Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Should the First Lady Get a Paycheck?

By Sheila Gibbons, Women's eNews. Posted January 5, 2009.


The media have pegged Michelle Obama as mom and moral arbiter. But the Ivy League-educated lawyer's background raises bigger questions.
womensenewslogo
For more Women's eNews, visit, www.womensenews.org. To subscribe to Women's eNews, the daily news service for all women, go to www.womenenews.org/join.cfm.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Sheila Gibbons

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Here we go again: another inauguration, a new president and a new first lady facing the challenge of defining her new role even as pundits and reporters rush to do it for her.

Like her predecessors, Michelle Obama will enter the White House minus a job description. Her husband's is well defined. Her daughters' tasks are to adapt to a different family life and new schools. The soon-to-be-purchased puppy will get training to become a White House pet with its own following.

But the first lady's role? Still an improvisation.

Coverage thus far doesn't give me much hope that we'll evolve from the saccharine first-lady coverage of years past to something more mature and meaningful. We're learning what clothing labels Michelle Obama favors; who could design her inaugural ball gown and swearing-in apparel (a staple of inauguration coverage); her affinity for "Dick Van Dyke Show" reruns; her favorite food (mac and cheese, reportedly); and so on.

The woman in question is an Ivy League-educated lawyer who commanded a substantial salary as an executive in the University of Chicago hospital system. But much of what we're reading, viewing and hearing tries to predict which former first lady she'll most be like, as if these women, of widely varying backgrounds and experiences, constitute the universe of options for the newest to join their group.

Maternalizing Michelle

There also seems to be a tendency in some media accounts to maternalize Michelle Obama, as if when she said she would be her daughters' "mom-in-chief," she would be ours as well.

Vanity Fair gushed that she looks "as down to earth as any other soccer mom and as glamorous as a model, while instantly commanding respect, even before she starts to speak."

"She appears to be the one person above all to whom Barack turns for guidance," says Chris Stephen, U.S. correspondent for The Scotsman. "But we won't be seeing her in a cabinet position; her role is likely to be maintaining the moral compass."

Mom, model, moral arbiter. Wow.

Michelle Obama's impressive life credentials alone ought to inspire inquiry about her capacity to contribute to public life in the special role she will soon have. But conventional media's view of White House occupants -- a type of elected royal family -- consigns the first lady to a somewhat unreal role akin to a king's consort.

"In actuality, her position, though ill-defined, paradoxical and confusing, has become increasingly important in the U.S. political system, particularly during campaigns," says Maurine Beasley in "First Ladies and the Press: The Unfinished Partnership of the Media Age," published by Northwestern University Press in 2005. "Yet the news media tend to ignore her except as a celebrity political wife whose status is derived totally from her husband and consequently not worth thoughtful coverage."

Paycheck for First Lady?

An example of coverage falling short would be a Dec. 16, 2008, story on the "NBC Nightly News," reported by Andrea Mitchell, herself half of a Washington power couple that includes her husband, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman. The topic: Should first ladies receive a salary?

Given that Michelle Obama is obliged to give up her career because of inevitable conflicts were she to be a salaried employee in any organization outside the White House, this is an important question now and going forward, when we can assume that future first ladies also will be women of professional achievement.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gender, michelle obama, first lady, mom-in-chief

Sheila Gibbons is editor of Media Report to Women, a quarterly journal of news, research and commentary about women and media.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Should the First Lady Get a Paycheck?
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 5, 2009 6:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a word: "No".

Before you start screaming "Sexist!", I'd like to point out how close we came to nearly having a "First Gentleman" (to use the term "Gentleman" in it's absolute loosest sense).

Had that been the case, he shouldn't have been salaried either.

Yes, in either instance, one partner is giving up a possibly lucrative carreer, to support the carreer of their spouse.

So?

Women have been doing that forever, (uncompensated) and men are doing it with more frequency now (also uncompensated).

