world

Obama to return 5% of salary to share sacrifice with public servants

35 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments
Login to comment

Good, now he should donate the proceeds of Nobel Peace Prize as well.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

This is but pocket change for Mr. Obama.

Income 2011 - $750,000 2010- $1,800,000 2009- $5,500,000

2 ( +7 / -5 )

No doubt its pocket change , bu it is still a goodwill gesture that lots more politicians around the world should be making ( or should be made to do :)..more often.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Good, now he should donate the proceeds of Nobel Peace Prize as well.

That money already went to charities.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Cool!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

A drop in the bucket compared to the fortune that awaits him thanks to having been the POTUS: books, speeches, book tours, special advisory roles, etc.

The POTUS's salary is pocket change. 0bama...............

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

It's a good start, but pretty much like tossing a nickel into the Salvation Army bucket. How about dialing back spending?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

So what if it's a pocket change for him? People should be thankful and happy about this, i dont see the need for negativity. You don't see anyone else willing to do it now, do you? I think it's a great move regardless if everyone already assumes it's nothing for him, it's still a great move and win-win for all.

No harm done.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Another in the tank article for Obama by his lap doggie press. Interesting how they included this:

Obama isn’t the first president to give up part of his paycheck.

John F Kennedy donated his presidential salary to various charities, according to Stacey Chandler, an archivist at the John F Kennedy Presidential Library. George Washington, the first president, tried to refuse a presidential salary, but Congress required that the position pay $25,000.

But left out mentioning this President (who really was the first President to do this).

Herbert Hoover put his salary in a separate account, then divvied it up, giving part to charity and part to employees he felt were underpaid, according to an interview he gave in 1937.

But I can see why his press wouldn't want him and Hoover tied together on anything at all on the economic and budget front.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

If he REALLY wants to "share sacrifice", he should remember that those cuts are resulting in a TWENTY percent loss in pay for those federal workers over that 14 week period. Not FIVE.... TWENTY.

I guess he only needs to feel 25% of the pain.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

.....meanwhile the vacations and White House entertainment spirals way out of control. No sacrifice in lifestyle.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Fair enough. A good leader leads by example. He's asking other people to give up 5% of their salaires, so he does the same himself.

I think that describing stuff like the jumbo jet as "perks" is misleading and unfair. Obama's expected to jump on that at any time, day or night, and rush to the scene of a disaster or to a diplomatic situation in some tiny country. He's not paid overtime, or given extra leave. That's a tool of his job, not a "perk". It would be a "perk" if he could take it out for joyrides on the weekend. A carpenter's hammer is tax-deductable... but at least he gets to use it to make his kids' play house.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

It's a gesture of goodwill nothing more and nothing less. What does Obama need money for while being president anyway? His living expenses, security, food, housing, transportation, and a host of other "needs" that us average folk have to spend out of pocket, come with the job of being President.

No to mention that he will receive a hefty annual "retirement" pay as well.

5%....that's sales tax money.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Fair enough. A good leader leads by example.

A real leader would have made damn sure that his salary was on the block and a part of the automatic sequester spending cuts in the first place when the deal was made. A real leader would already have been taking the hit to his salary the very moment that they went into effect. Not this political stunt that he is now pulling after the fact.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I wonder if all them self-proclaimed "captains of industry" - the CEOs of major US corporations - are still going to pocket their multi-million paypackets (with bonuses can you believe?) Of course the greedy fat-cats will. Good on Mr. Obama for showing the way, the corporate grubs should follow (but won't).

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It must have been hard to keep a straight face typing that Sail, after your blind support for the gazzillionaire candidate last year that had not the integrity to release his tax returns in time honoured tradition....

No wonder you're mad at the media.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It's hard to believe all the negativity towards President Obama on here. Even if his salary cut simply is a good will gesture, I don't hear about members of the Republican-led congress doing the same, even though they are largely to blame for the state that America is in!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

A real leader would have made damn sure that his salary was on the block and a part of the automatic sequester spending cuts

That would place the Republicans much farther away from that ideal than President Obama. And the segment of American people smart enough to realize that count for the current, growing Democratic majority.

No wonder you're mad at the media.

LOL. Good one!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Thanks for the gesture, but that's all it is.... BTW, at 22 days furlough, I'll be losing a lot more than 5% (20% for 22 weeks which is about 10% for the year). Also, my living expenses (house, car, food, etc) come out of my salary, not another pot of money. Let me know when he starts paying market value rent on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Not to mention that in less than four years he'll make that $20,000 up many, many times over with the first speech or book deal (& there will be lots of both).

That he gave up 5% makes no more difference to me than members of Congress who gave up nothing. Want to do something that means something to me? They can fix the crisis that they created!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Herbert Hoover put his salary in a separate account, then divvied it up, giving part to charity and part to employees he felt were underpaid, according to an interview he gave in 1937. But I can see why his press wouldn't want him and Hoover tied together on anything at all on the economic and budget front.

Which OBAMA OUTRAGE website did you get this from?

A real leader would already have been taking the hit to his salary the very moment that they went into effect.

Would that include people on both sides of the aisle? Seems odd to mention this only when Obama is the first to do it. Outrage would lead you somewhere else, I would think.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

American populism. If obama had levied $ 1 each illegal immigrant of the United States would be enough.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Surf: It's a good start, but pretty much like tossing a nickel into the Salvation Army bucket. How about dialing back spending?

