This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

Re: Huffington Post (FactCheck.org): Data Debunks Claim That Hillary Clinton Paid Women Less Than Men

From:nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com To: olearyhrc@gmail.com CC: ha16@hillaryclinton.com, jlehrich@hillaryclinton.com, hrcrapid@googlegroups.com Date: 2015-04-22 22:38 Subject: Re: Huffington Post (FactCheck.org): Data Debunks Claim That Hillary Clinton Paid Women Less Than Men

Good call. On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Ann O'Leary <olearyhrc@gmail.com> wrote: Agree - this is great. Especially powerful that Norm Ornstein is on our side! Keep his assessment for future use! On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Huma Abedin <ha16@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: > This is awesome > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 22, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Jesse Lehrich <jlehrich@hillaryclinton.com> > wrote: > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/hillary-clinton-gender-pay-gap_n_7117620.html?utm_hp_ref=tw > > Data Debunks Claim That Hillary Clinton Paid Women Less Than Men > > *The following post first appeared on FactCheck.org > <http://factcheck.org/>.* > > The Republican National Committee chairman says Hillary Clinton paid women > in her Senate office less than men. But annual salary data provided by the > Clinton campaign show median salaries for men and women in Clinton’s office > were virtually identical. > > What gives? The answer may be unsatisfying, but it boils down to > methodology. > > RNC chairman Reince Priebus based his claim on a report > <http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clintons-war-on-women/> by the*Washington > Free Beacon* of publicly available expense reports submitted biannually > to the secretary of the Senate. Looking at median salaries among full-time, > year-round employees, the *Free Beacon* concluded that women working in > Clinton’s Senate office were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men. > > Pushing back against that analysis, the Clinton campaign provided > FactCheck.org a list of the names, titles and annual salaries of every > full-time person employed in Clinton’s Senate office between 2002 and 2008. > Those data show the median salary for men and women to be the same at > $40,000. The data also show Clinton hired roughly twice as many women as > men. > > The Clinton list of salaries included full-time workers who may have > worked only part of the year, or who took brief unpaid leaves of absence. > The *Free Beacon* list excluded anyone who did not work for an entire > fiscal year. Left off the *Free Beacon* list, for example, was a male > assistant to the chief of staff earning a salary of $35,000, because he > took a two-week unpaid leave of absence to work on a House campaign. > > “There are many different ways to measure these things and you will get > slightly different answers,” Eileen Patten, a research analyst at the Pew > Research Center told us in a phone interview. “It’s not that either data > set is flawed. They just show different things.” > > American Enterprise Institute scholar Norman Ornstein, who regularly sifts > through disbursement reports from the secretary of the Senate while doing > research for the annual Vital Statistics on Congress report > <http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/07/vital-statistics-congress-mann-ornstein>, > said the data are difficult to use to track salaries because Senate > staffers often toggle between Senate and campaign work. That churn was > particularly true on Clinton’s staff, he said, because she was running for > president in 2007 and 2008. For that reason, he believes the Clinton > campaign methodology provides a more accurate measure of her record on pay > equity. > > We take no position on which may be the superior methodology — as Patten > told us, both have benefits and tradeoffs. But we think it’s instructive to > consider those benefits and tradeoffs. > > Pay in Clinton’s Senate office figures to be an issue because Clinton has > made pay inequality, and gender discrimination, a focus of her campaign for > president. > > *Priebus’ Attack* > > On the day Clinton formally announced her candidacy for president, Priebus > went on CBS’ “Face the Nation > <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-april-12-2015-kerry-paul-priebus/>” > and attacked Clinton on one of her signature causes — equal pay for women — > claiming that she paid women in her office less than men. > > “[She] can’t have it both ways,” Priebus said. “She can’t pay women less > in her Senate office and claim that she is for equal pay.” > > “We don’t know she did that,” host Bob Schieffer interrupted. > > Said Priebus: “Well, the facts don’t bear that out, the facts show that > she didn’t pay women an equal amount of money in her Senate office.” > > As we said, Priebus’ claim is based on an analysis > <http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clintons-war-on-women/> by the *Washington > Free Beacon,*which