Is your spouse paid to support you in your carreer? I'm sure mine would love to be, she'd quit her carreer in a heartbeat if that was the case. And vice versa.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» Mom-in-Chief? Posted by: Chaimirija
RE: No one is keeping Michele Obama from holding a job.
Posted by: willymack on Jan 6, 2009 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree. If Michelle needs a little pin money, she can work part-time for any number of orgainzations, and STILL be the First Lady and devoted mother. Her brilliant mind and obvious qualifications would do ANY organization credit, including the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Equal Pay for Equal Work
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jan 6, 2009 12:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the above posts. The first spouse has no defined duties or responsibilities. If Michelle Obama wants to continue her career she can easily find employment in the private or nonprofit sectors. For that matter, there would be nothing wrong with her taking a sub-cabinet appointment based on her education, experience and abilities--all of which are impressive.

The thought of Laura W. Bush getting paid to smoke cigarettes, shop and guzzle booze or Todd Palin to swill beer and race his snowmobile on the Front Lawn is too absurd to bear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent response, Alex Posted by: yale
» RE: xcellent response, Alex Posted by: AlexLawyer
You have been skipping your social science class, haven't you Honky?
Posted by: yale on Jan 6, 2009 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or maybe you are just trying to be the title holder of having the most immature posts here on Alternet? Are you on the school bus right now with your buddies, playing on your laptop?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has Honky ever HAD a pay check?
Posted by: sirios on Jan 6, 2009 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Honkey has returned after being banned as a nihilist [total rejection of established laws and institutions] to a more highly evolved state of being as an infidel. however he brings with him an ongoing fascination with oral sex. Maybe the loss of precious bodily fluids by way of excessive B Jobs accounts for his rampant stupidity. The first lady's unpaid position of being a mother is far more important than the position her husband will hold. As far as payment goes,how about the loving adoration of her children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Really?
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 6, 2009 2:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She's been called unpatriotic for saying: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." (Some news accounts shortened the quote, dropping the "really" and thus altering the meaning.)

While I agree the patriotism thing was bogus, the writer seems unaware that the first statement Michelle Obama made last February in Milwaukee did not include the "really." She added it to a speech later that day to try to smooth things over. One shouldn't be in the business of critiquing other agencies' motives, if one is not going to pay attention to the news of the day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Really? Posted by: fbear0143
» RE: eally? Posted by: YogiBear
What about a single president?
Posted by: muzunguhowru on Jan 6, 2009 2:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There seems to be an assumption that a president has to be married... Admittedly all but one have been been (when entering office) There is no constitutional office of "first spouse" or mandated official duties. It's just a custom. She will earn millions on her memoirs speeches and whatever after he leaves office.. Maybe she will even run herself...its been known to happen.

Making this into some kind of "hisogynistic" cause is just dumb and petty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pay her from the money tree?
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 6, 2009 3:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think of it this way: We're paying her husband $400,000 a year, plus giving the entire family free room and board, plus taxi service and personal protection all at no cost to them. If Michele Obama wants a job, she can get one in the city, arrange to telecommute or take a cabinet post or fill out an application to work in the White House. Otherwise, give us taxpayers a break already!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perks
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 6, 2009 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the value of all the perks, such as room and board, transportation, protection, expense allowances, puppy food, etc.? And what about the value of the bully pulpit and influence? Non-profits spend zillions promoting their causes, while a First Lady can make something as stupid as "Just say no." a household phrase just for saying it.

I agree that she should technically--if not practically--be able to pursue her career; why not? As pointed out in the above comments, spouses in the private sector always make sacrifices for their spouses' career. But any formal requirement, tradition, or protocol that the first spouse must sit around decorating the White House is unnecessary and antiquated. In fact, the country would probably be better off, since she would have better things to do than decorating the White House and promoting cheesy anti-drug slogans.

But that brings back the question of perks. If she's getting them while she does other things, should she be paying for them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NO check.
Posted by: weathered on Jan 6, 2009 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She has NO expenses.

That applies to the 'first' man too. Should this country ever elect a female.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What was the woman's movement about...
Posted by: MRS on Jan 6, 2009 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if not choice. Women have to choice to work or not, to shape their lives as it suites them. Why the constant "mommy wars" then? So silly.

Mrs. Obama will define her role as it suits her. I agree with her, her first duty is making sure her family is OK and makes this transition to the White House. She will be "Mom in Chief" far long than she will be First Lady. Those daughters of the Obama's deserve the best start in life their parents can give them. The last time I looked that is was parents are supposed to do.

After that this accomplished woman can and will define her role as she sees fit like most of us do and not as some pundit or someone writing copy on a blog does.

