President Obama returns 5% of his salary. Good idea or not?

Great Debates
1

Fairly unbiased report here.

Was this a good idea or a silly publicity stunt?

I have to go with “silly”. The President’s salary is $400k plus he lives in a pretty nice house rent free. His travel is paid for wherever he goes and he has a nice expense account as well. This gesture to show solidarity with the average federal employee probably won’t work. I know it wouldn’t if I were a federal employee.

As the Washington Post blog points out, it brings to mind Anatole France’s quote that:

I voted for him and would again if he were eligible but I thought that he was above pointless political gestures.

2

I’d say good if he gave up 5% of his total allotment to be spent, now that would be something but meh 5% of his salary is nothing.

3

I only slightly silly. It’s sort of an anti-silly inoculation. If he didn’t do it, surely there would be people complaining that he wasn’t affected by sequestration.

So it’s part silly, meaningless gesture, and part prophylactic anti-silliness. But we both agree that it’s totally meaningless in terms of the budget.

4

I think it’s meant to be meaningful and we should take it for that. It’s too easy to find fault with everything a high-profile, divisive figure does. I’ll put it in the “not terribly useful but well-intended” category and move on.

Irrespective of party, policies or personalia, I don’t think we can pay Presidents enough for the job. Yes, they get a permanent place in history and a pretty cushy ride for four to eight years, and after, but compare any two photos of a starting and retiring Prez and tell me it’s worth it.

5

Hell, compare the annual compensation of “the average Fortune 1000 CEO” and “the leader of the United States”, and tell me we pay the president enough to attract the best candidates.

6

I don’t think the salary makes any difference to the truly worthy candidates. We wouldn’t get anything better by paying them, say, $1M a year, nor anything worse if it was $100k a year for life.

7

This. It’s a nice gesture but not a big one. Note also that Hagel and someone else at DoD whose name slips my mind at the moment are both giving money back too (and did so first).

I do think it’s ridiculous to call it an “insult” though, and anyone doing so is clearly looking for reasons to find fault.

8

Compare the performance of the average Fortune 500 CEO, and I’d say it’s a good thing we’re not paying enough to attract the worst candidates.

9

Mitt Romney didn’t take any salary as governor of Massachusetts. So? He’s rich and it wasn’t any real sacrifice. I certainly don’t condemnd him for the symbolic gesture, but I don’t see any reason to praise him for it, either.

Same with Obama. If he wanted to make some kind of small gesture to show that “we ALL have to tighten our belts and scrifice a little,” swell. I just don’t take the gesture seriously.

10

It’s a no win situation. It’s his money. It’s his sequester. President is one of the few constitutional offices we do not grossly overpay, as he is on call 24/7 and a virtual prisoner of the secret service, albeit a guilded cage of his own choice. If he doesn’t, he is a hypocrite, if he does, it is grandstanding.

11

I agree with this.

I voted against Obama twice and think that his presidency has been a failure in most respects.

12

He isn’t tightening his belt, he is pouring off a few drops of cream from his golden pitcher full. Maybe the other government employees who get to set their own salaries will be shamed into tightening their belts a little, like they are asking of others. Maybe.

13

Stupid publicity stunt. Considering that his multiple vacations/shopping trips/kids excursions have cost the taxpayers $1.4 billion to date, its pretty meaningless. How about this: every Federal employee takes a 5% pay cut? That wold make too much sense.

14

Well, 800k DoD civilian employees ARE taking a roughly 5% pay cut this year.

15

If the reaction of my Fox News watching mother is any indication, the gesture will be greeted only with derision.

16

Publicity stunt, but a *smart *publicity stunt.

There are two ways the GOP can respond:

  1. “Only five percent? That’s nothing!”
    -"Then why are you making a big deal out of raising taxes on the rich by only 3%?

  2. “We applaud this token effort.”
    -“So when are you guys going to do the same?”

Of course, the third way is to ignore it as much as they possibly can.

17

Cite on that, preferably broken out from baseline costs that would be the same whether he was in Nassau or the Oval Office?

No question that allowing such a high-profile figure any freedom of movement is expensive, but a quarter billion a year or so seems just a tad inflated.

18

Don’t let Michelle Bachmann write your talking points. She makes shit up.

19

I am not a big fan of Obama but I’d like to see more politicians taking a pay cut. Thumbs up for me even if it’s a small gesture.

20

Which is getting at the real issue. The hope is that him, Hagel, Kerry, and a few others taking a voluntary pay cut will highlight the absurdity of excluding executive and confessional salaries from being cut when congress does across the board cuts. Even though many politicians are rich enough to not worry about their government salary being cut, many of the aren’t. Those people, on both sides of the aisle, would think harder about cutting salaries or forgoing pay if they knew they would be affected in a similar fashion. If they knew the cutbacks would require them to cut staffers and office budgets, fewer of them would be advocating them.