Remember when Obama said, "now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons?" It was in the big speech, just for the record.
Um, awkward then to read this afternoon that apparently in Obama's own office, he pays his female staffers, on average, 78 percent of the amount he pays men working for him. Of the top 10 highest paid positions, in Obama's office women hold five of the positions, and Obama pays all his female staffers an average of $12,472 less than the average male salary.
Meanwhile over in the McCain camp seven women occupy the top 10 wage-earning slots and make, on average, 101 percent of the male salary. The women working for McCain earn 24 percent more than those working for Obama, interesting given the controversial position McCain took earlier this year to oppose legislation expanding the ability to sue for equal pay. For what it's worth, women outnumber men on both staffs, and all numbers came from the Report of the Secretary to the Senate.
To see what NOW has to say about the situation,
President of NOW Kim Gandy said this of her feelings on the apparent disparity:
It depends on what positions they’re in. Certain positions are paid more than other positions. I do know quite a number of women very high up in his staff and in his campaign who are extraordinarily strong supporters of women’s rights. We don’t advocate people be hired because of their gender. We advocated people be hired and paid without regard to their gender.
Well that's an entirely fair position, my question is this: given that one of Obama's own campaign ads makes the claim, "Today women work to help support their families but are paid just 77 cents for every $1 a man makes. It’s just one more thing John McCain doesn’t get about our economy," while he's only paying 78 cents on the dollar, does it make the claim less credible?