An Idea For Trump’s Salary

We don’t usually opine about national issues unless they have at least a tangential Wisconsin connection, so this post is an unusual one and a rare violation of our prime directive. This is an idea for President Trump re: his promise to forego taking a salary or to donate it to charity.

By law, the president is required to take a salary. Should Trump take a nominal $1 salary? I suggest something different.

Hot Air reported on Sean Spicer’s handling of the question – what is the president doing to fulfill that pledge?

My idea? The president is paid monthly. The White House should give the public a say. They can put up a poll at the start of each month with a list of potential charitable causes (with an open-ended option) and promote voting throughout the month. (the cynical strategist in me sees a nonstop source of positive media).

At the end of the month, the White House sets up a GoFundMe page for the winning organization or cause. President Trump would be the first donor, pitching in what’s left after taxes of his $33,000 monthly salary (that’s $400,000 per year, plus other expense accounts, et cetera). The fundraising campaign would last a month.

Sure, the potential exists for such a system to be hijacked by lefties, but that would (cynical strategist again) likely backfire.

Trump would likely be accused of opportunism and cynicism, but the check presentation photo ops would erase any blowback. Plus, it would highlight the amazing powers of non-governmental entities to fulfill roles government has appropriated for itself in recent decades, a cornerstone of conservative thought about the proper role of government.

The Donald is a billionaire elected by hoards of Americans sick of politics as usual; such a campaign by this president would be uniquely Trump.

Update: After reading the whole Hot Air post, it seems Ed Morrissey and I essentially arrive at the same suggestion, though mine is a little more specific. Credit where credit’s due:

The Trump administration is opting for one news cycle in the Christmas holiday doldrums for its charitable award, when it could have twelve news cycles throughout the year when people are paying more attention and the White House can use the distraction. This is a media-management no-brainer, especially since the media has already shown itself so invested in the story.

Obama Promises to Double Your Salary!

Over at Right Wisconsin, Nik wrote several days ago about new a Labor Department rule that would increase the minimum an employer can pay a salaried (overtime-exempt) employee:

The Labor Department is expected to release new rules next month that require employers to pay overtime to more employees. Currently, an employee at minimum must earn at least $23,660 annually and execute managerial duties in order to be exempt from overtime pay.

The new rule would increase that minimum to $42,000 – a nearly 83% increase.

I’m re-posting it now to the Morning Martini Lounge because of a question I got on Facebook from someone who saw this post as mere complaining by a business owner (the implication being that the title business owner translates into being able to afford whatever liberals want them to afford). Why not take steps to make sure employees get paid the overtime hours that they’ve worked?

The answer is threefold. For one, not all businesses are the same. Liberal policies try to graft blanket policies on businesses from snow plow outfits to tax firms to grocery stores based on a perception of business that they learned in law school and at Occupy rallies. Some businesses are highly seasonal, meaning hourly employees may scrape together some OT during heavy times, but they’ll be royally screwed when things slow down.

Trust me. I was a cook at a golf course for 8 years, and I would’ve killed for a $23,660 salary.

For two, the market will adjust, as it always does, to nearly doubling the base salary. Liberal idealism dictates that because a policy says a thing and was intended to do that thing, that this thing will happen. Where politics meets economics, good intentions and results are a non sequitir. Salaried workers will go to hourly and great pains will be taken to minimize overtime hours and maintain a bottom line that’s razor thin in many industries in which earners don’t earn a ton, like startup small businesses and restaurants.

In short, the largest corporations will be fine, but small business and their workers will be screwed.

But hey, it sounds good, and that’s all that matters to the Democratic Party.

For three, Democrats can butt out. The employee and employer are grown adults who can enter into any arrangement they want so long as the terms are clear up front, and contract law has existed for centuries to provide necessary protections.

Whole thing here.