An office, a staff, but no salary
Posted on January 5th, 2009 – 10:57 AMBy May Chen
Should the First Lady get paid for what she does?
Last week, Lauren Stiller Rikleen wrote in the Washington Post of the strange office that is the First Lady’s, with its full-time supporting role to the most powerful job in the world and everything that comes with it. But no pay. What the First Lady needs, Rikleen said, is a job description and a salary.
Today, a Minnesota stay-at-home dad, Mike Smith, counters that notion.
“Get real,” says the self-described “First Gentleman of the Beige House in Plymouth.” He too gave up a career as a mechanical engineer to stay home with the kids. He too has an undefined job which includes everything from head cook to gutter cleaner to launderer. Rikleen’s arguments, he says, minimizes the choices he and thousands of other men and women have made.
I think Rikleen has a good point. Michelle Obama ran as hard in the campaign as her husband did, and is set for a job that’s going to consume her life and her family’s. Interestingly, my husband, the stay-at-home dad, agrees with Smith, that it’s a choice Obama made and that all sorts of people volunteer in politics for the greater good.
Cribsheeters?
8 Responses to "An office, a staff, but no salary"
I disagree with Mike Smith. He is correct that Obama has made a choice to leave her career and focus on helping to promote her husband’s career instead, and of course he is also correct that many people nationwide do this also and don’t expect to get paid for it.
But are those people’s roles as stay-at-home parents roles that require them to, for example, travel at a moment’s notice? Represent their spouses at high-level events both nationally and internationally with other heads-of-state? Host events from black-tie affairs to small coffees for prime ministers? AND raise the children…?
I’m not saying that Obama should receive a salary just because she left a high-paying job…I think the role of First Spouse is demanding enough to deserve one, for ALL the people who occupy it. It requires a great deal of high-level diplomatic skill. It’s also not really optional…if your spouse wins the election, this is what’s expected of you.
That’s just my two cents…I’d welcome hearing other points of view.
The First Lady has not been elected to her position. Granted, she may have played a part in some people’s decisions to elect her husband as president, but should she be paid for her supporting role which has no true definition, no “real” responsibilities laid out in the Constitution? I don’t think so. I think it’s like a stay at home mom/dad or a parent who volunteers for no/little pay.
I’m all for the First Spouse to receive a salary just as I am for stay at home moms/dads to receive a credit on their taxes, http://caregivercredit.org
[…] Cribsheet – […]
Although the “position” comes with many responsibilities, it also comes with alot of help to that end and then some. I am sure she will pick and chose what she does to accomadate the family first. Although not directly paid, the many benefits that never end more than compensate. We should all be so lucky!
Well put, Katy. I agree.
My two cents are more like questions!
Does Michelle Obama really have a choice here? Can she choose NOT to take on this role and all of the responsibility surrounding it? Because her husband makes a lot of money and she receives a lot of help, does it make her less worthy of being compensated for her work? (Like saying, “You’re husband is a big important president so you HAVE to do the following to support him, but we’re not going to pay you.” That’s not really a choice, is it? That wouldn’t fly at my house, but obviously I’m not married to the future president either!) On the other hand, if she’s compensated for her work and we don’t like the job she’s doing can we fire her or did we elect her as well as Barack?
It’s complicated no matter how you look at it.
Torn.
Also torn. On one hand, does she have a choice in the matter? Can she have another job? Did she have to quit her other job? Is it a law that the first lady can’t work outside the home? If so, then she should be paid to do all that stuff she “has” to do…but if she can have another job, and chooses not because her plate would be too full, then it’s her choice. Why couldn’t she work part-time? Why can’t she work full-time? I obviously don’t know all her responsibilites…lol…at least I’ll never have to make that choice!
