That’s the implication in a Washington Post story by Dana Milbank about a leaked list of salaries earned by high-level White House employees. The paragraph in question reads as follows:

“The list, as of June 12, has its share of surprises. The lowest paid of the 431 in the non-career “White House Office” (a collection of mostly political appointees and staff on loan from other agencies) is James A. Baker III, who as President Bush’s envoy in search of Iraqi debt relief, has declined a salary. At the other extreme is Stephen Friedman, Bush’s top economic adviser who, despite a net worth in the tens of millions, collects a government salary of $157,000.”

Don’t know about you, but I clearly detect snide commentary by Milbank, as if somehow Mr. Friedman should go through life handing out his expertise for free. After all, it seems, Friedman’s got his and that’s not “fair” to those who view success as something to bash and envy rather than praise and emulate. I wonder if Mr. Milbank “deserves” his salary?

The story’s headline also contains fodder for the feminists: “Leaked Salary List Shows Bush’s Highest-Paid Staff is Mostly Male.” True enough. The story says 12 of the 17 are men. However, when it comes to pay disparities, we’ll see if the feminists read down to the fourth paragraph to find this important detail about who’s getting paid what and why in the White House:

“At the White House, the gap has nothing to do with wage discrimination. Women and men with similar titles receive similar pay.”