“Nonsense. If government posts were unpaid, only the wealthy could afford to be involved. Which is exactly why the British didn’t pay members of Parliament until well into the 20th century. It kept the riff-raff out.
FWIW, when he was President Washington accepted his salary of $25,000. This was during a period when a reasonably decent salary was $500 to $1000 annually.
Depending on which method of adjustment one uses, this corresponds to $591,000.00 to $1,910,000,000.00 in 2009 dollars. Obama’s official salary is $400,000.”
Just a couple of observations:
1) With the way our political system currently works, salary is only a small part of the total wealth they realize while in office. I am in no way endorsing that as a substitute for pay, but the truth should not be avoided and should be dealt with in some way.
2) They should receive neither more the median national income nor tax-funded pensions that remove their personal interest in having to rely on the success of private investment for comfort in retirement. If they want a raise, then it would be in their interest to raise the national median income in effectal ways.
I do not agree that refusal of salary is a ploy to keep the riff-raff out. There have been periods over the last decade when either I or my husband was out of work and one stayed home with our son while the other worked. It isn’t a glamourous life style by any means, but we got by. Until Obama and his 40 thieves came along, it was possible to live off one modest income. Now, I’m not so certian but I don’t believe it is by design to keep average people out of politics.
Additionally, when George Washington became president, paper money was used (Colonials), and over used. Inflation was rampant, almost to the point of Weimar Republic kind of inflation. It’s almost impossible to compare the real value vs. nominal values as we really do not know what the buying power of that 25k was verses $25k today because the economy was in shambles along with trade.
Yes, the elites were definitely interested in keeping the riff-raff out, which is why only landowners could vote for a number of year in the US. If I am not mistaken, Washington sacrificed a lot of income in the years he was fighting the Revolution, so I think he deserved some make-up salary. Regarding Observation 1, I am sure the unpaid lords and lackeys got lots of benefits from being in office. I imagine the Romans did too and back and back.
The living wage was not a casulty of the Obama administration. The poverty level has increased steadily since the Bush administration began. Furthermore, whereas 35 years ago, top CEOs earned about 40 times the salary of their low level workers. In recent years that ratio had grown to 400 to 1 and as high as 1,000 to 1. In 08 for example, the top 3 executives of Goldman Sachs each earned over $65 million. I have some GE stock which has tanked from the $50 a share it was worth less than a decade ago. It went down to $5 a share last year and has now crept up to $19. My proxy vote information gave the compensation of the top 7 executives which has ranged from $11 million to $22 million in 07, 08, and 09. There was no reduction in salary when the stock was doing so badly and is still not doing well. Compared to this $400,000 is chicken feed.