Obama freezes salaries of some White House aides

[angel_luv]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_executive_pay


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's first public act in office Wednesday was to institute new limits on lobbyists in his White House and to freeze the salaries of high-paid aides, in a nod to the country's economic turmoil.

Announcing the moves while attending a ceremony in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building to swear in his staff, Obama said the steps "represent a clean break from business as usual."

The pay freeze, first reported by The Associated Press, would hold salaries at their current levels for the roughly 100 White House employees who make over $100,000 a year. "Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington," said the new president, taking office amid startlingly bad economic times that many fear will grow worse.

Those affected by the freeze include the high-profile jobs of White House chief of staff, national security adviser and press secretary. Other aides who work in relative anonymity also would fit into that cap if Obama follows a structure similar to the one George W. Bush set up.

Obama's new lobbying rules will not only ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted.

The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any size to any member of his administration. It wasn't immediately clear whether the ban would include the traditional "previous relationships" clause, allowing gifts from friends or associates with which an employee comes in with strong ties.

The new rules also require that anyone who leaves his administration is not allowed to try to influence former friends and colleagues for at least two years. Obama is requiring all staff to attend to an ethics briefing like one he said he attended last week.

Obama called the rules tighter "than under any other administration in history." They followed pledges during his campaign to be strict about the influence of lobbyist in his White House.

"The new rules on lobbying alone, no matter how tough, are not enough to fix a broken system in Washington," he said. "That's why I'm also setting rules that govern not just lobbyists but all those who have been selected to serve in my administration."

In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.

Just because a government agency has the legal power to keep information private does not mean that it should, Obama said. Reporters and public-interest groups often make use of the law to explore how and why government decisions were made; they are often stymied as agencies claim legal exemptions to the law.

"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city," Obama said.

He said the orders he was issuing Wednesday will not "make government as honest and transparent as it needs to be" nor go as far as he would like.

"But these historic measures do mark the beginning of a new era of openness in our country," Obama said. "And I will, I hope, do something to make government trustworthy in the eyes of the American people, in the days and weeks, months and years to come."

[Wild Cobra]

Yep, heard that on the radio a few hours ago. No change for the economy. Nothing more but a token act.

I forget. Does that include his salary? I think it was only his staff!

[Wild Cobra]

By the way. There is nothing historic about it. Other presidents have done the same thing.

[SnakeBoy]

I saw him this morning and I have to say I liked what he's doing. Then I remembered that the antichrist will work hard to get us over to his side before he reveals himself.

Note to self: Must resist the temptations of the antichrist.

[FreeMason]

I forget. Does that include his salary? I think it was only his staff!

400K a year is pennies compared to what he will make @ college speeches/media functions/etc after this smoke and mirrors tap dance is over.

Not to mention his wife has already been making 400k a year for a couple years now.

The real question is will he actually start to give to charity or just continue do as I sayin' and not as I doin'.

[angel_luv]

That's all the president makes???

NBA players salaries are so ridiculous.

[Wild Cobra]

The real question is will he actually start to give to charity or just continue do as I sayin' and not as I doin'.

I know. Liberals are such a joke where charity is concerned. I give well over $2k each year, and I have a fraction of his income.

[Wild Cobra]

That's all the president makes???

NBA players salaries are so ridiculous.

The beauty of a free market supply and demand.

I don't think it's unfair, do you?

[angel_luv]

The beauty of a free market supply and demand.

I don't think it's unfair, do you?

I think it is a sad indication of our nation's priorities and values that NBA players are making such large sums of money, when public servants-teachers, firefighters, police etc make so little in comparison.

As for the president, seems like he should make more money than anyone, seeing as he has the most important job in the country.

[Wild Cobra]

I think it is a sad indication of our nation's priorities and values that NBA players are making such large sums of money, when public servants-teachers, firefighters, police etc make so little in comparison.

As for the president, seems like he should make more money than anyone, seeing as he has the most important job in the country.
If the president did make more, maybe the job would attract real professional executives. As it stands, only the truly patriotic or those who want to milk the office run for it.

[angel_luv]

Well since we vote in the president, we get to choose who gets that salary.
I am okay with that.

[FreeMason]

Obama will make millions and millions and millions. He just won't start to hit 100mil status until he retires.

If he partna's up with some Saudis', the possibilities are limitless :lol

[angel_luv]

What sort of retirement packages do presidents get?

[ratm1221]

The beauty of a free market supply and demand.

