Meh, symbolic gesture, like The Second Stone says, he pretty much HAS to make it and he pretty much knows he can’t win for losing over it.
Nobody sets their own salary, the Prez and various other officials are renouncing a part of their statutorily fixed salaries, as can anyone in the exempt service. OTOH the elected officials (and judiciary) cannot have their salary cut administratively, i.e. John Boehner cannot just cut Nydia Velazquez’ salary, there would have to be a specific vote of Congress to cut their base pay across the board (BTW since 2008 the Congress has voted in more than one ocassion to not receive their COLAs), and that’s a good way to handle it.
That sounds more like the yearly figure for the whole presidential budget, including security…and I’m betting Bush’s price tag was just about the same. If Obama has only cost us $1.4 billion to date, then we are getting him for quite a bargain I’d say!
As for the OP, was it a good idea from a political standpoint or was it just a good idea? The amount is laughable from the perspective of the budget…hell, his entire salary is only a drop in the budget from the white houses annual budget, so if he gave it ALL back it would not even be 1% of THAT budget. From a political standpoint, though, I think it will be seen as a symbolic gesture, and whether you like it or not is going to mostly depend on whether you like Obama or not. Personally, I think it will resonate with some of the federal workers who are taking similar pay cuts. It’s nice to see the upper management feeling at least symbolic pain when we do (I’m a state employee, but we haven’t gotten raises in several years now), and the suggestion by some here that if they are going to cut public sector employees salaries or benefits that our elected officials get similar cuts I think would be a good idea. They would at least symbolically see the effect and understand that, while sometimes you have to make sacrifices, that it’s not just the faceless citizens who have to make them, but that their decisions directly effect them as well.
The salaries of elected officials and various political appointees are not subject to sequestration, but the salaries of all those who work under them are. That’s why Obama, the Secretary of Defense, and others are voluntarily giving up their salaries. I haven’t really heard of members of Congress who are giving up their pay, though.
The compensation of the President cannot be changed during the term for which he was elected.
Same for Congress.
Several years ago Congress passed a law allowing for a COLA adjustment to Congressional salaries unless the Congress takes action to vote down a COLA.
So the only option the President and Congress have is to voluntarily refuse some portion of their salaries. Even if they passed a law to cut salaries it could not take effect until after the next respective election.
Staffer salaries are not given such constitutional protections and so can be subjected to sequester cuts.
It’s a publicity stunt, but it’s one he has to do. If he does it, it’s criticized as a meaningless publicity stunt. If he doesn’t do it, he’s criticized for not taking the cuts that the rest of the government is going through. Given a choice between being accused of making a meaningless gesture and being a hypocrite, the former is an easier accusation to deal with. I suppose he could be criticized for not giving up more or even all of his salary but the difference in the budget is small, and if he’d given up most or all of it they’d criticize him just the same since he doesn’t need the money anyway. The fact that he’s giving any back is the part that matters. And, really, I just don’t see how it holds much water to say he’s selfish for only voluntarily giving up so much of his own money.
I suspect his intention was to try to find the appropriate amount to minimize making any issue of it either way. His personal finances really shouldn’t matter when discussing the budget.
