RSS Feed MenuOne reason President Obama had a good week last week was his order that White House staffers making above $100,000 per year will have their pay frozen (or at least their cost of living increases frozen; check back in 2011 for an update). As the President said, “During this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington.” But after checking memories with some Bush 43 hands, another explanation has perhaps emerged.
Let’s review. Derek Kravitz’ blog at washingtonpost.com shows that the government will save a whopping $443,000 next year from a gesture that CBS Radio rightly described as “symbolic.” Kravitz wittily notes that this is the exact amount that a unit of bailed-out American International Group paid for a spa retreat for executives last September. So that’s settled. (Actually, the government didn’t pay for the spa retreat, but who’s checking?) If you prefer, think of the $443,000 as paying for a few minutes of the war in Iraq; “this blast of firepower brought to you courtesy of Robert Gibbs.”
Aside from the gesture of solidarity, here’s the real story or at least part of it: President Bush and his Chief of Staff Andy Card did essentially the same thing in 2001 when they reduced the salaries of White House commissioned officers to levels last seen when Bush 41 was President. Because there is a cap on pay for senior executives, they reasoned, we want to leave some room for merit and cost-of-living increases. After all, we’re going to be here for eight years, right?
The real test will come when the Obama Administration will have to decide on cost-of-living increases for the civil service. The American Federation of Government Employees endorsed Obama on May 9, when the Democratic primary battle was still technically underway, while the National Treasury Employees Union waited until June 5, after the knockout Indiana primary. Don’t expect to see much belt-tightening, or as a last resort, don’t expect Congress to go along. So “Washington” won’t be tightening its collective belt, just a few White House staffers. But not the President or Vice President, whose salaries are set by statute. [Of course, nothing stops the President or Vice President from donating the amount above $100,000 to charity.]
When asked why he made more money than President Hoover, Babe Ruth famously replied that “I had a better year than he did.” As to the White House staff, we’ll see.
On the other hand, if the First Lady is serious about making military family life an emphasis of her activities, she’ll come to understand that the military needs a sharp pay increase. And that will be money well spent if the President is to achieve his goals to expand the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by 27,000 Marines. Even in a time of rising unemployment, when military service may seem an increasingly attractive option, our men and women in uniform, particularly in the enlisted ranks, deserve far better pay than what they get.
coleman // Jan 27, 2009 at 1:34 pm
It is only fair that almost everyone feels the pain when the country’s economy is tanking, because almost everyone benefits when the country is flush with cash. The pain shouldn’t be distributed equally (i.e., “equal” only exists in theory) – that’s where the politics does and should come in. But for sure, the first people to have their salaries, benefits and bonuses frozen should be those who are paid by the taxpayer: All elected officials, and all federal, state, and local employees, as well as all members of the military.
If you are paid by the taxpayer, you should suffer along with the rest of us. Again, not equally, but as determined by elected officials.
sinz54 // Jan 27, 2009 at 7:15 pm
In this deflationary recession we’ve gotten ourselves into, the inflation rate is bound to be tiny or even nonexistent. (The annualized inflation rate in December 2008 was a remarkably low 0.09%!!!) So any rise in the cost of living is bound to be tiny or even nonexistent. Hence one would expect any cost of living wage increases granted to the AFGE or anyone else in America for the cost of living increases in 2009 to be very tiny.
agbiggs // Jan 28, 2009 at 10:04 am
An anecdote on White House pay: in 2005 I was a mid-level political appointee to the Social Security Administration (a lower tier SES, for those who follow the federal pay grade). I was detailed to the White House to work on Social Security reform, but continued to be paid as an SSA employee. Later, the National Journal came out with annual data on who was paid what within the White House. There were only 2 or 3 White House staff making more than I did. Even before Obama’s pay cut plan, White House jobs paid well less than in federal agencies.
While it’s a nice gimmick to cut White House pay, these are skilled and incredibly hard working people who have a lot of options other than working in government. There’s no reason these folks’ salaries should be limited to what a civil service GS-13 might earn.