concluded that women in Clinton’s Senate office were > paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men. Using publicly available > disbursement reports, the *Free Beacon*based its conclusion on the median > salary for men and women — regardless of position — among employees who > worked full-time for an entire fiscal year from 2002 to 2008. > > “Salaries of employees who were not part of Clinton’s office for a full > fiscal year were not included,” the *Free Beacon* report states. > > Using that methodology, the *Free Beacon* found the median annual salary > for women working in Clinton’s office was $40,791, and it was $56,500 for > men. The *Free Beacon*reporter who prepared the report, Brent Scher, > declined to provide us with the raw data from his analysis to compare with > the data from the Clinton campaign. But he said the *Free Beacon* stands > by its report and its methodology, and his methodology was transparent > enough to see how he arrived at his numbers. > > The Clinton campaign doesn’t dispute the accuracy of the *Free Beacon* data, > but it argues the data and methodology lead to a misleading conclusion. > > “The Free Beacon based their analysis off an incomplete, and therefore > inaccurate set of numbers,” said Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for the Clinton > campaign. “The fact is, Hillary paid full-time men and women equally.” > > Schwerin provided FactCheck.org a list of the name, gender, title and > annual salary of every full-time person employed in Clinton’s Senate office > between 2002 and 2008. Notably, the Clinton campaign’s figures show the > annual salaries of employees regardless of how long they worked in any > given year. So if a woman was hired at an annual salary of $50,000 but only > worked part of the year (and therefore earned some fraction of that > $50,000), the Clinton data would include that salary in the women’s salary > column. The *Free Beacon* report would not have included that employee at > all. The Clinton campaign data also include employees who may have taken a > brief leave of absence (sometimes to work for Clinton’s 2008 presidential > campaign). Because they did not work the entire fiscal year, they were not > included in the *Free Beacon*report. > > Taking out Hillary Clinton’s salary — we didn’t think it was fair to > include her since she didn’t hire herself — the median annual salary for > both men and women, regardless of how much of the year they worked, was > identical: $40,000. > > (We spot checked dozens of the salaries provided by the Clinton campaign > against the expense reports filed with the secretary of the Senate. Direct > comparisons were not possible because the Clinton salary data was based on > calendar years, while the public disbursement records are based on fiscal > years. The annual salary numbers also do not take into consideration any > bonuses an employee might have earned. But pro-rated for the amount of the > year worked by the employee, the figures we checked generally matched up.) > > *The 77-Cent Figure* > > The *Free Beacon* notes that its methodology more closely mirrors the > methodology used by the Census Bureau > <http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html> to > arrive at the oft-cited statistic that women earn 77 cents for every dollar > earned by men in the U.S. Like the *Free Beacon*, the Census Bureau only > considered full time, year-round employees. And so, the *Free Beacon* argues, > Clinton leaves herself vulnerable to this kind of attack because she has, > in the past, repeatedly cited that same 77-cent figure. > > For example, on Clinton’s Senate Web page > <http://web.archive.org/web/20090112063015/http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/women/> just > before she left the Senate (accessed via the Internet Archive Wayback > Machine), it stated, “More than forty years after the Equal Pay Act was > signed into law by President Kennedy, women still earn only $.76 cents for > every dollar men earn for doing the same work.” > > More recently, Clinton tweeted this > <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/453688842621431808> last year: > > *@HillaryClinton, April 8, 2014*: 20 years ago, women made 72 cents on > the dollar to men. Today it’s still just 77 cents. More work to do. > #EqualPay #NoCeilings > > We at FactCheck.org have been critical > <http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-77-cent-exaggeration/> of this > statistic in the past when it is portrayed as the pay disparity “for doing > the same work.” That’s not what it represents. > > As we noted when Obama cited the statistic in a campaign ad, the Census > Bureau figure is the median (midpoint) for all women in all jobs, not for > women doing “the same work” or even necessarily working the same number of > hours as men. In fact, women on average work fewer hours than men and are > generally under-represented in jobs that pay more. In other words, it is > inaccurate to blame the entirety of that wage gap on discrimination against > women doing the same jobs as men for the same number of