Reply With Quote
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!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/..._executive_pay
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's first public act in office Wednesday was to ins ute 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."
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!
By the way. There is nothing historic about it. Other presidents have done the same thing.
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.
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'.
That's all the president makes???
NBA players salaries are so ridiculous.
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.
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.
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.
Well since we vote in the president, we get to choose who gets that salary.
I am okay with that.
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
What sort of retirement packages do presidents get?
It's Social Darwinism. That puts NBA and NFL thugs on a god level and makes you (yes, you) a piece of . 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.
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.
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.
Very true. If the money wasn't there in the free market, they couldn't make that much.
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.
Like we came to expect anything else from you
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.
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.
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.
What does this mean? A 100 people that make over $100,000.00 won't get raises today?
My charity is larger than your charity . Embrace me as the most charitable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
