The prez needs a new pair of shoes
Golly, I don't know if I'm really allowed to air my opinions, especially when they are countered by the majority of people at a lunch table airing theirs, but what the fuck? I'm going to do it anyway. At least here, in my little blog, I will have the chance to formulate an opinion without being insulted.
The president of the USA makes quite enough money and there is no need to grant him a raise. He is currently making $400,000, to bring you up to date, after 30 years of making $200,000. Now, I don't object to periodically granting him a cost-of-living adjustment, but let's not forget that his cost-of-living is, oh, around $0.
You might, as some of my colleagues did, bring up the argument that being prez is a tough job and why should he make less than, say, a New York Yankee or Les Wexner? After all, the president shoulders enormous responsibility for 4 or 8 years and his life must be protected from the malicious intent of psychos trying to impress Hollywood royalty.
All true. But the president--unlike Derek Jeter and Les Wexner (local clothing-empire billionaire) is a public servant. His salary, pension, living quarters, transportation, etc. comes from the public sector.
Many bristle at the enormous salaries granted to those who make it to the top of the private sector--$20 million per action movie, $140 million severance packages for fleeting CEOs, $100,000 to walk down a runway. But I, for one, have no problem with this compensation because it is what the market will bear. If you don't want to be party to this, don't buy Calvin Klein or Aladdin on DVD. My only problem with it would be if this money was granted through illegal means that favor some over others, and I suspect some of it is, but there are other fires raging in my world.
I'm also quite sure that most people would agree that no one needs $30 billion (or whatever Bill Gates is worth now) to live comfortably. If we were to pay a president the same rate as a CEO, which CEO's salary do we choose? And does the president, or any human being, really need that kind of cash? Aren't there other types of compensation that come with the job?
There sure are. Unlike faceless CEOs and unsung linebackers, the president is, well, The President. The perks that come just from being president extend throughout the rest of his life. We do, after all, pay a nice pension to the prez--about $150,000 a year ($20,000 for the wives), a nice office, the start of a big library, etc. The price for everything that you do, speaking and writing in particular--go WAY up after you're prez. In a nutshell, you're set for life after just four years!
But perhaps the most coveted compensation comes in the form of immortality. Your library may look like I.M. Pei's attempt at a mobile home on stilts, but it's got your name on it, damnit. Not to mention that you go down in history as one of the very, VERY few people to hold the position of leader of the free world. You are immortalized. In a big way.
Hey--surprise! I'm a capitalist, too! If you want to go back to the market argument again, it makes absolutely no sense to raise the president's salary way out of line with all other elected officials and public servants because the current salary is what the (public) market will bear. Surely if GM cut their CEO's salary to $400,000 they would have problems, because the assumed "best and the brightest" would head straight to Ford, and GM would face a shortage of qualified applicants. Have we ever had a shortage of people who want to run for president? Will we ever? No? Then, obviously, these guys are in it for more than the money, though most of them--with Washington and Kennedy being the only exceptions--took it.
If we raised the salary, would more qualified applicants be added to the pool? Doubtful. Anyone wealthy enough to poo-poo the presidency because of the paltry $1.6 million and a free house (a pretty nice one, filled with food and servants and guards) is 1. rich enough already and 2. obviously not in it for ANY of the right reasons. Also, it's not going to pull more poor and middle class people into it because 1. $400,000 represents a significant salary increase for working stiffs like me and 2. let's face it--the pool is strictly member's only anyway (with the occasional fence-jumpers like Ralph and Ross).
So there you go. Argumente unfettere.
The president of the USA makes quite enough money and there is no need to grant him a raise. He is currently making $400,000, to bring you up to date, after 30 years of making $200,000. Now, I don't object to periodically granting him a cost-of-living adjustment, but let's not forget that his cost-of-living is, oh, around $0.
You might, as some of my colleagues did, bring up the argument that being prez is a tough job and why should he make less than, say, a New York Yankee or Les Wexner? After all, the president shoulders enormous responsibility for 4 or 8 years and his life must be protected from the malicious intent of psychos trying to impress Hollywood royalty.
All true. But the president--unlike Derek Jeter and Les Wexner (local clothing-empire billionaire) is a public servant. His salary, pension, living quarters, transportation, etc. comes from the public sector.
Many bristle at the enormous salaries granted to those who make it to the top of the private sector--$20 million per action movie, $140 million severance packages for fleeting CEOs, $100,000 to walk down a runway. But I, for one, have no problem with this compensation because it is what the market will bear. If you don't want to be party to this, don't buy Calvin Klein or Aladdin on DVD. My only problem with it would be if this money was granted through illegal means that favor some over others, and I suspect some of it is, but there are other fires raging in my world.
I'm also quite sure that most people would agree that no one needs $30 billion (or whatever Bill Gates is worth now) to live comfortably. If we were to pay a president the same rate as a CEO, which CEO's salary do we choose? And does the president, or any human being, really need that kind of cash? Aren't there other types of compensation that come with the job?