All of Obama's proposals have included cutting spending. The issue is the revenue side of things and Republicans will not compromise regardless of what spending cuts Obama does.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

After Reagan opened the gate for immigrants united states will never be the same. Perhaps this 5% will help pay the shortfall in the budget of ObamaCare.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

He "gives back" 5% of a salary he doesn't earn (as all his expenses, houses, cars, and party plane, are paid for by the government) while the little GS-5ers take a 20% cut in real pay.

Some "solidarity".

RR

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Good gesture, a day late and a dollar short though...Still need job's, and new infastructure, maintainance and repair. New road's, military vets need more attention than their getting...Construction need's a kick start up again. Obamacare is raising my medical cost to the point that I PAY THE FIRST 5000, deductible...but I ONLY USE 3000 a year...I pay full price now...5% is just a good gesture...and nothing more.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yeah, well, let's see if he and the rest of the 1% divest themselves of their wealth by giving it to the feds so they can implement all the programs the left wants done. What's the probability of that happening?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

That he gave up 5% makes no more difference to me than members of Congress who gave up nothing.

So to some people, one Democrat doing something is the same as a lot of Republicans doing nothing.

Good for Obama, to do more than nothing, which is so much better than the negatives that Bush brought to the table.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As long as there is a single Conservative Republican in Congress, all Americans are screwed. The house wants to privatize social security, cut medicare or eliminate it altogether. It wasn't that long ago that most Americans were Liberals, government worked, and the debt was manageable. Probably half the debt will disappear if unemployment were halved. But that is not going to happen with this Congress and this President. It would have been far better to lower the age to 50 for medicare or just give it to everyone. Since medical costs will never be controlled as long as private insurance is in the mix. Go back 50 or 60 years and medical costs were reasonable and there were no HMOs or for profit industrial hospitals. As for Obama's gesture, it's just a gesture. I would have preferred to see him negotiate freezing workers salaries instead of just doing it. If that 5% is atonement for a mistake, he should return all his salary. His retirement is set, he and his wife will get free healthcare for the rest of their lives. So why can't all?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As long as there is a single Conservative Republican in Congress, all Americans are screwed.

And as long as there is a single radical left liberal in Congress all Americans are screwed too.

The US is not a social welfare state but gestures like this one from Obama seem to me to be a slap in the face to the poor. He is giving back to a government that is in debt to it's eyeballs and the amount is not even enough to cover a minute of interest on that debt.

If he wants my support he should have done it and NOT said anything about it until after he left office. Sounds like a PR ploy at best.

Both radical republicans and democrats are unneeded and are a threat (and always have been) to America's future.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I was wondering what this is was all about. I kept hearing about this around the office, but everyone was acting like it was the end of the world. Guess not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which OBAMA OUTRAGE website did you get this from?

The ever oh so radical Los Angeles Times newspaper who left Hoover in their article along with Kennedy and President Washington when mentioning past Presidents for historical context. They provided balanced reporting and didn't "delete" it from their published article much to their credit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-obama-to-return-part-of-salary,0,2281487.story

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

" All of Obama's proposals have included cutting spending. "

Superlib, that is true ONLY if one defines a "cut" as a reduction of a preplanned increase. Changing the increase from 8% to 5% is NOT a 3% spending cut. I'd like to see a 10% real cut(LESS than previous year) for every expenditure. That would be a meaningful step, not this pittance for show. This stunt by Obama is like the man who drops a large low-value coin(ex: current dollar coin) into the church collection plate, just for all to hear the "plink". Showboating.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No wonder you're mad at the media.

Compare this article to the article I provided in the link. I prefer balanced and fair articles so I can decide for myself and not slanted baised articles to make the President look good. You may prefer slanted articles as is your right but I find them a disgrace and I will point it out everytime that I see it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Would that include people on both sides of the aisle? Seems odd to mention this only when Obama is the first to do it. Outrage would lead you somewhere else, I would think.

He wasn't the first to do it the GOP led house was the first to do it. Directly from the LA times article that I linked to and not this typical media fawning Obama slobber piece trying to pass itself of as alleged journalism.

Also in March, as the spending cuts started bearing down, the GOP-controlled House imposed an 8.2% reduction on lawmakers' personal office budgets.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It must have been hard to keep a straight face typing that Sail, after your blind support for the gazzillionaire candidate last year that had not the integrity to release his tax returns in time honoured tradition....

Madverts,

Looks like Obama has finally found something in common with Mitt Romney:

Romney passes up $135K governor salary

Mitt Romney, who will be sworn in as governor of Massachusetts on Thursday, and his lieutenant governor will not take salaries while in office.

Part of their combined $255,000 in pay will be used for higher salaries of senior staff, according to a news release from Romney's transition team. Certain members of Romney's staff will be paid up to $150,000 a year, the release said, which is higher than the $130,000 salary of outgoing acting Gov. Jane Swift.

"We face huge challenges in the coming year that require sacrifices of us all,'' Romney said in the release. The former chief executive of Bain Capital LLC spent more than $4.5 million of his own money on his campaign.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2002/12/30/daily21.html

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites