McCain: Rich aides may work for $1 a year

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I think McCain's idea is a great one and definitly shows his dedication to cutting cost AND promoting change. It is a very original and creative idea!

news.yahoo.com...




John McCain says he’d impose a little fiscal discipline on his Cabinet — by asking the best-off to work for one dollar per year.

The vow, made in an interview taped with Bob Schieffer for CBS’s “Face the Nation,” fits with McCain’s new push to run as a reformer who would shake up Washington, where he has worked for the past 26 years.

Schieffer asked McCain whether he would put Democrats in his Cabinet.

“Sure,” McCain replied. “I don't know how many. But I can tell you, with all due respect to previous administrations, it is not going to be a single, ‘Well, we have a Democrat now.’”

That’s an apparent reference to the sole Democrat in President Bush’s Cabinet, former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta.

“It's going to be the best people in America, the smartest people in America,” McCain continued. “So many of these problems we face — for example, energy independence, what’s partisan about that? In other words, we've got to have people who are the best and the brightest. And I'll tell you, some of them I'll ask to work for a dollar a year.”




I also like that he's stating that his Cabinet will be a mix of parties and I don't think anyone can question his sincerity on that.

Any thoughts on the $1 annual salary?

Jemison




posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I think it's a good idea. Most of the staff are wealthy anyway, and the experience they're receiving is priceless in and of it's self. Maybe a stipend to cover living expenses would be nice though.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I was looking for additional links to add and discovered that Romney only took a $1 salary when he was governer of Mass. No wonder I like him so much!


Jemison



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Honestly?

I think it should be just the opposite. We need the best people on the planet working in the cabinet. We will never attract that caliber of person unless we compensate them at least comparably to what they can make in private business. I would rather see cabinet members paid $1 million a year than $1 a year because of the type of people who will be attracted to the job.

In fact, increasing the pay of politicians while admittedly sounding counter-intuitive might be the best thing we could do. They wouldn't need to make back-door deals with lobbyists and corporations if the made enough money from their jobs.

[edit on 7-9-2008 by jamie83]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 

Either one sounds like a workable plan. I can see your rationale behind paying them more to lessen their temptation to supplement their salaries.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
jamie83, Money doesn't always attract the best people. Look at how many corporations pay their CEO's big bucks only to get miserable results.

On the other end of the spectrum you have a lot of good people serving their community for near zero and doing a terrific job.

Rich people will still continue to get rich off their investments.

It is a good idea. Don't know if they can do that on a federal level.


If not Guess they could get the check and donate it to the

jam321 Foundation.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45
reply to post by jamie83
 

Either one sounds like a workable plan. I can see your rationale behind paying them more to lessen their temptation to supplement their salaries.


I know a lot of people in the private sector who laugh at the idea of working in the government. They make more in a month than they could make in a year in D.C. But these people are 10x smarter than any of the politicians in D.C.

I guess that's why we're stuck with a government of mediocrity.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 



Originally posted by jamie83
Honestly?

I think it should be just the opposite. We need the best people on the planet working in the cabinet. We will never attract that caliber of person unless we compensate them at least comparably to what they can make in private business. I would rather see cabinet members paid $1 million a year than $1 a year because of the type of people who will be attracted to the job.


The fact is, that is impossible. Their salaries are set by the gov't and cannot be negotiated as in private practice.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   


I think it should be just the opposite. We need the best people on the planet working in the cabinet. We will never attract that caliber of person unless we compensate them at least comparably to what they can make in private business. I would rather see cabinet members paid $1 million a year than $1 a year because of the type of people who will be attracted to the job.


McCain said that he would ask the wealthiest people to consider it, that doesn't mean that it's going to be a mandatory $1 salary.

I think people accepting the $1 salary are JUST the type of people that we WANT in those positions. It shows a love of country and committment to make change.

My father was a brilliant man in business and personal finance. After he retired he volunteered his time to help both individuals and companies eliminate unneccessary spending and get them on the road to financial freedom. I know that if he were alive today and qualified for a cabinet position, he would be more likely to take the job for a $1 salary than a $1 million salary and would proudly give it 110%.

I'm sure there are many great men who would willingly take a $1 salary for the good of the US.

Jemison



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I'd like to see mc cain live off 1$ a year.
Only a idiot would work for that much money.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I'm more interested in knowing if Mr. McCain himself is willing to work for a dollar a year.

Now, here's my biggest problem with the whole thing. The salaries of these government employees accounts for a minuscule portion of this countries "over spending". It's the $200 nut that goes on the $300 bolt with a $97 washer that is a problem. Pay people what their worth. Period. That's how you keep worthy people motivated and where they need to be. Nobody's ass needs a $287 toilet seat. Hell, I'll chip in and buy paper plates to send to Iraq, the only paper plates our soldiers have to eat off of are $12 a piece.

I think this is just a way for McCain to give the impression that he's taking action, when in reality he's merely distracting attention from the real problems.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   


The fact is, that is impossible. Their salaries are set by the gov't and cannot be negotiated as in private practice.


I'm sure the details could be sorted out to make it happen.

The house and senate vote for themselves to have a raise so why would it be 'impossible' for there to be some sort of workaround?

And when you say the salaries are set by the government, exactly who are you referring to?

Jemison



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


What you say is very true. But Congress is responsible for ensuring that contractors are not over billing the government.


The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars.


source

I still think it is a good idea but you are also correct that it doesn't address the real issues that are costing America big bucks.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Congress is part of the problem. The GAO is part of the problem. While the GAO exists, this fact alone does not solve the problem. Ridiculous billing and outlandish prices are a rampant problem in our government. There are no fewer $437 claw hammers today than there were in 2000. A quick google will reveal countess examples of this. The GAO is just another dollar absorbing agency that accomplishes precisely nothing. And why should they, they charge exorbitant fees to "investigate" how the government spends taxpayer dollars. Your accountant can tell you you're not spending wisely, but that doesn't change anything unless you change the way you're spending. So, instead of having the guy that approves the spending notice that $400 is a bit much for a hammer, an "independent, nonpartisan agency" is hired (at what cost), to tally the receipts. Saving money does not start with spending more. Period. All the GAO is is another expense.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   


I think this is just a way for McCain to give the impression that he's taking action, when in reality he's merely distracting attention from the real problems.


McCain has never tried to slip any earmarks into any of his bills and there are billions of dollars a year wasted on those alone!!

He has vowed to veto any bills that contain pork AND name the people who are trying to slip the earmarks in.

While the $1 salary thing by itself might not seem signficant and may just sound like a talking point, his experiences back up his words when it comes to needless spending.

I would think that McCains hatred for unnecessary spending and his record of never seeking even a single penny in earmarks would be at least ONE thing in this campaign that BOTH parties can agree that McCain is sincere on this issue.

Is there anyone on here that disagrees that senseless spending is something that McCain has no tolerance or patience for?

Jemison



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


Yeah, I read that too. He's going to save "$100 billion" by attacking the earmarks. He sure made a lot of people think that he's going to save all the cash though didn't he...



There are a number of problems with this magical budgetary balancing act. First of all, the suspiciously round $100 billion figure is largely a figment of the McCain campaign's imagination. I have not been able to find a single independent budget expert to vouch for it. McCain's economics adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, will not say how the campaign arrived at the figure, other than that it is an extrapolation from various studies, including a 2006 study by the Congressional Research Service available here.

The CRS study breaks down earmarks by different government departments, without giving a global figure. According to Scott Lilly, a former Democratic appropriations staffer now with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the CRS study identifies a total of $52 billion in earmarks for a single year. However, much of this money is tied to items such as foreign aid to countries like Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, that McCain says he will not touch.


And what do you think his VP, who has sought and obtained more earmarks per-capita than any other state, is going to think about his "war on earmarks".

Not to mention, how you expect any state, city or town to actually function in a zero-earmark system? Parks, public transportation etc. is all dead without earmarks. They've become a necessary evil in our current society.

And since he promises to "veto every bill that includes earmarks", how is he going to remain such a proponent of Israel, when all that aid to Israel that McCain is so supportive of comes in the form of... drum roll please... Earmarks!

Oh, and you're right, he's never "slipped" his earmarks in other bills in stealth fashion, he' just makes the bills themselves the earmarks. Are you really willing to argue that the legislation he proposed in 2006 that would give the University of Arizona $10 million to build a center to honor former Chief Justice William Rehnquist was not an earmark?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


Here is the reason McCain won't end all those earmarks. I list 3 good reasons.

Guess my title was too catchy or people just like to complain.

Congress can't even define what an earmark is.

check it out... www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
I'd like to see mc cain live off 1$ a year.
Only a idiot would work for that much money.


The ignorance has officially begun in this post!

Uhhh, $1 is a sufficient salary for "rich aides" meaning aides that need the experience more than they need the money.

Does this click yet? A rich aide probably doesn't need a salary at all. But money cannot buy experience, hence the suggestion. It's a suggestion for saving money and a damn good one IMO.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
And when you say the salaries are set by the government, exactly who are you referring to?

Jemison


Practically all gov't employees:



Laws establishing Federal civilian pay policies that are placed in Title 5 of the United States Code (USC). These laws give the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the authority to issue regulations to implement the pay policies. These regulations are published as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). OPM also may publish additional guidance, requirements, and instructions on applying the pay policies and regulations. Agencies, as well, may establish directives to supplement and interpret the Government-wide directives.

When pay is set, the pay policies that apply to the pay system covering that position are used. There are several Federal employee pay systems in the Executive branch. The most common pay systems are:

General Schedule (GS): Covers the majority of "white-collar" employees in the Federal Government.

Federal Wage System (FWS): Covers most Federal "blue-collar" employees. There are separate wage schedules for Wage Grade (WG), Wage Leader (WL), and Wage Supervisor (WS) positions. FWS pay is based on the prevailing rates paid by private industry in a particular wage area.

Senior Executive Service (SES): Covers most managerial, supervisory, and other policy-making jobs above grade GS-15 through Executive Level IV.

Executive Level System: Covers members of the Cabinet, Deputy Secretaries, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and others in equivalent kinds of positions.

www.cpol.army.mil...



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
It's nothing more than a political stunt to make people think something is being done for the little guy. It's usually phrased as "one dollar and other considerations" in the pay arrangement.

Usually, the person has their money and stocks put in a blind trust (he didn't mention that part) so that the decisions you make as a government official has no affect on "your" wealth.

This has been done for years and is not something profound coming from the old guy.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join