Classic Rant #935 (April 4, 2013): Pay Cuts

It was announced yesterday that President Obama will be taking a 5 percent pay cut on his annual $400,000 salary.

He is reportedly doing this to show solidarity to other federal workers, who face furloughs if an agreement against overall federal pay cuts--called sequestration--is not reached soon.

Bully for the President. It's a nice move, a good cosmetic move, but what actually does it all mean?

Not much, really not much.

Just on the face of it, taking a 5 percent salary cut from his salary amounts to not much at all, especially when you add in the expenses that he gets paid away from his salary.

I mean, when was the last time he and first lady went supermarket shopping or gassed up the family car?

Look, I know, he can't take furlough days off, like what is facing other federal workers if Congress--and he himself--do not come to some type of agreement on these cuts.

But let's look at the federal worker, what he or she faces, and that is where the real problem in this whole thing rests.

If a federal worker is making $50,000, let's say, and he has to take a furlough day off a week for the next six months, we are talking about a major bite from his paycheck, thousands of dollars for people who can least afford it, especially those with families.

Their only perks are that they get just about every holiday off, certainly not the perks the President gets.

These are real people with potentially real money problems coming up if this thing isn't settled, but let's face it; why should politicians really care about the people that they serve and the hardships they are going through?

Many of these elected officials are themselves making nice six-figure salaries, and they get plenty of perks too. And that is just from their jobs as Congressmen. Many of them also get salaries from other positions they hold outside of their elected duties, so certainly enough of them are doing well enough to make them almost aloof and apart from the constituents they are supposed to be serving.

I mean, what salary will they be losing in all of this?

Why the President and Congress have not gotten together yet to stop sequestration dead in its tracks is beyond my comprehension. It greatly impacts so many other things beyond what my focus is here--including the military--that you really have to wonder about these guys and gals we have elected to represent us.

What are their true goals in Washington?

Honestly, if this thing is not resolved soon, cuts are going to impact everyone. It has already happened. Although not necessarily tied into sequestration, look at your own paycheck. It is like we took a hit already, as our paychecks are smaller.

And I don't know about you, but my taxes went sky high.

Personally, I would vote any of our elected officials out of office if they do not produce during their first terms. Of course, people won't do that, but that is the only way, seemingly, to get anything done in Washington.

Bring in new blood, I say, eager people who haven't yet yet been taken in by their own egos as Washington politicians.

I would also limit the Presidential term to six years, and just one single term.

Look, if you can't get things done in six years, why do you deserve another chance?

As we have it now, the President can serve two four-year terms, but what is the first term anyway?

Is it just so he can get his feet wet in the way things are done in Washington?

Heck, I hate talking about this stuff, but let's face it, everyone is affected by it, so it must be talked about.

And when I read that the President is taking a pay cut, well, what's that all really about, anyway?

He should be doing more, much more, to make Americans feel confident again.

Taking a tiny pay cut like this isn't really doing anything, is it?

What is the point?