Jonathan Zimmerman: Don't pay the first lady
[Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history and education at New York University. He is the author of "Innocents Abroad: American Teachers in the American Century" (Harvard University Press).]
I've always liked Michelle Obama. She is smart, sophisticated, accomplished and poised. Based on what we've seen so far, she'll be a terrific first lady.
But that doesn't mean we should pay her for it.
As Barack and Michelle Obama make their way to the White House, putting Ms. Obama on salary has become the latest cause du jour among Democrats of a certain age. Like millions of other women, the argument goes, Ms. Obama will have to balance her work and home duties. In her case, "work" will include hosting state dinners, giving speeches and interviews, and overseeing a paid staff. Why shouldn't she get paid, too?
The answer, ironically, lies in Barack Obama's own ancestral home. I speak of Kenya, of course, where Obama's father was born and died. So far as I know, it's also the only country that has put political wives on the public payroll. And it's a good reminder of all the bad things that can happen when you do so.
The story starts with Lucy Kibaki, who became Kenya's first lady in 2002. Shortly after that, she began to draw a salary - now estimated at nearly $100,000 per year - as compensation for her "social responsibilities."
Next came a disputed 2007 election between Kibaki's husband and Raila Odinga, triggering ethnic violence that left as many as 1,500 people dead and between 180,000 and 250,000 displaced. The two candidates eventually agreed to a power-sharing agreement, making Odinga the prime minister and Mwai Kibaki the president.
Naturally, then, Odinga's partisans demanded that his wife get paid alongside Kibaki's. Ditto for supporters of new Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka, who wanted his spouse to get a salary as well.
So last September, Kenya's civil service director announced that Ida Odinga and Pauline Musyoka would receive "responsibility allowances" of about $70,000 per year. In a nation where the average salary is $1,700, the proposal generated a loud public outcry.
"The leadership of this country cannot continue to pretend that 36 million Kenyans exist to feed them and their families, and keep them in luxury," one newspaper editorialized. "This is a poor country, many of whose citizens live on the verge of starvation."
Graciously, Ms. Odinga turned down the offer of a salary. "Kenyans know I have taken care of my husband in good and bad times without help from the state, sometimes in spite of the state," Ida Odinga said. "I will continue doing that."
We still don't know what Ms. Musyoka will do. But here's what we do know: Paying political wives is a formula for resentment, suspicion and corruption. And Michelle Obama shouldn't have any part of it.
Remember, America has economic woes of its own. We're not nearly as impoverished as Kenya, of course. Amid our worst financial crisis since the 1930s, however, do we really want to put another presidential family member on the public payroll?
And don't think the Obamas have taken a vow of poverty, either. True, they'll have to forsake the $316,000 per year that Michelle earned in her last job. Living "only" on the president's $400,000 salary, however, they'll make eight times as much as the average American household. It's hard to see why they need a second income.
But perhaps other government servants do. A salary for Michelle Obama would unleash a wave of demands from members of Congress and other officials, insisting that their wives deserve public compensation as well. And who's to say they'd be wrong? A senator's spouse often must perform many of the same tasks as the first lady, after all, but on a much smaller family wage.
Last, paying the first lady would set a poor precedent for a president who wants government to be clean, predictable and accountable. Let's suppose that Michele Obama did draw a salary, and her husband decided she was doing a poor job. What could he do? Fire her? Even worse, what happens if they get divorced? Would she lose her wage, along with her title?
In 1946, Republican Congressman James Fulton proposed an annual salary of $10,000 for first lady Bess Truman. Although he was part of the "loyal opposition" to Democratic President Harry Truman, Fulton quipped, he also understood how hard the president's wife worked. Indeed, Fulton argued, the job of the first lady remained "the only case of involuntary servitude in America."
He was right, up to a point: It's an enormously challenging job, and it comes without pay. But no one forced Bess Truman - or Michelle Obama - to take it. So Congress was right, too, when it rejected Fulton's proposal. We would be wise to do the same.
I've always liked Michelle Obama. She is smart, sophisticated, accomplished and poised. Based on what we've seen so far, she'll be a terrific first lady.
But that doesn't mean we should pay her for it.
As Barack and Michelle Obama make their way to the White House, putting Ms. Obama on salary has become the latest cause du jour among Democrats of a certain age. Like millions of other women, the argument goes, Ms. Obama will have to balance her work and home duties. In her case, "work" will include hosting state dinners, giving speeches and interviews, and overseeing a paid staff. Why shouldn't she get paid, too?
The answer, ironically, lies in Barack Obama's own ancestral home. I speak of Kenya, of course, where Obama's father was born and died. So far as I know, it's also the only country that has put political wives on the public payroll. And it's a good reminder of all the bad things that can happen when you do so.
The story starts with Lucy Kibaki, who became Kenya's first lady in 2002. Shortly after that, she began to draw a salary - now estimated at nearly $100,000 per year - as compensation for her "social responsibilities."
Next came a disputed 2007 election between Kibaki's husband and Raila Odinga, triggering ethnic violence that left as many as 1,500 people dead and between 180,000 and 250,000 displaced. The two candidates eventually agreed to a power-sharing agreement, making Odinga the prime minister and Mwai Kibaki the president.
Naturally, then, Odinga's partisans demanded that his wife get paid alongside Kibaki's. Ditto for supporters of new Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka, who wanted his spouse to get a salary as well.
So last September, Kenya's civil service director announced that Ida Odinga and Pauline Musyoka would receive "responsibility allowances" of about $70,000 per year. In a nation where the average salary is $1,700, the proposal generated a loud public outcry.
"The leadership of this country cannot continue to pretend that 36 million Kenyans exist to feed them and their families, and keep them in luxury," one newspaper editorialized. "This is a poor country, many of whose citizens live on the verge of starvation."
Graciously, Ms. Odinga turned down the offer of a salary. "Kenyans know I have taken care of my husband in good and bad times without help from the state, sometimes in spite of the state," Ida Odinga said. "I will continue doing that."
We still don't know what Ms. Musyoka will do. But here's what we do know: Paying political wives is a formula for resentment, suspicion and corruption. And Michelle Obama shouldn't have any part of it.
Remember, America has economic woes of its own. We're not nearly as impoverished as Kenya, of course. Amid our worst financial crisis since the 1930s, however, do we really want to put another presidential family member on the public payroll?
And don't think the Obamas have taken a vow of poverty, either. True, they'll have to forsake the $316,000 per year that Michelle earned in her last job. Living "only" on the president's $400,000 salary, however, they'll make eight times as much as the average American household. It's hard to see why they need a second income.
But perhaps other government servants do. A salary for Michelle Obama would unleash a wave of demands from members of Congress and other officials, insisting that their wives deserve public compensation as well. And who's to say they'd be wrong? A senator's spouse often must perform many of the same tasks as the first lady, after all, but on a much smaller family wage.
Last, paying the first lady would set a poor precedent for a president who wants government to be clean, predictable and accountable. Let's suppose that Michele Obama did draw a salary, and her husband decided she was doing a poor job. What could he do? Fire her? Even worse, what happens if they get divorced? Would she lose her wage, along with her title?
In 1946, Republican Congressman James Fulton proposed an annual salary of $10,000 for first lady Bess Truman. Although he was part of the "loyal opposition" to Democratic President Harry Truman, Fulton quipped, he also understood how hard the president's wife worked. Indeed, Fulton argued, the job of the first lady remained "the only case of involuntary servitude in America."
He was right, up to a point: It's an enormously challenging job, and it comes without pay. But no one forced Bess Truman - or Michelle Obama - to take it. So Congress was right, too, when it rejected Fulton's proposal. We would be wise to do the same.