependent on government.  The debt goes up.  You don't solve anything raising people's taxes, and yet that's all Obamacare is and that's all Obama's done. 

My point is, his base, like everybody else, is living this. 

While food stamps are plentiful, and while unemployment compensation has been extended and all that, his peeps are still not happy.  They can't wait.  I mean, they're not excited to vote to continue this.  There's an election coming in 2014.  Stan Greenberg has surveyed the Democratic base, the Rising American Electorate of single women (unmarried), young voters, and minorities. They're bored. 

They're not excited about voting.  That's why Obama's gone back to the Grooveyard of Their Own Forgotten Favorites with the silly "equal pay" business.  They're out there, by the way. The White House said yesterday, and Obama himself said, "Women still only 77¢ for every $1 a man makes."  One of his own economic advisors corrected him. "No, no, no! If we said that, that's not true."  Yesterday. 

It's 88%. (chuckles)  That's what the White House pays women. The White House is still only paying women 88¢ out of every $1 that men make, and the story that accompanies this poll is headlined thus: "Morning Plum: Why 2014 Looks So Bad for Dem[ocrat]s, and What They Can Do About It," because it's a Greenberg story. Why it looks so bad and what they have to do.  Now, I don't want to make too much out of this, but I think, folks...

See, I'm looking anywhere I can for signs that would promote being optimistic.  I'm not being falsely optimistic.  I'm not grasping at straws.  But despite the rising warfare state -- despite all these new people on food stamps, despite all these new dependents, all the unemployment extension -- the people that voted for this are not happy.  That's the one telling ingredient. 

If the Obama base was happy with what's going -- 'cause we're in a Santa Claus era.  People are depending on government.  They have lost their jobs. They've lost full-time status; some have been converted to part time.  They've had their health insurance canceled! Obama voters, after being told in a lie for three years they could keep their doctor and plan, are losing all that.  They're not happy! 

The people that voted for Obama are not happy.

That's why his approval number's down in the low forties.  They're not happy with this.  If they were happy, if Obama's approval was still over 50 or at 50, and if these people couldn't wait to vote to continue this, that would be a big problem.  So I think even though the welfare state, even though dependency, food stamps and all that is way up, it tells me there's still a chance that a vast majority of people don't want any part of this.

Because a bunch of Obama voters are not happy with this.  Now, I want to make too much of that. But I will admit I'm looking anywhere I can for reasons to keep plugging away and be optimistic about this.  We're talking about holding on to the country, talking about preserving the country as founded, and it's clear that the Democrat Party is trying to reform or transform this country into something you and I don't recognize. 

They are doing it.  I'm not denying that.  Don't misunderstand.  They are succeeding in this transformation, but their voters are not happy.  Now, it's also true that their voters are never happy.  We must be honest and admit that.  Liberals are never happy.  They aren't.  They are getting a lot of what they want, economically.  The rich are getting stuck to 'em, but they're not happy.  Their food stamps are up, but they're not happy. 

Of course, they never are. No matter how much they get, they're never happy.  It's one of the hallmarks of being a liberal.  You can't laugh.  You can't find anything funny.  It's almost committing a sin.  You have to be constantly enraged.  You have be constantly angry.  You have to be victimized at all times, and they are.  They've perfected that.  



Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show
Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show



Most Popular

EIB Features