hours. Furthermore, > the raw gap for all women is not quite as large when looking at weekly > earnings rather than yearly earnings. > > The Pew Research Center, for example, did estimates based on hourly > earnings of both full- and part-time workers and found > <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/> that > women earn 84 percent of what men earn. Why? According to Pew’s surveys, > women were more likely to take career interruptions to care for their > family, which can hurt long-term earnings. In addition, Pew noted, “women > as a whole continue to work in lower-paying occupations than men do.” And > last, Pew noted “some part of the pay gap may also be due to gender > discrimination.” Women were nearly twice as likely as men to report that > they had been discriminated against at work because of their gender. > > In a recent speech <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGhHC45c46Q> at the > United Nations Conference on Women on March 10, Clinton did not cite the > 77-cent figure, and she noted that in addition to fighting for equal pay > for equal work, closing the pay gap will require “encouraging more women to > pursue [higher-paying] careers in science, technology, engineering or > mathematics” (about the 11:35 mark). > > But the Clinton campaign isn’t arguing that the *Free Beacon* report is > skewed because it is not a comparison of similar-level positions. It says > the data show there was no pay disparity in Clinton’s office when looking > at the median salaries of men and women*regardless* of job title. For > that reason, we would caution that neither methodology — neither the *Free > Beacon*‘s nor the Clinton campaign’s — purports to compare the salaries > of men and women who were doing the *same jobs*. > > Using the salary data supplied by the Clinton campaign, we looked at > median and average salaries for men and women in Clinton’s office year by > year and found relatively minor differences. In five out of the seven > years, the median salaries were slightly lower for women without Clinton’s > salary included. But when all the years were combined, the median salary > was $40,000 for both groups. The average salary — again, taking out > Clinton’s salary — was nearly identical, $50,398 for men and $49,336 for > women. And again, Clinton hired nearly twice as many women as men. > > So what accounts for the difference between the two sets of findings? Is > it just because one includes employees who worked only part of the year (or > had a leave of absence)? The example of 2008 is instructive. > > According to the 2008 salaries provided by the Clinton campaign — which, > again, includes anyone who even worked part of the year – the median salary > for women was $39,500, while the median for men was $43,000. That works out > roughly to women making 92 cents for every dollar earned by men. (In other > years, it was the opposite — but as we noted earlier, the median for all > seven years combined showed median salaries to be the same.) > > We then compared the annual salary data provided by the Clinton campaign > with disbursement data available from the secretary of the Senate for > fiscal year 2008 (Oct. 1, 2007, to Sept. 30, 2008). That doesn’t perfectly > match up with the Clinton campaign’s calendar year figures, but it’s close. > > Of the 44 women listed in the annual salary data provided by the campaign, > 26 of them worked only a portion of the year. And 10 of 24 men worked only > part of the year. That means they either started or ended their employment > sometime during the fiscal year, or, as was often the case, they took > unpaid leaves of absence at some point during the fiscal year. Those would > be the people not included in the *Free Beacon*analysis. If those > part-year employees are excluded, the median gap widened to $42,500 for > women and $59,000 for men. That translates to women earning just 72 cents > for every dollar earned by men. > > In other words, the Clinton campaign has a good point: Not counting those > who worked only part of the year results in a wider pay gap for women in > Clinton’s office. > > A comparison of both data sets shows that those who only worked part of > the year represent a little over half of the men and women who worked in > Clinton’s Senate office that year. Among those who only worked part of the > fiscal year, and would not have counted in the *Free Beacon* analysis, > the average and median salaries were higher for women. The median annual > salary for women who worked only part of the year was $38,000, compared > with $35,000 for men, our analysis of the Clinton salary database showed. > The Clinton campaign argues that including those who only worked part of > the year makes more sense, because it shows that women and men were offered > comparable salaries. > > *Some Examples* > > The Clinton campaign also argues that any analysis ought to consider the > salaries paid to Senate staffers who also worked for any of Clinton’s three > political entities: Hill PAC, Friends of Hillary or Hillary Clinton for > President. Often, employees were splitting their time between