What the hell did we march for?
From Helen Reddy:
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/helen-reddy/i-am-woman.html

To Shania Twain:
www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/shaniatwain/manifeellikeawoman.html

It's all good and its all our call.

Lighten up. Mrs Obama is doing just fine in my opinion so butt out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My apologies for all the typos in the above post.
Posted by: MRS on Jan 6, 2009 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My cynical take
Posted by: tony12000 on Jan 6, 2009 4:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The role of First "Lady" will never evolve until until we have a woman as president. So either her male or lesbian spouse will receive treatment like never before! Ta da. Visit my blog for more cynicism: http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They made millions...
Posted by: tony12000 on Jan 6, 2009 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're rich. And apparently this is what they both want - a storied life with tons of adoring fans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Should the first lady get a paycheck
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 6, 2009 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Gibbons asks a tantalizingly complex question- should the First Lady get a paycheck, and begins an answer with a historical reprise of the First Lady's roles.

Two aspects of the position which Ms. Gibbons did not touch on strike me as worth comment: the President's role as Head of State and the social model of the first family.

First, the US President is the Head of State and as such embodies the nation in official functions. Throughout the world this official acts as host assisted by an unofficial hostess, usually his wife, who assists him in the conduct of official duties.

The President receives compensation for the
expenses he incurs in the discharge of these duties and an allowance for salaries of the First Lady's staff. Presumably, the First Lady compensates herself from the family kitty or carves out a stipend from the expense account.

Ms. Gibbons adressed the social model inherent in the First Lady's role with her comment that Mrs. Obama has become, the "First Mom."

I always find it jarring when the patrician model of the Lord of the Manor and the First Lady is democratized by terms such as "First Mom."

One can only wonder what profound social changes a First Lady who eschewed the public role and pursued her own life would bring about.

Is it possible the governing the United States of America is no longer a Mom and Pop enterprise?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

paychecks for 1st ladies
Posted by: m/r on Jan 6, 2009 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always maintained all mothers
should be getting a paycheck,
contributing to social security, establishing our own small retirement benefits, contributing to future medicaid /medicare needs, able to set aside some savings.
WE WORK- 24/7- for FREE-Zero-Zilch-Nada.
WHERE would YOU be without your mom ?
How important to a Healthy Society is Mom?
Why do excellent Moms have to go out of the house and work 2 jobs to receive any benefits at all ? The entire system has been ignoring the Real work of creating a decent Healthy society and economy. Does this idea mean "socialism"- gee, I don't know and I don't care what anyone calls it; it seems to me the final definition of Gender Equality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: paychecks for 1st ladies Posted by: DCostello2
» RE: paychecks for 1st ladies Posted by: rickiey
» I dunno Posted by: Chaimirija
» m/r RIGHT ON!!!! Posted by: Chaimirija
Poppycock
Posted by: maddasein on Jan 6, 2009 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Michelle wanted to receive a paycheck, then she should be working in the private sector. She has chosen to instead take care of her daughters and support her husband's career. Many spouses do the same thing (male and female), despite their own educational and professional backgrounds. Nobody I have ever known that is a stay at home parent draws a paycheck.... who would be paying them? Yes, she will be assisting the president a lot, but my sister (stay at home mom) helps my brother-in-law with his job by doing the books and running errands and she doesn't receive her own pay. They share what he earns. Plus, as many others have pointed out, with a salary of 400k and living expenses covered, I think the Obama's are going to be just fine.

So if we're going to discuss the First Lady receiving pay, then the federal government needs to cut a check to all hardworking stay at home parents. I am sure that Michelle is going to do wonderful things, but there have been countless (and nameless) other women and men throughout history who have done great things and sacrificed a lot without monetary compensation. Just because she has an extensive educational/professional background and is married to a politician does not put her above other common folks.

This is not an insult to Michelle because I really do like her, but I just think that the question this article is asking is a little absurd.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes and no
Posted by: Beck on Jan 6, 2009 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yes, because once it's a First Man, he's going to find it a bigger issue than he or other men anticipated. In fact, the first time a man finds himself in this position, I'll bet some convenient system arises out of the blue to make sure he's happy and busy and paid, not being the Host in Chief.

