Lately, there has been a debate on whether or not the First Lady should be paid for her services in the White House and for her trips abroad. The First Lady serves as the hostess for frequent White House state dinners and she may, from time to time, represent the U.S. overseas. Laura Bush believes that future First Ladies should be paid for their services. My response to Mrs. Bush is: HELL NO, NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!
Why am I so opposed to paying our First Ladies for their services? Well, to begin with, the President's wife has not been elected First Lady. She wasn't drafted. And, she has not been appointed to that position either. She is the First Lady for only one reason - she happens to be married to the President. We elected him to be president and she gets to come along for the ride.
The President currently earns $400,000 per year, along with a $50,000 expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment. The First Lady gets an office in the White House and an expense account. She is provided with a paid staff and with an ample budget for her activities. And like the President, she has an airforce plane at her disposal.
With all those perks for the President and the First Lady, I can see no justification whatsoever why she should also be paid a salary. Shit, if she chooses to, she is free to confine her official activites to only hosting state dinners. So, if anyone asks me if the First Lady should be paid for her services, my answer will be a resounding: HELL NO, NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!
No comments:
Post a Comment