the Senate > and political entities and earning significant salaries from those campaign > entities, sometimes more than their work for the Senate office. > > For example, Huma Abedin, Clinton’s longtime assistant/senior adviser, was > making a modest salary in Clinton’s Senate office ($14,000 in 2002 to > $20,000 a year in 2008), but in the latter years of that time period, she > was making significantly more money working for Clinton’s political > entities (Friends of Hillary, Hill PAC and then the presidential campaign > beginning in 2007). Public records filed with the Federal Election > Commission <http://www.fec.gov/> show in 2008 that she was paid a total > of nearly $97,000 in wages from Friends of Hillary, Hill PAC and Hillary > Clinton for President. > > Another employee, Sarah Gegenheimer, was being paid a $20,000 salary as > deputy communications director for Clinton’s Senate office in 2007, but she > was also making $40,000 a year in the communications office of the > Democratic Leadership Offices — Office of Senate Majority Leader and Office > of the Democratic Whip, the Clinton campaign says. In addition, FEC records > show she was paid another $24,000 in wages for work provided to Hillary > Clinton for President and Friends of Hillary. > > In other words, both of those employees would have been counted in the *Free > Beacon*tally, and both were paid less than the median in Clinton’s Senate > office, even though their combined salaries were much higher than the > median. > > On the other hand, Dan Schwerin, a system administrator/assistant to the > chief of staff, was not counted in the *Free Beacon* report, Scher said, > because disbursement records show he was not on the payroll from Nov. 2 to > Nov. 15, 2007 — even though his salary for the first half of the fiscal > year was $15,349 and $20,333 for the second. The Clinton campaign said > Schwerin took a brief unpaid leave of absence to help out on a House > campaign. > > Ornstein said this kind of movement is typical in Senate offices, > particularly if the senator is running for reelection or higher office. > Some full-time employees are permanently on the payroll year to year, but > others bounce back and forth. The better way to make pay comparisons, he > said, would be to look at the annual salaries adjusted for the amount of > the year someone worked. > > “You have to try to compare apples to apples and that is difficult to do, > but there is more sense in the way the Clinton people said to do this,” > Ornstein said. > > LegiStorm, a nonpartisan group that tracks congressional salaries, warns > on its website that the disbursement figures in the reports filed with the > secretary of the Senate do not represent annual salary figures. On its FAQ > page > <http://www.legistorm.com/salaries/faq.html#My_member_of_Congress_s_chief_of_staff_seems_to_be_making_only_a_few_thousand_dollars_each_quarter_How_can_that_be_>, > LegiStorm explains, “Because of fluctuations associated with things like > holiday bonuses or leaves of absence to work on political campaigns, annual > salaries must be calculated with great caution. Some staffers receive > additional non-taxpayer-paid income for political work they perform in > their free time.” > > According to the Hatch Act, federal employees like those in Clinton’s > Senate office are prohibited from engaging in partisan political activities > while they are working on government time. However, as the Congressional > Research Service <http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43630.pdf> explains, the > law allows “most federal employees to engage in a wide range of voluntary, > partisan political activities on their own off-duty time and away from the > federal workplace.” Indeed, as the *New York Times > <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/17/nyregion/ex-aides-to-torricelli-testify-about-pay-for-campaign-work.html> *noted > in 2001, “Virtually every member of Congress enlists government employees > to do some campaign work.” > > As the data show, heavy turnover in the office together with movement > between Senate and campaign staffs can make a big difference when comparing > salaries in Clinton’s Senate office. > > -- > Jesse Lehrich > Rapid Response > Hillary For America > 781-307-2254 > @JesseLehrich > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "HRCRapid" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to hrcrapid+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to hrcrapid@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "HRCRapid" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to hrcrapid+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to hrcrapid@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HRCRapid" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hrcrapid+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to hrcrapid@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HRCRapid" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hrcrapid+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to hrcrapid@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.