Should the First Lady Get Paid?
This week NBC is asking an interesting question: Should the First Lady get paid a salary for the work she does on behalf of the country?
In case you didn’t know it, the First Lady currently does not get paid. According to Politico:
When incoming President Barack Obama meets with a world leader, attends a diplomatic dinner or reads to a roomful of rapt schoolchildren, he’ll be doing the work of the nation as well as earning his $400,000 annual salary. But when his wife attends the same functions at his side ‘” or in his stead ‘” she’ll be doing it for love.
Because being first lady means you don’t get paid.
While the position carries no official duties, the president’s spouse has long been expected to serve as a highly visible goodwill ambassador for the nation, performing a wide range of ceremonial and quasi-diplomatic jobs. The work involved is not insubstantial: Although Hillary Rodham Clinton was accused during her presidential campaign of having inflated her policy efforts as first lady, she wasn’t just at home baking cookies, either.
Her 11,000-page schedule implies a fair amount of time and energy put in on behalf of her husband and the country.
Yet because they are presidential spouses, first ladies are expected to volunteer their assistance.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Women in general do not get paid for work they do in the home. All that laundry we do and all those meals we cook? We do it for free. And this is one of the justifications most respondents to the NBC poll give for saying that the First Lady should not get paid.
What exactly is the role of the First Lady? In the book First Ladies: Political Role and Public Image, Edith Mayo notes that the role of First Lady has changed throughout time. Martha Washington was our first First Lady; she had no role models to follow, so she defined the role of First Lady for herself. Martha Washington served as a diplomat, hosting a “drawing room” every Friday, entertaining guests of state for hours. She also followed her husband to the battlefield during the Revolutionary War, visiting troops and serving as a “camp wife.” Interestingly enough, it was common for women to follow their husbands during the Revolutionary War. They were paid a salary by the Army to cook, do laundry, and provide medical assistance. Yet as First Lady, Martha Washington did all of this work for free.
Every First Lady since Martha Washington has continued the diplomatic role of playing host to guests of state. Elaborate White House events are planned by the First Lady, yet she receives no salary for doing this work. The average salary for an event planner in today’s economy is $45,000 – $60,000.
Franklin D. Roosevelt made Eleanor Roosevelt’s role as a diplomat official by appointing her to be the US delegate to the United Nations. Although US ambassadors typically receive a salary of $145,000 – $150,000 (I’m not sure what they were paid during FDR’s tenure), Eleanore Roosevelt was not paid for this work.
The role that the First Lady plays in hosting events and socializing also fulfills the function of a lobbyist. Lobbyists can expect to make $75,000 – $130,000 in today’s economy. However, the First Lady has never been paid for the work that she has done to advocate for legislation, whether we’re talking about Nancy Reagan’s work to end drug trafficking or Hillary Clinton’s work to reform the health care system.
Edith Mayo makes a strong argument as to why the First Lady is not paid a salary. According to Mayo, First Ladies are expected to be an icon of American womanhood. And although we live in the 21st Century and women are no longer restricted to staying in the home, they are still expected to do the majority of the housework and take care of their families. All of this work is done without pay. Therefore, the First Lady receives no salary for the work she does, despite the political nature of her work. Until women are paid a wage for the work the perform in their homes, it is unlikely that the First Lady will receive a salary. Perhaps when we have a female President, this issue will be resolved.
What do you think? Should the First Lady be paid a salary? If so, how much should she be paid?
Yes, but only if they clearly spell out her responsibilities.
I think that you stated plenty of arguments for why the first lady should be paid for their work. This is not just housework!! It is planning events, talking and smoozing diplomats, and speaking at different events. Pay the first lady!
I think First Ladies should be paid. I had to think about it at first because my initial thought was that they are doing a volunteer job almost, without being ‘vetted’ or interviewed for the position and so to speak. But then I remembered how wives actually do play an important role in the campaigning of President’s and how many people use their opinions of the wives to justify their voting choices. Remember how much attention was given to Michelle Obama; how she dressed, how she acted, was she militant, did she love America, etc. If her role was not important, if she had no job, then why does anyone care about the wife at all? Or take for instance I heard a few acquaintances say that they did not like John Kerry because of his wife. Clearly, the wives play an important role on campaigns and it is not just because it is a package deal with a package salary – a President would make the same amount married or not.
Another important reason for these women to get paid for their labor (and yes it is labor) is because it would set a good president for other wives who go unpaid for their labor. I believe that in some places corporate wives are just now being recognized and paid for the work that they do, the government and white house should follow along. Sadly, however, it seems that a “wives salary†would only happen for those at the top of organizations, with married women of lower classes continuing to labor for nothing. So I can see how this could work against some people because it would mean that some wealthy people, like corporate CEOs, would make even more money than before and the rest would continue to struggle in our hard times. This is clearly a tricky question but I still believe that at least the First Lady, who works and has a job, should be paid for her labor.
Given the vast scope of those duties, the First Lady/Gentleman is really a political appointee, albeit one who is picked before the election. Since the duties involved really aren’t optional, I think that it would make sense in one respect, but could also be problematic in others. Who would be the ‘supervisor’ – the President? What happens when medical or personal reasons make fulfillment of the traditional duties impossible for a time? I’d be interested to know if any other countries have honorariums/stipends/salaries for their leaders’ spouses, and I think that the discussion could bring up some interesting issues.
Good points, everyone.
@ Alice – I think you raise an interesting question. I’m going to do a little digging on that, because I think it’s a great way to determine what exactly the First Partner should be paid.
