You are here

Feed aggregator

USA's 'Mr. Robot' Takes Cheap Shots Against 'Buffoon' Trump In Latest Episode

NewsBusters - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 05:25
<p>I think by now there is pretty much no one on the left side of the political spectrum who takes to heart Michelle Obama’s words “When they go low, we go high.” If there is anything the recent episode of USA’s <em>Mr. Robot </em>taught me, it is that fact alone. That is, unless someone can enlighten me how calling the sitting president a “buffoon” is now the high road. I’ll be waiting.</p>

Black Lives Matter Hashtag Activism Backfires on Black Record Label on Fox’s ‘Star’

NewsBusters - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 04:48
<p>There is a bit of fall-out from <a href="">last week’s show</a> that comes back this week’s episode of Fox’s <em>Star</em>. The November 15 episode titled “Faking It” includes the Midtown record label digging out of bad publicity when a hashtag goes viral.</p>

MSNBC Panel Tears into Gloria Allred for Possibly Tainting Accusations

NewsBusters - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 04:41
<p>On Wednesday, the Alabama GOP and an attorney for senatorial candidate Roy Moore held a press conference to stand by their candidate and tried to discredit the sexual misconduct allegations Moore was facing. The only accusation of sexual impropriety they chose to focus on was that of Beverly Young Nelson and her infamous lawyer, Gloria Allred. The fact that the Allred’s reputation was that of a dubious attention seeker spooked the panel on MSNBC’s <em>MTP Daily</em> because it could taint other credible accusations, and not just those against Moore.</p>

AP Delays, Downplays Trump's Role in Freeing UCLA Players Held for Shoplifting in China

NewsBusters - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 04:18
<p>On Tuesday, three UCLA basketball players who were arrested in China last week on charges of shoplifting and who potentially faced 3 to 10 years in prison were released, thanks to intervention on their behalf by President Trump and the U.S. State Department. In sharp contrast to how other wire services have handled the news, two stories at the Associated Press,  waited eight and ten paragraphs, respectively, to recognize Trump's role in freeing them.</p>

Former NY Times Reporter Mocks NewsBusters For Treating New Info as... New

NewsBusters - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 04:09
<p>The liberal website Vox published an interview with former <em>New York Times </em>legal reporter Linda Greenhouse, and the headline surely applauded her liberal take on journalism: "The most respected Supreme Court reporter of her generation slams media 'objectivity'.” Greenhouse oddly mocked my blog on NewsBusters for treating her revelation of monthly donations to Planned Parenthood as not new...when everyone knew about it inside <em>The New York Times. </em></p>

6 Ways the Senate Improves the House Tax Reform Bill

The Stream - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 02:42

The House version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a long-awaited step toward updating America's tax code.

If you're a middle-class taxpayer, the bill has a lot to like. Tax rates are lowered, the standard deduction is doubled, the child tax credit is increased to $1,600, and a parent and non-child dependent credit is added.

If you're a working taxpayer, employed by a business, or the owner of your own business, there's even more to like.

The corporate tax rate is cut from 35 percent -- one of the highest rates in the world -- to 20 percent, immediately. Family-owned and small businesses that pay their taxes as individuals will pay a maximum rate of 25 percent on certain business income.

All businesses will also be able to immediately write off the costs of new equipment for five years. This provision, called "expensing," allows businesses to invest more in American workers, add new jobs and raise wages.

According to the Tax Foundation, the House plan could boost the economy by 3.6 percent over the long term, raise average incomes by $2,500 (after taxes), and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The Senate builds on the House's momentum toward tax reform, and improves on the House bill in six important ways.

1. Lower tax rates at every level.

The House plan reduces the number of tax brackets from the current seven down to four, but does not lower the current top tax bracket of 39.6 percent.

The plan actually raises marginal rates on some taxpayers making over $200,000 and includes a new "bubble tax rate" of 45.6 percent that is intended to take back the benefit of the lowest tax bracket for high-income earners.

The Senate bill improves the House bill by lowering marginal income tax rates for a larger share of Americans -- most notably, reducing the current top 39.6 percent rate to 38.5 percent and doing away with the House's bubble rate.

The benefits of lowering marginal rates for more Americans -- increasing the incentive to work, save and invest -- outweigh the cost of the Senate not being able to consolidate any of the current seven tax brackets. Lower rates trump fewer tax brackets.

2. Full repeal of the state and local tax deduction.

Legislators from New York, New Jersey and California have held the House tax-reform effort hostage, forcing the plan to retain a $10,000 property tax write-off -- a subsidy for their wealthy constituents.

The Senate proposal improves on the House bill by fully repealing that property-tax deduction. Both bills repeal the state and local tax deductions for income and sales taxes.

3. Simpler treatment of business income.

The Senate bill simplifies the House's complicated treatment of businesses that file as individuals, or what are known as "pass-throughs." The House includes a 25 percent maximum tax rate on business investment, but then includes a set of complicated rules to avoid the lower rate becoming a loophole.

The Senate forgoes multiple different tax rates in favor of a larger business deduction worth 17.4 percent of the businesses' taxable income. The deduction lowers the effective top marginal tax rate for small and pass-through businesses to 31.8 percent.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream >>

This rate is roughly comparable to the total effective tax rate on business income earned through traditional corporations and paid out as dividends. The Senate treatment avoids complicated pass-through rules while moving toward treating all businesses equally.

4. Better treatment of investments.

Both the House and Senate bills allow five years of full expensing for new equipment, which if extended permanently could have a dramatic impact on investment and economic growth.

The Senate bill also shortens the write-off time for residential and nonresidential buildings to 25 years. This reform, although far from the ideal of full expensing, would significantly lower the cost of investing in buildings and increases the growth potential of the Senate tax bill over the House version.

5. Lower tax rate on overseas profits.

The House-proposed tax on overseas profits is set at 14 percent on overseas cash holdings and 7 percent on physical investments.

In an ideal world, this money should not be subject to U.S. taxes since it was earned abroad and in most instances already subject to taxes by another country. But, as a transition measure toward the new territorial tax system, a low tax rate is acceptable.

The Senate bill lowers the tax down to 10 percent on overseas cash holdings and 5 percent on physical investments. An even lower tax rate would be better.

6. Repeal of the individual mandate.

The Senate bill would also repeal the Obamacare individual mandate as part of tax reform. This would provide tax relief to millions of Americans who can't afford the rising costs of Obamacare insurance and would otherwise be subject to the tax penalty.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over 10 years, repealing the mandate would increase federal revenue by $338 billion by reducing outlays on subsidies for people who would not have otherwise purchased the insurance. This additional revenue would help lower tax rates for all Americans and would make it easier for the bill to meet the Senate's arcane budget rules.

Repealing the individual mandate is not only helpful for tax reform, it is also good health care policy. In a recent Daily Signal post, my colleagues explain that "the experience with Obamacare over the last four years shows that the individual mandate does not work" and is a burden on millions of middle-class Americans.

Far From Perfect

For all its improvements on the House plan, the Senate plan is far from perfect.

For one thing, it fails to repeal the estate or death tax. Not permanently repealing the death tax is economic malpractice, as it would forgo potential economic growth and likely make it harder to fully repeal the tax later on when those affected by it will be an even smaller minority of Americans.

The House bill would repeal the estate tax in 2024, while both bills would double the tax's basic exclusion from its current $5.49 million per person.

The House bill includes two important simplifications to education policy that are left out of the Senate reform. The House consolidates seven different education tax incentives into the existing American Opportunity Tax Credit and makes it available for an additional year.

The bill also improves and simplifies education saving accounts by consolidating the current two programs into a more flexible and broadly available version of the current 529 college savings plan.

The House bill also removes a remarkable number of special-interest subsidies, taking a crack at draining the swamp in Washington. The plan eliminates tax credits for oil production and for green energy, deductions for medical expenses and for student loans, the credit for rehabilitation of historic buildings, and a "new markets" tax credit, just to name a few.

The Senate maintains each of these in the tax code and even adds in a new family-leave subsidy.

The passage of the House bill this week will be a big step forward for tax reform. Once the Senate has passed its version of the bill, Congress should seize the opportunity to combine the best components of the House and Senate bills to make tax reform of maximum benefit to all Americans.


Copyright 2017 The Daily Signal

More on Moore, Yearbooks and Diving Off the Clinton Ship

The Stream - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 02:15

Let me start off with a question: Is it too much to ask for a candidate who keeps his hands off our money AND our daughters? 

Moving on. 

Roy Moore Latest

When it was announced Wednesday afternoon that Roy Moore’s lawyer and campaign manager would be holding a presser, I thought, “The way this story is going he’s probably had a heart attack.” It’d be the greatest “dive” outside the World Cup or a Don King boxing match. But no, they came up with something better.

Remember the yearbook Moore’s latest accuser showed the world? The one signed “Roy Moore, D.A.”? Moore’s attorney Phillip L. Jauregui insisted Moore doesn’t think he ever signed anything with a “D.A.” He wasn’t even a district attorney at the time. However, says Jauregui, there was a time when the initials D.A. would appear next to Moore’s name: when he was a circuit judge in Etowah County and his assistant would add her initials near his signature on filings. 

Why’s that matter? Remember Moore’s accuser saying she hadn’t had contact with Moore since his alleged assault? Well, they did have contact. In fact, Roy Moore was the judge assigned to her divorce case. She would have been in that court and copies of filings in the case would bear that same Roy Moore D.A. signature that shows up in the yearbook. 

Moore’s team wants the yearbook handed over to a “neutral custodian” so “we can determine is it genuine or is it a fraud.” 

Yup. I have to say I didn’t see that twist coming.

Perhaps I should have. With Gloria Allred involved I should have.

I was still in California for the 2010 governor’s race between Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican businesswoman Meg Whitman. Meg was running strong. Jerry couldn’t even articulate why he wanted the job. Whitman was hustling throughout the state making inroads with the Hispanic community.

But then Gloria Allred entered the picture. She dragged before the cameras Whitman’s former maid Nicky Diaz. Diaz, with the tears flowing, and Allred’s hand on her shoulder in that now familiar staging, wept about how Whitman had cruelly fired her. (Whitman had discovered she was an illegal immigrant who had given her husband false papers.) All you heard for days on end was how horribly Whitman treated Diaz, what a hater of Hispanics she was. And Diaz? She was “the courageous Rosa Parks” of the Latino community.

Even by Hollywood standards, Allred chews the scenery. 

However, the story stopped Whitman’s momentum and may well have cost her the election. L.A. Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez admitted “It was really the business with the housekeeper that hurt her.”

Point One: Allred is experienced at the cruel slurring of political foes via showy press conferences. 

Point Two:  Allred exposed Diaz as an illegal immigrant. Diaz could have been deported. She could have easily been charged with identity fraud. Gloria Allred used a woman as a weapon in a Senate campaign and didn’t care if the woman got hurt in the process. The days to come will show if she did so again.

Meanwhile, Allred responded to the request for the yearbook. She says she’ll only turn over the yearbook if the Senate agrees to hold hearings on Moore. Is that an answer that brings light to the situation or brings about more bright lights for Allred and overwhelming pressure on her client? Let’s just say the accuser would have been better off picking a lawyers name out of a phone book. 

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream >>

From the judge who allegedly chased teens to the President who rode the Lolita Express

Liberals Turning on Bill Clinton?

In the past 48 hours, several liberal writers and publications have all mysteriously and suddenly decided that Bill Clinton is, after all, a sexual predator. Just hear the headlines: The Atlantic “Reckoning with Bill Clinton’s Sex Crimes”; Vox “Bill Clinton Should Have Resigned”; and miracle of miracles from the New York Times, “I Believe Juanita.” 

Juanita Broaddrick -- who said Clinton raped her when he was Arkansas Attorney General and was mocked and ignored for decades -- put it well:

New York Times opinion "I Believe Juanita". Hell has definitely frozen over.

— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) November 14, 2017

Hell did freeze over. But why? Only because the Clintons are over. As the Stream‘s Liberty McArtor points out in her new article, if Hillary had won, these outlets wouldn’t be calling Bill a predator. In fact, writes Liberty:

Imagine if Hillary had won. The Weinsteins, Spaceys, Halperins and Louis C.K.s would not have quit their nasty habits. They'd still be celebrities at Democratic fund-raisers, posing for pictures with the new feminist president herself.

Further, not only did Hillary lose, but criminal investigations into the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton’s Uranium One paydays -- or pay-to-play days -- are in the wind.

Their usefulness has been expended. Their fearsome control is waning. Donna Brazile need not worry about snipers. (Just the sniping of Clinton holdouts.)

Still, there are some who haven’t gotten the message. All over Twitter today you will see tweets and articles from news organizations saying things like “Fox News Anchor Destroys Conspiracy Theory About Hillary Clinton and Uranium One.” They’re talking about a segment by Fox News anchor Shepherd Smith. Smith’s challenges the story, but his account left more holes than a drunk accupuncturist.  An earlier Stream story provides some idea why. 

'CBS Evening News' Gives 44 Secs to Trump Drinking Water, 0 to Menendez

NewsBusters - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 02:06
<p>Wednesday marked the continuation of the near total blackout on the corruption trial of Democratic New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez by the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC). While none of the networks covered the trial, which was in the middle of jury deliberations, <em>CBS Evening News</em> thought it was a priority to run a 44 Second news brief mocking President Trump for drinking from a bottle of water while in the middle of a long speech.</p>

NYT’s Stephens Suggests Republicans Should Be Forced to Support Moore ‘To Learn’ a ‘Lesson’

NewsBusters - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 01:43
<p>On MSNBC Wednesday night, New York Times columnist and faux Republican Bret Stephens insinuated on Hardball that conservatives and Republicans condemning Alabama Republican senatorial candidate Roy Moore should be forced to back Moore so that they “learn the lesson” to not support Steve Bannon-backed candidates. Host Chris Matthews led into Stephens by conceding that, in politics: “If you’re on a certain side, you put up with just about anything bad on your side and you say, so's your old man to the other side and you stick to your side.”</p>

Dear Feminists: Hillary Didn’t Save You

The Stream - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 23:15

The Handmaids’ Tale. Worse than Saudi Arabia. Decades back in time. 

These are all things America became after Donald Trump was elected President, according to mainstream feminists.

By mainstream feminists, I mean the ladies who mourned Hillary Clinton’s loss like the death of their own mother. Like Katy Perry, who wrote this worshipful ode to Hillary the “Phoenix” and her fire-lighting powers. The women who dramatically changed their hair as one does after an ugly break up. Or gave up dating because Trump won.

We’d been told Hillary would ring in a new era of women’s empowerment. Under women-molesting Trump and his slithering, sexist, dines-only-with-his-wife sidekick Mike Pence, women would get beaten into the dark ages of rampant misogyny. 

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream >>

But they were wrong. 

A Feminist Moment in Trump’s America

Right now, we’re experiencing a major cultural moment. A feminist moment, if you will. That moment is #MeToo.

#MeToo’s arm is long and indiscriminate. It’s come for liberals like Mark Halperin and Republicans like Roy Moore. It’s even, in a surprising but long overdue twist, come for Bill Clinton

The former president accused of rape and impeached for lying about sexual impropriety has long scampered freely behind feminism’s petticoats. To conservatives, it was obvious and despicable. Just as it was obvious and despicable that Hillary campaigned on female empowerment while shoving his accusers aside. Most despicable was that her worshipers allowed it.

But not today. Today, American men and women are examining whether their own conduct -- including who they voted for (or defended in an op-ed) -- is up to par. 

Costs and Benefits of #MeToo

Of course, there are dangers with #MeToo. Some will undoubtedly latch onto the movement’s coattails for attention. Some will use it to smear good men. But many are not out to smear or get attention. They’ve been actively avoiding attention. But as the New York Times wrote last month, “Harvey Weinstein’s Fall Open[ed] the Floodgates in Hollywood.”

Were Madame President perched comfortably in the White House, mainstream feminists might not even be angry enough for #MeToo.

And not just Hollywood. Now, more and more women -- and plenty of men, too -- are gaining the courage to come forward with stories of how they were abused. Serial predators who roamed free for too long are facing justice. Hopefully future victims will be emboldened to speak up sooner. Hopefully their would-be assailants will think twice.

Things aren’t perfect. There are still swaths of people who refuse to believe anything bad about their hero. No matter how many women come forward. No matter how credible their claims. But in a big way, people are listening as women say, en masse, “Me, too.” 

If She’d Won

Trust me, I’m not lauding the greater motives of whatever-wave-this-is-feminism. Most of modern, mainstream feminism is a crock.

My point is that feminists didn’t need Hillary to instigate a major cultural conversation, even change. They’ll never concede this, though, because they put their hope in that one woman. Moreover, in one idea: that a female in the White House would be the pinnacle of female equality. That feminism would arrive as soon as soon as a woman took the helm.

Imagine if Hillary had won. The Weinsteins, Spaceys, Halperins and Louis C.K.s would not have quit their nasty habits. They’d still be celebrities at Democratic fund-raisers, posing for pictures with the new feminist president herself. Everything Hillary did “for women,” like push abortion and contraception, wouldn’t stop them from abusing women.

Were Madame President perched comfortably in the White House, mainstream feminists might not even be angry enough for #MeToo. They might be too busy toasting to her long and happy reign to deal with the real problems that persisted despite her ascendance. 

They sure as heck wouldn’t have the gall to admit their failure in the Bubba department.

Will feminists like Katy Perry argue that Hillary inspired them to make change? Sure. And in a way, that may be partly true. But when it comes down to who’s doing the changing, it isn’t Hillary and it isn’t the White House. It’s a few women who finally had the courage to come forward, and a few million others who joined them.

'White Supremacist' Trump Praised for Aiding Release of Black UCLA Players Arrested in China

NewsBusters - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 23:00
<p>President Donald Trump, who as you've heard, is a "white supremacist," went to bat for three Black UCLA basketball players detained in China for shoplifting. They got themselves arrested last week for stealing sunglasses in Hangzou, where their team played a game against Georgia Tech. Thanks to the efforts of this "racist, bigot, xenophobe" president, who spoke up for the Bruins' shoplifters with China's leader, all three have returned to Los Angeles.</p>

Bioethicist on Having Kids is 'Indulgence' That's Bad For The Earth

NewsBusters - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 22:59
<p>Professor Travis Reider of Johns Hopkins University boosted population control as a solution for climate change in a Wednesday op-ed for Reider, an assistant director at the school's Berman Institute of Bioethics, hyped that "having a child is a major contributor to climate change," and asserted that "the logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children."</p>

The Left’s Hypocrisy on States Regulating Freedom of Expression of Businesses

The Stream - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 22:15

Should businesses have a right to express their views and practice them accordingly? The left says yes -- and no. They say, “It depends.” Liberals tend to say yes when the business takes a position they agree with. They say no if the business takes a viewpoint they disagree with.

In the first case, the left stands for free speech and the first amendment. In the second, the left happily uses state power to curtail the business’s freedom of expression.

There is a rise in targeting Christian businesses.

Liberals increasingly do the latter, as they increasingly target Christian businesses. We all know the cases of Christian bakers, florists and printers being sued and prosecuted for refusing to promote a message they don’t believe in. Secular bakers, florists and printers do the same thing, and not a single liberal says a word.

Businesses that Boycott Israel

Two articles on feature these conflicting positions. Interestingly, they both take liberal positions on the issues. One attacks laws against the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. These laws prohibit states from working with businesses that boycott Israel. The other supports laws making businesses provide contraception.

In “Cut the BS with BDS,” Spencer Grady-Pawl defends businesses’ freedom of expression. He declares that “any attempt at restricting the right of an individual to express their political opinion is antithetical to this country's emphasis on free speech.” Government shouldn’t restrict “the ability of one of the many sides of the debate to express their position.” He warns that “history won't look favorably upon those who acted to restrict the legitimate political expression of others.”

Jason Frye doesn’t care about businesses' freedom of expression. In “Hobby Lobby Isn't About Religion. It's About Health Care,” he argues that the government should make businesses include birth control in their health insurance plans. Letting them refuse “is not a matter of protecting religious exercise.” It’s “an assault on labor.” It also assaults “the right of healthcare.”

The left takes positions based on its current version of morality.

What’s the difference between the two? Some businesses think it’s wrong to support Israel. Some businesses think it’s wrong to provide contraception. Why should one be allowed to practice its beliefs and the other not allowed to practice its belief? How does that make sense?

In just one way: A lot of liberals (though not all) favor BDS. So YES! to free speech on that issue. Almost all favor contraception. So NO! to free speech on that issue.

The Left Picks and Chooses

The problem is worse than just selective reasoning. The left can’t find a coherent position because they don’t have a consistent position on state regulation. The left picks and chooses which areas the state may regulate based on its current theory of morality.

The government must make businesses provide contraception because the left finds it a positive good. Therefore women have a right to get it from their employer. They don’t care what the owners may believe. That area of life can be regulated.

The government can’t make businesses support Israel because the left doesn’t believe in it. Therefore liberals care what the owners may believe. That area of life can’t be regulated.

Look at the issues already mentioned, the work of bakers, florists and printers. The left believes completely in same-sex marriage, so that’s an area it demands the state regulate. It wants to state to legislate that morality. If you’re a businessman, you don’t have a First Amendment right to do something liberals don’t want you to do.

But if a secular baker or florist or printer turns down a request to make something for a Christian marriage, that’s treated as an exercise of free speech. It’s protected by the First Amendment. It’s absolute.

At least in these matters, the left doesn’t regulate based on any clear idea of what the government can and should do. It regulates based on its own theory of morality, and to heck with anyone else’s. It legislates for secularism. That means it legislates against Christianity. If there’s one thing the left is consistent on, it’s that.


Follow Rachel on Twitter at Rach_IC.

Discussing Roy Moore: Pletka on MSNBC’s ‘Meet The Press Daily’ (1) - AEI - American Enterprise Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise

American Enterprise Institute - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 22:00
Senior Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Danielle Pletka discusses the allegations against Senate-candidate Roy Moore (R-AL)

Discussing Roy Moore: Pletka on MSNBC’s ‘Meet The Press Daily’ (2) - AEI - American Enterprise Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise

American Enterprise Institute - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 22:00
Senior Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Danielle Pletka discusses the allegations against Senate-candidate Roy Moore (R-AL)

Details in BLS report suggest that earnings differentials by gender can be explained by age, marital status, children, hours worked - AEI - American Enterprise Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise

American Enterprise Institute - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 21:51

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases an annual report every year on the “Highlights of Women’s Earnings” (since the BLS report actually analyzes equally both men’s and women’s earnings, one might ask why the report isn’t simply titled more accurately “Highlights of Earnings in America”?). Here’s the opening paragraph from the most recent BLS report “Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2016” that was released in August:

In 2016, women who were full-time wage and salary workers had median usual weekly earnings that were 82 percent of those of male full-time wage and salary workers. In 1979, the first year for which comparable earnings data are available, women’s earnings were 62 percent of men’s. Most of the growth in women’s earnings relative to men’s occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. Since 2004, the women’s-to men’s earnings ratio has remained in the 80 to 83 percent range.

How do we explain the fact that women working full-time last year earned only 82 cents for every dollar men earned according to the BLS? Here’s how the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) explains it:

The wage gap exists, in part, because many women and people of color are still segregated into a few low-paying occupations. Part of the wage gap results from differences in education, experience or time in the workforce. But a significant portion cannot be explained by any of those factors; it is attributable to discrimination. In other words, certain jobs pay less because they are held by women and people of color.

Let’s investigate the claim that the gender pay gap is a result of discrimination by looking at some of the data on wages and hours worked by gender and by marital status and age in the BLS report for 2016:

1. Among full-time workers (those working 35 hours or more per week), men were more likely than women to work a greater number of hours (see Table 5).

a. For example, 25.5% of men working full-time worked 41 or more hours per week in 2016, compared to only 14.5% of women who worked those hours, meaning that men working full-time last year were nearly twice as likely as women to work 41 hours per work or more. 

b. Further, men working full-time were also 2.3 times more likely than women to work 60+ hour weeks: 6.1% of men worked 60 hours per week or more in 2016 compared to only 2.6% of women who worked those hours.

c. Also, women working full-time were about 2.5 times more likely than men to work shorter workweeks of 35 to 39 hours per week: 11.4% of full-time women worked those hours in 2016, compared to only 4.7% of men who did so.

What’s especially interesting is that women working 35-39 hours per week last year earned nearly 10% more than men who worked those hours, i.e. there was a 9.9% gender wage gap in favor of female workers for that cohort. Using the standard political and gender rhetoric of groups like the National Committee on Pay Equity, couldn’t that wage premium for women be mostly explained by gender discrimination against men in the labor market for employees working 35-39 hours per week? That is, to be consistent shouldn’t the claim here be that “certain jobs pay less because they are held by men”?

2. Although not reported by the BLS, I can estimate using its data that the average workweek for full-time workers last year was 41.4 hours for women and 43.2 hours for men. Therefore, the average man employed full-time worked nearly 2 more hours per week (1.80 hours) in 2016 compared to the average woman, which totals to an average of an additional 90 male work hours per year.

Comment: Because men work more hours on average than women, some of the raw wage gap naturally disappears just by simply controlling for the number of hours worked per week, an important factor not even mentioned by groups like the National Committee on Pay Equity. For example, women earned 81.9% of median male earnings for all workers working 35 hours per week or more, for a raw, unadjusted pay gap of 18.1% for all full-time workers. But for those workers with a 40-hour workweek (about three-quarters of all full-time female workers), women earned 89% of median male earnings, for a pay gap of only 11%. Therefore, once we control only for one variable – hours worked – and compare men and women both working 40-hours per week in 2016, nearly 40% of the raw 18.1% pay gap reported by the BLS disappears.

3. The BLS reports that for full-time single workers who have never married, women earned 91.6% of men’s earnings in 2016, which is a wage gap of only 8.4% (see Table 1 and chart above), compared to an overall unadjusted pay gap of 18.1% for workers in that group. When controlling for marital status and comparing the earnings of unmarried men and unmarried women, more than half (53.6%) of the raw 18.1% wage gap is explained by just one variable (among many): marital status.

4. In Table 7, the BLS reports that for full-time single workers with no children under 18 years old at home (includes never married, divorced, separated, and widowed), women’s median weekly earnings of $697 were 95.1% of the weekly earnings of $733 for their male counterparts in that cohort (see chart above). For this group, once you control for marital status and children at home, we can explain about two-thirds of the unadjusted gender earnings gap.

5. Also from Table 1 in the BLS report, we find that for married workers with a spouse present, women working full-time earned only 78.9% of what married men with a spouse present earned working full-time in 2016(see chart). Therefore, BLS data show that marriage has a significant and negative effect on women’s earnings relative to men’s, but we can realistically assume that marriage is a voluntary lifestyle choice, and it’s that personal decision, not necessarily labor market discrimination, that contributes to at least some of the gender wage gap for married full-time workers with a spouse present.

6. The BLS also reports in Table 1 that for young workers ages 20-24 years, women earned 95.6% of the median earnings of their male counterparts working full-time reflecting only a 4.4% gender wage gap for that age cohort in 2016. Once again, controlling for just a single important variable – age – we find that more than three-quarters of the overall unadjusted raw wage gap for all workers (18.1%) disappears for young workers.

7. Also from Table 7, married women (with spouse present) working full-time with children under 18 years at home earned 81.2% of what married men (spouse present) earned working full-time with children under 18 years (see chart). Once again, we find that marriage and motherhood have a significantly negative effect on women’s earnings; but those lower earnings don’t necessarily result from labor market discrimination, they more likely result from personal family choices about careers, family friendly and flexible workplaces, commute time, child care, and the number of hours worked, etc.

Bottom Line: When the BLS reports that women working full-time in 2016 earned 81.9% of what men earned working full-time, that is very much different from saying that women earned 81.9% of what men earned for doing exactly the same work while working the exact same number of hours in the same occupation, with exactly the same educational background and exactly the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience. As shown above, once we start controlling individually for the many relevant factors that affect earnings, e.g. hours worked, age, marital status, and having children, most of the raw earnings differential disappears. In a more comprehensive study that controlled for all of the relevant variables simultaneously, we would likely find that those variables would account for nearly 100% of the unadjusted, raw earnings differential of 18.1% for women’s earnings compared to men as reported by the BLS. Discrimination, to the extent that it does exist, would likely account for a very small portion of the raw 18.1% gender earnings gap.

For example, a comprehensive 2009 study from the Department of Labor (“An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women”) came to the following conclusion (emphasis added):

This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

MP: Language and words can be important. And that’s why I think it’s important and more accurate to refer to a “gender earnings gap” rather than a “gender pay gap.” Note that the NCPE uses the terms “gender wage gap” and “wage gap” 12 times on just the Q&A page of its website and more than 20 times on its main website. The Department of Labor study also used the term “raw wage gap.” The underlying assumption with that language (“gender wage gap”) is that there is one hourly (or weekly or monthly) wage paid to men and a lower hourly (or weekly or monthly) wage paid to women working side-by-side their male counterparts doing the exact same job when both have the exact same educational and work backgrounds, etc. Switching to using the term “gender earnings gap” broadens the concept of earnings differentials by gender, and more accurately allows for the reality that women are usually making the same hourly (or weekly) wage as men doing the exact same job. But men often “earn” more on average than women because men are working longer hours on average, performing different jobs than women, working in jobs that are physically more rigorous (construction), working in jobs that are more dangerous (logging) and in more hostile work environments (oil rigs workers), involve longer commute times and may be less flexible and less family friendly. So can we completely scrap the term “gender wage gap” and replace it with the more accurate “gender earnings gap”?

CNN's Cuomo Gloats Over Sessions Hesitance to Investigate Clinton

NewsBusters - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 21:41
<p>On Wednesday's <em>New Day</em>, CNN's Chris Cuomo gloated over congressional Republicans apparently suffering a setback in their push for an investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a way that it is unlikely that the CNN host would ever do if Democrats experienced a similar setback.</p>

Morning Joe on Uranium One: 'Dumb Conspiracy Theory', 'Clown Show', 'Debunked So Many Times’

NewsBusters - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 21:32
<p>On Wednesday’s <em>Morning Joe</em>, the panel breathed a collective sigh of relief over the news that during yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rebuffed the notion that he would launch a special prosecutor’s investigation against the Clintons for their alleged corrupt conduct related to the Russian acquisition of Uranium One. The liberal pundits proceeded to proclaim that the Uranium One story was a “dumb conspiracy theory” that has “been debunked” “many times” and praised Sessions for his “noble” actions.</p>

Nets Spend Two Hours on Moore, Ignore Democrat Sexual Harassment, Stalking Charges

NewsBusters - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 21:31
<p>While the networks devoted over two hours to the charges facing Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore in less than a week’s time, they’ve completely ignored similarly shocking and lewd charges brought against two Democrats, one who is also running for Congress, like Moore.</p>

Silence on Sleaze-Bob Menendez

NewsBusters - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 21:29
<p>The verdict is in. I pronounce Democrat leaders, left-wing feminists and Beltway journalists guilty of gross negligence and hypocrisy over a dirty rotten sleazeball in their midst. For the past 11 weeks, Bob Menendez has been on trial for 18 counts of bribery, fraud and corruption involving nearly $1 million in gifts and donations. The jury remained deadlocked as of Tuesday.</p>


Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer