I was checking out a web page that talked about the different types of rhetoric used in campaigns and noticed one missing. The false premise. As in "It’s a well known fact females make 20% less then men because of sexual discrimination and we will change that" It is a statement made on a false assumption and one I have seen Democrats try to use over and over here in Tennessee.
Romney didnt call them out in the debate (I suspect for lack of time and for fear he may look insensitive) but if you truly want to look at the numbers there are several factors used that that make up the decreased pay rate for females and it's not just discrimination. It is not an apples to apples comparison. If it were the only factor woman would have a good reason to sue Obama as the female Obama staffers make 18% less then their male counterparts in similar positions under Obama.
Most studies show other, more likely, causes of the pay disparity. In short the 19% number does not take into account several factors. The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked, as long as it qualifies as full-time work for the calculation. While some % of discrimination may be a factor, most of that number is weeded out in more complete studies. Most studies suggest up to or around a possible 5% of pay discrepancy is based on possible discrimination. Of course that is not a solid number, it is just unaccounted for in the other factors I mentioned.
In fact, only 35 people have ever even sued under the Lilly Ledbetter act since 2009 when Obama pushed it out. Does that make it a national issue that needs more action?