The news outlets have all been reporting that President Obama has signed an Executive Order instituting a pay freeze on senior White House staff making more than $100K/year. I have heard two or three cable news talking heads describe it as a “pay cut” (well, no actually) and speculating that the staffers affected might be taken aback that they are starting their new jobs today after having been told their salaries are locked. I know the news folks are trying to create a sense of drama for better headlines, but it got me wondering.
I think that being asked to serve the country at the pleasure of the President is a tremendous honour, and that as long as they are getting paid enough to cover their living expenses, it really shouldn’t be an issue. And $100 000 is a lot of food and rent. I’d work for those peanuts!
But what do you think? Is over $100 000 per year enough to compensate folks for working in the West Wing? Is the thought of doing that work for that money with no chance of a raise for 4 years fair? Unfair? An insult?
If the economy lifts then Obama can waive the Executive Order. If it doesn’t, then they should be happy to have a (low) six figure job. Our CEO sent issued a survey lately to ask whether we preferred they cut staffing, cut wages, removed bonuses or one other not so fun option that I don’t recall. None of them were pleasant. Some combination of the lot may be necessary in the end.
I can’t recall the exact phrase, but he didn’t specify that it was for four years - he said something like for as long as the economy was in crisis.
I think he said, too, that they had agreed to this, so I imagine that he spoke to them privately and secured that agreement before making this announcement.
There are quite a few folks out there who are in a pay freeze situation. I’m also hearing about companies making their staff take pay cuts. Because the alternative is to lose your job completely.
It totally sucks, and I’d be pissed if it happened to me, but it seems like a sign of the times, to be frank.
The President does not control the amount of his own remuneration, and the Constitution specifically forbids either raising or decreasing the President’s salary during his administration. The last Presidential pay raise was approved by Bill Clinton and Congress in 1999, but the raise itself had to wait until Bush took office in 2001.
Incidentally, based on actual purchasing power, the period since the 1980s has seen the lowest Presidential pay in American history.
It looks to me like a ‘unity’ act; ‘we are all in this together’ and all that. A lot of Americans right now are being asked to take a pay freeze or even a pay cut, the alternative being just flat out being unemployed. This (IMHO) is Obama’s effort at saying “Hey, we’re all in this together”. But he didn’t hit the White House staff that would be hardest hit (i.e. the ones in lower income brackets).
If you ask me, it’s a good move, financially and politically.
Here’s the story. (About halfway through the article.) The freeze freezes salaries above $100K to their current levels - it does not cut everyone to $100K. Given the state of the economy, and the deficit, that seems eminently reasonable. Stopping the secrecy is even better than reasonable.
It’s funny though, I thought that Congress determined who makes what. Unless they just allocate payroll funds to the White House and the people there decide how to allocate it. I’m guessing that’s how it’s done.
Anyway, as for the OP, since it’s just a symbolic gesture I don’t have any feelings about it one way or another, but if the people taking the freeze are OK with it, and it makes the general public happy, then it’s all good.