WI: POTUS is not paid a salary

Alberto Knox

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin (in one of his rare speeches) urged to the delegates that the new Executive should not be paid a salary, on that grounds that 'If men could realize "the love of power, and the love of money," in one job, the struggle to obtain that job would become too tempestuous.'

This suggestion was ultimately ignored but it is not inconcievable that it might have been taken up. Franklin was still a popular figure and the notion of an office carried out purely from a sense of duty may well have had some appeal to the framers of the Constitution.

So, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that office of the Presidency is created with no salary attached to it. How will this impact the evolution of the office and of the United States as a whole?
 

YLi

Not much. Given the amount of money it takes to run for President, the vast majority of American presidents have been wealthy men from the outset.

Not to mention, ain't no rule that says they can't take subsidies directly from political parties.
 

WCDouglas

Mike Stearns said:
Its not inconcievable at all. When Washington was elected, he initially refused to accept payment for being President.
Click to expand...

True, but, he wanted all expenses covered, INCLUDING, the management (just the cost of having someone keep Mt Veron running, not ensuring a profit) of the POTUS's personnal holdings DURING his term.

FTR, until the 20th Century that would likely have been a better deal for the POTUS, post 1900 and especailly today, much better for the government, since few POTUS actually run their own business or farm, or even manage their own assets today.
 

Mongo

The classical Athenians made sure to pay every citizen who attended the day's Assembly meeting a stipend, because they knew that if they were not paid enough to cover food and shelter for the day, the poor would not be able to afford to attend, shifting the composition of the Assembly toward the more wealthy. They considered this possibility a great danger.

By the same reasoning, elective offices were paid positions, otherwise only the wealthy would be able to occupy them.

Of course, the Athenians were radical democrats, compared to what exists now. I am convinced that an Athenian citizen from that time would sneer at what we call democracy now, regarding it as a plutocracy wielding power through an elective oligarchy.

(And yes, I know that Athenian democracy was limited, not including women or slaves, but the same applied to modern forms until quite recently. The faults in Athenian democracy would be fairly easy to repair, but the faults in today's "democracy" would be much harder to eradicate.)

edit -- I would also point out that the classical Athenians were very distrustful of elections as a means of selecting people to fill high office. They regarded elections as leading to election campaigns, which led to election campaign financing, which led to the inordinate political influence of those interests which provided that financing. So elections were limited to only the most technically demanding positions, where their normal method of selection by lot was not guaranteed to produce a sufficiently capable person. Most of their councils (they preferred large groups rather than single people -- with a large group an interest that wanted to buy a decision would need to suborn over half the members, which was very unlikely, while a single person could more easily be bought, plus a large group would be almost guaranteed to be an accurate cross-section of Athenian citizen society) were actually selected by lot, rather like the modern jury but without the modern distortions (i.e. prosecution and defense challenges).
 
Last edited:

Alberto Knox

Mongo said:
The classical Athenians made sure to pay every citizen who attended the day's Assembly meeting a stipend, because they knew that if they were not paid enough to cover food and shelter for the day, the poor would not be able to afford to attend, shifting the composition of the Assembly toward the more wealthy. They considered this possibility a great danger.

By the same reasoning, elective offices were paid positions, otherwise only the wealthy would be able to occupy them.

Of course, the Athenians were radical democrats, compared to what exists now. I am convinced that an Athenian citizen from that time would sneer at what we call democracy now, regarding it as a plutocracy wielding power through an elective oligarchy.

(And yes, I know that Athenian democracy was limited, not including women or slaves, but the same applied to modern forms until quite recently. The faults in Athenian democracy would be fairly easy to repair, but the faults in today's "democracy" would be much harder to eradicate.)

edit -- I would also point out that the classical Athenians were very distrustful of elections as a means of selecting people to fill high office. They regarded elections as leading to election campaigns, which led to election campaign financing, which led to the inordinate political influence of those interests which provided that financing. So elections were limited to only the most technically demanding positions, where their normal method of selection by lot was not guaranteed to produce a sufficiently capable person. Most of their councils (they preferred large groups rather than single people -- with a large group an interest that wanted to buy a decision would need to suborn over half the members, which was very unlikely, while a single person could more easily be bought, plus a large group would be almost guaranteed to be an accurate cross-section of Athenian citizen society) were actually selected by lot, rather like the modern jury but without the modern distortions (i.e. prosecution and defense challenges).
Click to expand...

All very informative...but what's your point?
 

Alex1guy

Mongo said:
That not paying a salary for the position of President would guarantee that only the wealthy would be able to assume the position -- not that this is not the case already.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but as it was put, you need A LOT of money to run a Presidential Campaign. Besides I think the POTUS only earns around 400,000 DA per year. This is pittance when compared to what they generally earn from business etc.
 

DG Valdron

I believe that Members of Parliament in England were not paid a salary either in the 19th century. Rather, they were expected to 'use the advantages of their position' to ensure their livelihoods. Graft, in other words.

Doorway to corruption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top