No, because then he/she will actually have to run for office. How? A separate election? Four people on the ticket?

But any lawyer from an Ivy-league school, male or female, any other professional, is going to find this situation difficult, and I bet it will irk men more than women when the inevitable day comes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes and no Posted by: fork
» RE: No and no Posted by: TheLimit
Absolutely not!
Posted by: maddogmarley on Jan 6, 2009 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bigger question is why should the First Lady do anything? I'd like to see Michelle Obama keep her job and forgo First Lady "duties" or take on ladylike projects What I'd really like to see, though, (and I don't think Obama is up to it) is for a First Lady do nothing, but sit around the White House all day watching reality shows. If the president needs a "hostess" let him hire one or bring in a relative who likes to schmooze and do good works. A First Lady owes nothing to nobody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Absolutely not! Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Absolutely not! Posted by: maddogmarley
» RE: Absolutely not! Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Absolutely not! Posted by: maddogmarley
Certainly she should be paid, should she find an employer willing to hire her!
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 6, 2009 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She just has to watch out for those conflicts of interest and the "appearance of impropriety" that would interfere with her spouses duties as a public servant (remember when we had those?).

What sorts of jobs does the author think she should seek?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No argument at all. Posted by: ABetterFuture
If the first lady has no defined responsibilities or roles...
Posted by: Q30 on Jan 6, 2009 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... it means she can do essentially whatever she wants. This is supposed to be a raw deal for her?

First of all, she wasn't elected and carries no official responsibilities. If she doesn't want to stop being a lawyer, guess what? No one's holding a gun to hear head and forcing her to give that up. The first lady's minimal responsibility is being the hostess of the White House, which is arugably the most important historic building in the country. Hardly an awful position to be in.

If she wishes, as the first lady, Michelle can do an incredible amount of good, like Eleanor Roosevelt. Sure, there's no paycheck (and this isn't sexist, for had Sarah Palin become VP, Todd wouldn't have gotten a paycheck either). But she DOES get the staff of the federally-funded Office of the First Lady at her disposal, which is hardly a worthless.

The author's desire to make Michelle into some kind of victim is as risible as it is pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We don't hire first ladies--we shouldn't pay them
Posted by: solitarysherlockian on Jan 6, 2009 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since First Lady is an unelected, unvetted roll that is an accident of who the President is married to (and assumes it is a male)--the First should NOT get paid by anyone. If she wants to negotiate with the husband to get a cut, fine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Instead of the guessing game...
Posted by: improperlatin on Jan 6, 2009 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If defining the first lady's role is such an important priority, let's look at Article 5 of the Constitution. As of right now, no first lady should have any role in a presidential administration, nor should she be compensated until there is a Constitutionally defined office of first lady.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

no pay check !
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jan 6, 2009 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
first, and foremost the spouse is NOT elected...s/he is "along for the ride" so to speak...if the first spouse is gonna get paid s/he would need to be vetted, confirmed, and would need to campaign on his/her own for the position. presidential campaigns are ridiculous enough without adding this to the mix...

second, the "position" would need to be defined and codified...and again the spouse would need to be elected to fill it...

third, it would set a foolish precedent - it would allow any spouse of any elected official to claim they have a right to some form of payment as well...


if michelle obama wants a paycheck maybe she should find herself a job - maybe she could teach law at gerogetown...or perhaps she could run for the senate seat barrack vacated...

the spouse of any other employee anywhere in the united states is not entitled to a paycheck just because his/her spouse is employed in any job...even though the spouse may be expected to perform certain duties - such as showing up to company parties or hosting clients in her home...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NO!
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 6, 2009 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First Ladies have always been very influential, long before they went to law school and had careers of their own. I like Michelle Obama, what's not to like. But if nothing else the presidential campaigns would be even more of a nighmare than they already are if we paid spouses. We would probably end up with divorces in the White House. It's truly too awful to think about. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now .. hold on a second..
Posted by: cyr3n on Jan 6, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that michele obama's case really drives home the need for some serious reform.

Within the current paradigm, no, a housewife shouldn't be paid for being a supportive live-in spouse.

HOWEVER...

1. if you consider how the middle class are taxed out of being single-income-households and how a spouse really does GIVE UP their career.. there are real opportunity costs involved in being married!