I don't think it's unfair, do you?

It's Social Darwinism. That puts NBA and NFL thugs on a god level and makes you (yes, you) a piece of shit. Nice huh? Hopefully all that money Terrell Owens makes will trickle down to us some day.

[Wild Cobra]

It's Social Darwinism. That puts NBA and NFL thugs on a god level and makes you (yes, you) a piece of shit. Nice huh? Hopefully all that money Terrell Owens makes will trickle down to us some day.
I'm sorry you think that wealth is a measurement of quality.

You are truly pathetic.

[FreeMason]

They provide entertainment.

Entertainment brings in attention.

Corporations use that attention as a tool to market and sell their products.

Athletes are only receiving a portion of the gross amount they help create.

There is nothing evil about it. Except if you are a p.o.s. like Marbury.

[Wild Cobra]

What sort of retirement packages do presidents get?
I don't know except that they can live off us tax payers for the rest of their lives pretty good.

Retirement, percentage of pay I don't know. Probably 100%.

Full health care

Secret Service protection

More I'm sure, but I'm not going to bother looking it up.

[Wild Cobra]

They provide entertainment.

Entertainment brings in attention.

Corporations use that attention as a tool to market and sell their products.

Athletes are only receiving a portion of the gross amount they help create.

There is nothing evil about it.
Very true. If the money wasn't there in the free market, they couldn't make that much.

[fyatuk]

I know. Liberals are such a joke where charity is concerned. I give well over $2k each year, and I have a fraction of his income.

0.5% of my salary goes to charity, but I don't give it. My employer requires it. I give a little more here and there, but really can't afford to donate money and don't care enough to donate time.

[Shastafarian]

I don't know except that they can live off us tax payers for the rest of their lives pretty good.

Retirement, percentage of pay I don't know. Probably 100%.

Full health care

Secret Service protection

More I'm sure, but I'm not going to bother looking it up.

Like we came to expect anything else from you :lol

[doobs]

Capitalism sucks!

But seriously, some people are just more productive than others. You and I and everyone else spends money on things like basketball shoes and tickets to games, and we watch sports on TV. Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant and LeBron James deserve every penny they make. They earn it, man.

Do I know people who work a lot harder than those guys? Of course I do. Do I think they deserve to earn NBA star salaries? No. Is that fair? Yes, because working hard is not nearly as important as actually being productive, or meeting a market demand, or providing a useful product or service. NBA stars are incredibly productive entertainers. You have no one to blame but yourself for their fortunes.

Obama is a government employee who makes a salary determined by law, not the free market. He will get plenty of compensation in the future, so I wouldn't worry about him. (Look at Bill Clinton--the man was broke in 2000, and now he's worth a boatload of money.)

Anyway, this is a token gesture. Frankly, it has the potential of doing more harm than good: it's an insignificant drop in the federal budget--scalpel, anyone?--but Obama needs a happy and competent White House staff to do his job.

[Wild Cobra]

0.5% of my salary goes to charity, but I don't give it. My employer requires it. I give a little more here and there, but really can't afford to donate money and don't care enough to donate time.
I hear you. There are few causes that I would volunteer my time for. That's more valuable to me than a few thousand dollars. Still, I have $70 every two weeks going to two charities through CFC. As a payroll deduction, I don't miss it. I then give as I can to other causes on an impulse basis.

Now I don't agree with a mandatory deduction, but at least it's small.

[fyatuk]

I don't know except that they can live off us tax payers for the rest of their lives pretty good.

Retirement, percentage of pay I don't know. Probably 100%.

Full health care

Secret Service protection

More I'm sure, but I'm not going to bother looking it up.

The pension is equivalent to that of cabinet secretary (Bush's is apparently $196,700), as well as an allowance for an office, staff, travel, etc for at least a few years, and secret service protection for only 10 (starting with Clinton, this is no longer a lifetime benefit).

Clinton's pension + benefits for 2006 was about $1.1 million.

[jack sommerset]

What does this mean? A 100 people that make over $100,000.00 won't get raises today?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I know. Liberals are such a joke where charity is concerned. I give well over $2k each year, and I have a fraction of his income.

My charity dick is larger than your charity dick. Embrace me as the most charitable.

[FromWayDowntown]

I forget. Does that include his salary? I think it was only his staff!

The President's salary is determined by Congress (3 USC s. 102). Obama can't do anything about changing what he is paid; only Congress can do that. The salaries of his staff are a matter of executive branch budgeting, which is, therefore, within the power of the President.

