Why Donald Trump Needs to Take a Salary, by Rob Goodman on Politico (a PC site).
In his first broadcast interview as president-elect, Donald Trump pledged that he will accept as little of the presidential salary as he can get away with. “I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year,” he told CBS’ Lesley Stahl. “$400,000 you’re giving up,” she responded, as if this were some sort of public-spirited sacrifice.
The precedent of insisting that the president accept a salary—not in his interest, but in the public interest—is as old as the first Congress, even older. The American Framers considered payment of the presidential salary an important duty under the Constitution, and the principle that moved them then matters just as much as it ever did: It confirms that the president serves the public, and not the other way around. If the Founders’ reasons were good enough to persuade George Washington, our first independently wealthy president, they should be good enough for Donald Trump. …
You should want Donald Trump to get his $400,000. He’s still free to donate it all to charity, as two of his predecessors have done. But he should take our money all the same, just like every president from Washington on. The reasoning behind the presidential salary has evolved since those days, but some truths hold every bit as strongly. Among them: We are beholden to the people who pay us. In Hamilton’s words, “he who pays is the master.”
Now the left are worried about corruption? How is it that the Clintons, who never had salaries of more than a few hundred thousand per year at any time on the occasions when they held office, ended up with over a hundred million? Only by selling influence, big time. Not a peep out of the media.
Do the left seriously think that hundreds of thousands of dollars matter to Trump, who has billions? Do the math.
UPDATE: Clintons and Al Gore became filthy rich after leaving White House, by Lion of the Blogosphere.
The biased and untrustworthy mainstream media has never shown the least bit of concern that the Clintons and Al Gore have in fact use their political positions to become filthy rich. It’s a known fact and not just idle speculation on what might happen. They had very little net worth after leaving the White House in 2000, but today the Clintons have a net worth of $111 million and Al Gore has a net worth of $200 million (based on a quick Google search). Additionally, Chelsea Clinton is said to have a personal net worth of $15 million independent of her parents and her rich husband.
On the other hand, I strongly suspect that becoming president will wind up being a big money-losing proposition for Trump. The Trump name has already become toxic for the kind of rich people who patronize his luxury properties. For example, residents of Trump Place demanded that Trump’s name be removed from their community.
Al Gore had less than $2 million when he finished his presidential run in 2000, yet at one stage was worth over $1 billion due his climate change activities, including his popular movie. But at least Gore made his honestly, even much of it if it was based on a science error. See Bill and Hillary Clinton looked down on Al Gore, but Gore made more money and isn’t under investigation by the FBI.