There sure are. Unlike faceless CEOs and unsung linebackers, the president is, well, The President. The perks that come just from being president extend throughout the rest of his life. We do, after all, pay a nice pension to the prez--about $150,000 a year ($20,000 for the wives), a nice office, the start of a big library, etc. The price for everything that you do, speaking and writing in particular--go WAY up after you're prez. In a nutshell, you're set for life after just four years!
But perhaps the most coveted compensation comes in the form of immortality. Your library may look like I.M. Pei's attempt at a mobile home on stilts, but it's got your name on it, damnit. Not to mention that you go down in history as one of the very, VERY few people to hold the position of leader of the free world. You are immortalized. In a big way.
Hey--surprise! I'm a capitalist, too! If you want to go back to the market argument again, it makes absolutely no sense to raise the president's salary way out of line with all other elected officials and public servants because the current salary is what the (public) market will bear. Surely if GM cut their CEO's salary to $400,000 they would have problems, because the assumed "best and the brightest" would head straight to Ford, and GM would face a shortage of qualified applicants. Have we ever had a shortage of people who want to run for president? Will we ever? No? Then, obviously, these guys are in it for more than the money, though most of them--with Washington and Kennedy being the only exceptions--took it.
If we raised the salary, would more qualified applicants be added to the pool? Doubtful. Anyone wealthy enough to poo-poo the presidency because of the paltry $1.6 million and a free house (a pretty nice one, filled with food and servants and guards) is 1. rich enough already and 2. obviously not in it for ANY of the right reasons. Also, it's not going to pull more poor and middle class people into it because 1. $400,000 represents a significant salary increase for working stiffs like me and 2. let's face it--the pool is strictly member's only anyway (with the occasional fence-jumpers like Ralph and Ross).
So there you go. Argumente unfettere.
posted by lulu | 10:21 AM
4 Comments:
I am glad that you are able to express your opinion and I think you make it very clearly.
Pardon me, however, if I disagree with your belief that you were not able to do so at lunch. I think you were able to make all of those points while you were there and I think that everyone gave you the opportunity to do so.
It is true that most of us did not agree with you opinion, but I do think your point was made. If I angered you by bringing up something else, it was only because I felt that everyone had said what they were going to say.
That was presumptious of me to assume you had said your peace, and for that I am sorry. It is probably true that I did it in a tactless manner and I apologize for doing that as well.
I wanted to echo Burb's sentiments that I thought you, and everyone else who wanted to, got their point out there. I know it is tough when you are the sole person voicing an opinion among a group of people, but I hope that those of us who disagreed with you didn't stomp on you. That was never my intention. I think that debate (some might call it arguing) is a neccessary tool for people to learn from one another. And it ain't always pretty. Of course, the masochistic side of me likes the temper-flaring and anger-inducing state which such debate brings about. But I will try to suppress his desire to do evil.
Getting on to the topic at hand: I have stated that I disagree with you on the presidential payment issue. I do, however, think that the arguments you make are valid. I just happen to see it differently. I think that the sacrifices made, pressures dealt with, and scrutiny faced are so extreme that whoever is president should be compensated very, very generously. The amount of responsibility that the position entails is unimaginable. And I think that the president should be paid accordingly. I cannot give a sum of money that I think he should be paid, but I would have no problem giving the man $1 million or more.
This is a man (or, hopefully a woman one day) who works for 4 to 8 years in a job, with an endless list of tasks, demands, and unpleseant duties. I don't want any schmo from the street taking over that position, so why should we pay him like some schmo from the street? I want the smartest, wisest, best person for the job. And will pay them the most that I can in order to do it. The stuff they get after their term is over is another issue. Speaking fees, books, etc. don't come until after those 4-8 years are up. And that's when we cut them off. No support beyond the term is needed. They'll be fine on their own.
But while they are president, we should pay them what they deserve.
I appreciate your sentiments and value your opinions, too, dear anonymous (I KNOW who you are! : )
But I must say...are you hiding more than your name, dear reader? Are you a trust fund kid working here because you're going to be playing an editor in an upcoming film? If $1.6 million is "schmo" money, then I want to be a schmo. Badly.
Secondly, I share your wish for outstanding leaders, but the problem lies with getting them there--not the amount they're paid once there. For the most part, especially in modern times, the people who get there are already wealthy and the salary is no doubt an after-thought to them, as it should be. If they were from a more modest background, like Truman, I'm sure they would look upon $1.6 million favorably.
The piece of compensation that I neglected to mention, and that would trump the money (even for a slightly lower middle-class gal like me) is the influence. You can't put a dollar amount of that. Well, you can--ask a lobbyist or a corporation. But my point is this--can you imagine how totally awesome it would be to craft and call the shots on the issues that are near and dear to your heart? Priceless.
One last thing--does anyone know of a source that compiles the reasons that presidents want to be presidents?
Consider the millions of dollars--or hundreds of millions--that the candidates and their supporters spend to get into the White House. Obviously, once again, money is not the issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home