@ Tiffany – Yeah, clearly women of lower socioeconomic status are in a much different position than upper-class women. I think that Michelle Obama’s race brings in another layer to the discussion. Where would this country be without the unpaid labor of black women?
Apart from all the good points you brought up, no President in the last 147 years has been single.
(James Buchanan was a bachelor, and three US Presidents previous to him were widowed at the time they were elected, although I’m not certain Jefferson counts, since he was fooling around with one of his slaves at that point, and they continued to have a relationship for years after, which resulted in several children.)
I bring this up because I think it would be _extremely_ difficult for a single man or woman to be elected President today. Therefore, not only should the First Lady or First Lord get paid, but perhaps the President & their spouse should be paid a joint salary, one that reflects that there’s no way the President would be President without a spouse.
(I realize that will never happen. But if we’re going to be totally rational about it, surely we should address the situation as it is.)
What would the First Lady buy with more money? Better seats for the kids on Air Force One? Priority appointments at the National Naval Medical Center?
Serena: This is a thought provoking post. Thanks for writing about it.
If Hillary had become President, I bet that Bill would have been paid a salary for his First Gentlemen responsibilities. I think the First Lady should receive a salary. She has her own staff (Executive Chef, Social Secretary, a Chief of Staff, Press Secretary, Chief Floral Designer, etc.) who earn a salary. As their “boss” shouldn’t she be paid too?
Jonathan, that would be like saying, “what would a woman buy if she were paid a salary for the unpaid house work she performs? A new hat? A shiny new watch?” The point of paying the First Lady is that “women’s work” has value and it ought to be fairly compensated.
Rachel, good point about not having an unmarried President. So with that in mind, do you think we would ever have an LGBTQ president?
Nina, good point. You can bet Bill Clinton wouldn’t have done a thing for free if he was the First Spouse.
Of course she should be paid. I think the two of them should divvy up the $400,000 presidential salary. If they need more money than that, tax the CEO’s and Wall Street banksters, because *I* sure as hell don’t want to pay more taxes for politicians’ salaries.
Get paid! You people are wacked. The $400,000 is joint pay. Pluss they have no expences. Oh, and since they make over The ‘Bama’s $125,000 limit- they are the evil rich anyway so the need to be taxed heavily.
Who’s to say we haven’t already had a LGBTQ president or presidential spouse? (No i’m not thinking of anybody in particular)
As for paying the spouse… they campaigned together… the $400,000 is joint pay and much more than most americans enjoy.
As the ultimate public servants, neither the President nor the First Lady should be paid.
If it’s a volunteer post, then in theory, she could choose not to do the First Lady duties, and take a paid professional position.
But is that the reality?
It takes a groundbreaker to make it so. Cherie Blair in the UK, who maintained her own career while her husband was Prime Minister, described the challenges of this situation in her recent autobiography. And that’s in a country with royalty to deflect/perform the social obligations Americans impose on their First Lady.
I have a strong feeling that Michelle Obama is stuck with First Lady-ness, and I think she should be compensated for that.
Brian, you have a good point.
MsM, that autobiography sounds really interesting. I would hope that Michelle Obama would maintain her own career. After all, she has been the primary bread winner in the Obama household.
Good topic! I’d say the first lady IS compensated for her work, not with a paycheck but with her every need attended to by a huge staff, a beautiful home to live in, a limo at her command, protection for herself and her family I don’t think she needs money for anything, does she? I believe she has some choice on many of her duties and most first ladies pursue a personal agenda. Let’s get her title changed from “First Lady” to something more modern…any brainstorms out there??
No The First Lady should not be paid. She wasnt hired for the job He was. She isnt required to do anything…she chooses to. Plus They dont have to pay rent and they have servents to do everything for them and Obama gets a 400K salary which by the way is = to 10x what an average person makes.
Good call, Jane – let’s stop using the term “Lady.” It’s so antiquated! How about First Spouse or First Partner?
No, I don’t think the spouse of the president should be paid. However, I’d love to see a spouse say that they were continuing with their career rather than packing it up to move to DC.
No, the spouse of the president has no official duties and should not be paid. The spouse can’t be fired and has no boss. If she/he wants/gets a divorce, is she/he fired automatically? Anonymous says it best regarding the salary the president gets and all the freebies (servants, food, expenses) that can be wished for. Do you really want taxpayers complaining about whether the first spouse is properly earning his/her salary? Nope.
I think it’s telling that Michelle Obama has not come out with a statement that she does not want to be paid for being First Lady. I suspect the sudden interest in this “issue” comes straight from her camp. If the First Lady wants to sit on her butt and eat chocolates for four years, the country would manage. If her role was so absolutely central to the operation of our government, we would not allow widows or widowers to run for President. If having lucked into a role in shaping our history isn’t enough for poor Michelle, she can go back to Chicago and spend her White House years there. No one will miss her and the taxpayer will not have had to pay her a salary because she isn’t willing to donate her time as every First Lady has done before her.
Why not just elect a woman next time? maybe that would help our economy. Then maybe our lazy intellectual mouth piece president will stop trying to appease these war monger Generals. He is ruining our kids future. Think of the money we would save by our government not spending tuition on his children, the car and the life style.
She may not get paid but she gets to travel all over the world with or without her husband, so in essence, she gets free vacations, especially when she takes her children with her.
she travels all over the “world” that is
only pay the first lady IF she is elected or the government starts paying for all the other stay at home mothers…