Wild Cobra is basically ridiculing Obama for adhering to the law.

[Bartleby]

I give well over $2k each year, and I have a fraction of his income.

You are truly a beautiful person. Thank you for making the world a better place.

[Mr. Peabody]

The President's salary is determined by Congress (3 USC s. 102). Obama can't do anything about changing what he is paid; only Congress can do that. The salaries of his staff are a matter of executive branch budgeting, which is, therefore, within the power of the President.

Wild Cobra is basically ridiculing Obama for adhering to the law.

Oh, you and your "facts" and "logic" and "law" . . . always getting in the way of a Limbaugh-esque argument.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[Cry Havoc]

Oh, you and your "facts" and "logic" and "law" . . . always getting in the way of a Limbaugh-esque argument.

:lmao

Damn him and his non-kneejerk reactions to things! :lol

[baseline bum]

I think it is a sad indication of our nation's priorities and values that NBA players are making such large sums of money, when public servants-teachers, firefighters, police etc make so little in comparison.

As for the president, seems like he should make more money than anyone, seeing as he has the most important job in the country.

Do you also think it's sad that people would rather pay $100 to go to a basketball game instead of buying a $5 meal for a homeless person?

[Wild Cobra]

The President's salary is determined by Congress (3 USC s. 102). Obama can't do anything about changing what he is paid; only Congress can do that. The salaries of his staff are a matter of executive branch budgeting, which is, therefore, within the power of the President.

Wild Cobra is basically ridiculing Obama for adhering to the law.
Actually, I'm ridiculing the Idea that these salary cuts do anything important. It's a joke. Do we really want to cut peoples wages when we want them to spend more and grow the economy?

[ChumpDumper]

You want his staff to all get raises?

[Wild Cobra]

You want his staff to all get raises?

I don't care if they do or not actually. All the pay freeze does is pander to the ignorant in my view. Besides, when based on COLA, they wouldn't be much anyway this year.

I never read the announcement. Does it say when it starts and ends? Anyone? Could it be there wouldn't be a pay increase for the next cycle anyway due to the lack of economic growth?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't care if they do or not actually.Which is why you are chiming in here.


I never read the announcement:lol All the more reason for you to comment.

[MannyIsGod]

Capitalism sucks!

But seriously, some people are just more productive than others. You and I and everyone else spends money on things like basketball shoes and tickets to games, and we watch sports on TV. Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant and LeBron James deserve every penny they make. They earn it, man.

Do I know people who work a lot harder than those guys? Of course I do. Do I think they deserve to earn NBA star salaries? No. Is that fair? Yes, because working hard is not nearly as important as actually being productive, or meeting a market demand, or providing a useful product or service. NBA stars are incredibly productive entertainers. You have no one to blame but yourself for their fortunes.

Obama is a government employee who makes a salary determined by law, not the free market. He will get plenty of compensation in the future, so I wouldn't worry about him. (Look at Bill Clinton--the man was broke in 2000, and now he's worth a boatload of money.)

Anyway, this is a token gesture. Frankly, it has the potential of doing more harm than good: it's an insignificant drop in the federal budget--scalpel, anyone?--but Obama needs a happy and competent White House staff to do his job.

People take White House jobs for the money?

[whottt]

What sort of retirement packages do presidents get?

They get a pension that increases annually for the rest of their lives....W's pension will start at 200k per year.

They also get the offices of their choice paid for.

I believe they get paid travel expenses(and transportation), a full staff, and a secret service squad for the rest of their lives.

I don't think the secret service protection is negotiable either.

2 term Presidents get full health care for the rest of their lives...1 term Presidents do not.

They added most of this stuff(like the pension) in the late 50's after a couple of ex Presidents strugged financially after leaving office.

Basically, they'll never be destitute, homeless or unprotected and thus an embarrasment to the country.

Add it all up and it's basically the same thing as being filthy rich even though the pure dollar amount in their pension isn't that great to begin with.

I believe they also get a nice house out of the deal if they want but I'm not absolutely certain.

[balli]

I believe they get paid travel expenses(and transportation), a full staff, and a secret service squad for the rest of their lives.

I don't think the secret service protection is negotiable either.
Bush II is the first ex-president who doesn't get secret service for the rest of his life. Only 10 years.

[Winehole23]

Bush II is the first ex-president who doesn't get secret service for the rest of his life. Only 10 years.I heard it ended with Clinton, but you could be right.

[whottt]

And ironically enough, W is the President that will likely need that protection the most for the rest of his life.

[Winehole23]

I have a feeling he can afford the henchmen. He'll be what, 73 by then?

[Winehole23]

I'll go out on a limb and predict he'll not be killed. He'll be allowed to vanish into the obscurity and irrelevance that await all politicians at the end of their service. He'll enjoy it, and so will America.

[whottt]

I'll go out on a limb and predict he'll not be killed. He'll be allowed to lapse into the obscurity and irrelevance that await all politicians at the end of their service. He'll enjoy it, and so will America.

Without a doubt, he will never be obscure or forgotten to Saddam's relatives, descendants and loyalists. They will want his death...and he won't be just another ex-President to them.

[Winehole23]

Without a doubt, he will never be obscure or forgotten to Saddam's relatives, descendants and loyalists. They will want his death...and he won't be just another ex-President to them.And they will fail. They'll never get near him.

[baseline bum]

Bush II is the first ex-president who doesn't get secret service for the rest of his life. Only 10 years.

10 years? As much as I can't stand Bush, it would be devastating to the nation to lose a president.

[Winehole23]

If evident threats against Bush persist, perhaps a special appropriation can be made to provide a security detail for his dotage. You reap what you sow.


I haven't heard Bush say word one about it yet.

[whottt]

And they will fail. They'll never get near him.

Yeah but the point is, he's not just going to have some deranged local fantatic or pissed off Democrat wanting to kill him

He's got blood enemies from a royal family and an entire political movement and is viewed as directly responsible for the death of their leader and their fall from power, from a culture whose creed is an eye for an eye. And they aren't noted for the ease with which they forgive, or forget, either.

He doesn't just have the typical hazzards of an ex-President...he's got a group of commited and unforgiving people with most likely a great deal of money still...wanting to kill him, and he will for the rest of his life.

So I don't think his sitution is typical of the average President...I think the threats to his life are greater and much more real, which is why it's ironic that he won't have the same security.

[Winehole23]

The war was catastrophic for Iraq. And it was totally unnecessary at the time we undertook it. Saddam wasn't going to live forever.

[Winehole23]

And his political party might not have outlasted him.

[Winehole23]

Like Fidel Castro in Cuba. Without the anchor, the movement will drift away.

[whottt]

The war was catastrophic for Iraq. And it was totally unnecessary at the time we undertook it. Saddam wasn't going to live forever.

Whether that's true or not...it is not in any way indicative of the Saddamites/baathists level of commitment to seeing him dead now.

[whottt]

And his political party might not have outlasted him.

His political party is the Baathists....they aren't just limited to Iraq.


And Fidel has nothing on the Arabs...but for all we know Fidel successfully assassinated a sitting American President in retaliation for an attempted coup and threats of assassination...so I'm glad you mentioned him.

[Winehole23]

His political party is the Baathists....they aren't just limited to Iraq.


And Fidel has nothing on the Arabs...but for all we know Fidel successfully assassinated a sitting American President in retaliation for an attempted coup and threats of assassination...so I'm glad you mentioned him.Huh?

Castro killed Kennedy? Is this common knowledge now? I never got the memo.



Link, please?

[whottt]

Huh?

Castro killed Kennedy? Is this common knowledge now? I never got the memo.



Link, please?


Ok I'll play...who killed Kennedy?

[Winehole23]

I'm agnostic. Never studied it. Does watching the Manchurian Candidate (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056218/) count?


I don't know, Lee Harvey, unassisted. Prove me wrong.

[whottt]

I'm agnostic. Never studied it. Does watching the Manchurian Candidate (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056218/) count?


I don't know, Lee Harvey, unassisted. Prove me wrong.


Lee Harvey Oswald was a Castro sympathizer and attempted to defect to Cuba just shortly before John F Kennedy was assasinated...this is easily provable, and well documented many times over....

Those loyalists...they're a dedicated bunch and don't take kindly to Presidents who attempt to get rid of their leaders...but most of them have nothing on the Arabs when it comes to dedication.

So like I was saying...thanks for bringing Castro up.

PS: Saddam himself probably won't be an active participant on any assassination attempts on W...but that doesn't mean he won't be the cause of them.

[fyatuk]

I heard it ended with Clinton, but you could be right.

That's what I initially thought to, but I misread the stupid thing. It started with any president initially elected after 1997 (IIRC), which so far is Bush II and Obama.