2. Its totally sexist to assume a housewife/househusband is going to provide this service "free".. indefinately.

3. Just because someone is a homemaker doesnt mean they can't be a professional. What the hell is up with women and this "breeder vs worker" mentality?? Why can't civil volunteer activities (like community service hours) be logged and credited back to the family as a tax refund? If suzi's mom runs a girlscout troupe, i think suzi's mom should be getting a tax refund for her time! That way, the soccer moms and baseball dads can have some pay-back for helping their communities.

peace,
Julia

// Runs online communities, since 1996.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Now .. hold on a second.. Posted by: TheLimit
» If you think about it Posted by: Chaimirija
Enough with the paychecks, already
Posted by: willymack on Jan 6, 2009 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Michelle has half the influence with her husband I think she does, maybe she could whisper "Prosecute the bushie bastards" several times a day in his ear. Let's face it; they BOTH know the best legal methods for this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» they are the same Posted by: gellero1
» yes yes yes Posted by: Chaimirija
NO !
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 6, 2009 12:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Her husband Barry will get plenty of taxpayer money to share with her and her two kiddies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No paycheck... not to ANY owning-classer in politics
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 6, 2009 1:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you're the emperor of a fundie-cult nation-state apparatus you get every privilege. No owning-classer in that position or in a position in Congress or the Supreme Court should get paid to do what they have always done.

Owning classers should have to serve their time living off their portfolios, savings and privilege. Kind like that already do. The People shouldn't have to pay them on top of all that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amused
Posted by: esornew on Jan 6, 2009 1:23 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone but the author read these ridiculous comments? Get a life people and leave Michelle's alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

paycheck??
Posted by: gellero1 on Jan 6, 2009 7:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't the University of Chicago triple her salary from $125,000 to over $300,000 INSTANTLY when he was elected Senator?? Was this a BRIBE??

The Messiah?? How is this possible??

Damn...she should at least get $2,500,000 now !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Should the minister's wife get a paycheck?
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 6, 2009 7:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lots of churches hire a married couple simply to get two employees for the price of one. The wife's labor is free to the church. The whole family has to live in a glass bowl 24/7 -- its a bit of a pain for the kids too. Where's their paycheck?

The problem is, the minister called to this church gets two paychecks: first comes the $400,000 per year pittance, then the real moolah rolls in like a tsunami. As the Baptists say, that's not a call, that's a raise! What difference will another $100k pittance of a check each year make? So what if the check gets lost under a big pile of paper somewhere?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Salary for First Lady - MOMMY TAX
Posted by: Sunbird on Jan 6, 2009 7:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Goodwin said that while the first lady's contributions deserve to be valued, the fact that they are not "is part, unfortunately, of women's work being devalued." Goodwin got to develop this more fully in a companion piece on the "Nightly News" Web site, but viewers of the newscast didn't see that."

Is there any HOPE Obama will repeal the Social Security Mommy Tax? Why aren't stay at home moms and other caretakers able to collect Social Security for their contirbution to society? Why are women 'taxed' for divorcing before ten years of marriage even though they have provided care?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CUZ IT IS A MANS WORLD AND... Posted by: Chaimirija
Mr. and Mrs. President
Posted by: daodeyao on Jan 7, 2009 2:30 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should be electing a couple, not one half of a couple. Husband and wife should share the presidency in order for the country to no longer be a single parent family-style government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» don't you mean King and Queen Posted by: Chaimirija
She knows what she's doing
Posted by: westomoon on Jan 7, 2009 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Michelle Obama is not giving up her career to become First Lady. She had already put it on hold to put the kids first -- her choice, and I respect it. She has already said (to 60 Minutes) that her first year in the White House will be devoted to making sure the girls make the transition successfully -- again, her choice, and one I respect.

She is fully aware that an African-American First Lady is going to be a teaching tool like nothing we've ever seen. I have full confidence in her ability to make the best possible use of her role in that respect -- she is definitely not blind to the state of race relations in this country.

That said, we have had plenty of First Ladies who didn't earn a paycheck -- falling-down drunks were especially numerous, especially among Republicans. Bess Truman didn't even make the White House her primary residence. The one advantage that I can see in making the First Spouse a paid position is that it might have prevented Hillary Clinton from making her odd claim to have Presidential experience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement