Gender pay equity: Obama gets history lesson in statutory law from . . . Stacey Dash?

There are actually two excellent points being made in this video about the utter unseriousness of the Democrats' distraction-of-the-week, which is "gender pay equity." The first is hinted at by Jonathan Karl of ABC News, although he never really closes the loop on what I think his point is.

Watch the exchange between Karl and Carney. Where Karl is going, I think, is that you're probably going to have difference in pay between men and women even when you aren't discriminating because all kinds of other factors determine what people make, and the realities of life, biology and all kinds of other things give men, collectively and in the abstract, an advantage that will give them better numbers overall. In a way, that really makes it the perfect Democrat vote-mongering issue. They can yelp about it endlessly, and there's no chance it will ever change, so every election cycle they can trot it out again. I agree with Karl. Women aren't paid less on average in the White House because the administration is discrminating. They're paid less on average there because they're paid less on average everywhere. But the crusher comes during Hannity's segment with Stacey Dash. (Why did we choose her for the photo instead of Karl? Uh . . . we must have flipped a coin. We wouldn't discriminate!) Dash makes the same point that Herman actually made on the radio show yesterday: Obama's executive orders are meaningless because they're ordering something that is already the law. Professor Dash, obviously more aware of the nation's legislative history than President Obama, explains:

---

"In 1963, John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, right? Employers shall not discriminate on the basis of sex. Nine people opposed it. They were Democrats."

Discrimination is already illegal. What Obama did is like issuing an executive order banning slavery. Thanks for the thought, ace, but it's already banned. Here's the video featuring both segments: Like the minimum wage, gender pay equity is a classic Democrat subject-changer that has nothing whatsoever to do with sound public policy. The best public policy where wages are concerned is for government to stay out of it entirely, since people can negotiate their own compensation with their employers, and politicians always skew the dynamic to make it less rational than it was before, since they almost never understand how or why wages are determined. By the way, you're quite familiar with the argument that women make less on average because they leave the workforce to have babies, and it's true enough, but can I suggest another difference that's inherent to gender? Men tend to be more assertive than women. It's simply gender difference that's born of nature. I don't think it's better or worse to be more or less assertive. It's just who you are. But the fact remains that the most likely way to get something you want is to have the nerve to ask for it, and more assertive people are more likely to ask. (Yes, this is a generalization, and yes, there are exceptions on both sides, but the generalization reflects the truth overall and you know it.) One of the things that determines your wage is what you do, and how well you do it. Another is your skill in negotiating your compensation. There's really no such thing as "equal work" because no two people doing the work are exactly alike. That's why laws made by politicians, trying to force equality where the entire concept is really absurd, always make things worse than if politicians had just left private parties to work things out for themselves. But maybe Obama would understand if someone with a little more intellectual prowess than his own - like Stacey Dash - explained it to him. I'm guessing he would at least pay attention to her. He might even ask for a selfie!