Living off the public: politicians (spam on topic)

[fable]

Have you heard the one about Herve Gaymard? He's the current French Finance Minister, a very powerful man, with ambitions on the top job. It seems that some newspapers uncovered the fact he'd been renting a huge luxury apartment ($18,500/month) in an exclusive section of Paris, furnished it and bought weekly groceries for it, all on the public dole. Asked about this in an interview by several media (including television) a week ago, Gaymard insisted that if he was one of the "wealthy bourgeois" such as some of his colleagues, he could simply buy his own home, but he was relatively poor, had eight children, and was the son of a shoemaker.

That may be. However, it's now emerged that Gaymard already owns another large apartment in a fairly ritzy area, that he rents out to others at more than $3000/month. Of course, it's only one-third the size of the one he's living in now, and has only four bedrooms. And apparently four other luxury homes owned by the poverty-stricken Finance Minister, throughout France, have been uncovered by reporters in the last couple of days. He's expected to resign, soon. Even the French government, which always stands behind its ministers, has turned its back on this one.

But he's hardly the first politician to live ostentatiously, and try to disguise his wealth. He's just more stupid than most others. Remarkably stupid, when you think about it. What could lead a person who's obviously very wealthy, right at the top rungs of national power in a powerful land, to still try to squeeze the national coffers for his support? Do you think he felt his amount of work, brains and connections were helping France so much, that he deserved something more than the enormous perks he otherwise received? Or was Gaymard just reflecting the cynical "we're industry, we rule, you owe us" attitude that has swamped big business of late, with corporate executives in the US, the Netherlands, Germany and elsewhere receiving highly publicized multi-milion dollar bonuses while workers are refused yearly adjustments for inflation? Or was there some other reason that this obviously intelligent, powerful man would do something so inordinately stupid, not to mention, ethically repugnant?

[ik911]

Don't be mistaken! Politicians don't get that much more salary, I'm told. With the kind of education most politicians have, they could choose for much better paid jobs. In Holland, politicians often work 'til 23:00h.
But they do politics instead of some better paying, less exhausting job, because they want to.

Still, that is no excuse to do such a thing. If he wants to make a lot of money, he should go in business or something.

[Macleod1701]

That may be the case in your country IK but in the UK the politicians get big money, take '3 Jag Prescott' you have to be pretty well off to own three of them AND live in London which beleive me is certainly not cheap, and they are eligible to claim back travelling expenses and hell knows what else.
We pay their wages as well and they still want more.

[fable]

It's a valid point that some politicians, in some countries, don't make much money in that profession. Here in the US, some states pay their federally elected officials (senators, representatives) quite well, but others pay them so badly that they have to rent cheap apartments outside the capitol.

I don't know how much the position of French Finance Minister pays, but I'm willing to bet it's a pretty hefty wage. On the one hand, Gaymard has 8 children, and the costs of living in Paris, in a style to which he's grown accustomed, must be great. Still, he's not a poor man, that's clear. He's actually quite wealthy. Virtually all the elite that run France, like those in the UK and the US, are. So he should have been able to afford this easily. I suppose I have to wonder: wasn't the exchange of monetary loss for great power wielded over the lives of all French citizens enough?

[jopperm2]

That is pretty crooked, even the President of the United States doesn't make enough salary to afford that apartment. Of course he's rich in his own right, but he certainly doesn't claim he isn't.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jopperm2 That is pretty crooked, even the President of the United States doesn't make enough salary to afford that apartment.

He does, if you consider $400,000/year enough. He also lives and works in the White House mansion free (it's a huge place), has several private jets and a Cadillac limo, free, and a special retreat (another mansion) available free, as well.

[FweL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable He does, if you consider $400,000/year enough. He also lives and works in the White House mansion free (it's a huge place), has several private jets and a Cadillac limo, free, and a special retreat (another mansion) available free, as well.

I would say that that is little bit too much $100,000/year would be more realistic payment if we look at all those things that president gets for free.

My question would be this will president of USA keep title of president? After that term of 4 years have run out? I would mean that title.

[jopperm2]

That's right! Thanks for the correction fable, I forgot they moved it up to 400k. I'm not saying he doesn't get paid a lot, but I would expect that sort of compensation. It's pretty measly really compared to what most presidents could be making.


Fwel, yes, they keep the title for life; as well as some secret service protection.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jopperm2 That's right! Thanks for the correction fable, I forgot they moved it up to 400k. I'm not saying he doesn't get paid a lot, but I would expect that sort of compensation. It's pretty measly really compared to what most presidents could be making.

Yes, but remember: most politicians are already privately wealthy. It was just revealed today, for instance, that the estimable Monsieur Gaymard pays French taxes in the highest bracket. He may be the son of a shoemaker, but he's a pretty damn wealthy son of a gun. And in the US, most federal politicians are multi-millionaires from industry or law. And most are semi-retired living on their investments, as a Congressional Report discovered several years ago. So moving to Congress or the White House doesn't represent a loss of income, but a tremendous increase in power.

[jopperm2]

What I'm saying is that if they worked in the private sector they would make more. I think 400k is kinda low actually for basically the most powerful position in the world.

[Chanak]

I heartily disagree. As fable pointed out, moving into politics doesn't represent an income loss whatsoever. The facts bear this out completely. If you only knew the tip of the perk iceberg involved here - per diems, reimbursements for expenses, etc - you would see that a CEO making $400K a year with that kind of sweet set-up had it made in the shade. The $400K is pocket money.

Bodyguards for life...a fat pension...continued use of some perks...all it takes is one 4 year-stay in the White House. All of this, for a job that is gained through a popularity contest.

There is no difference in my eyes between the politicians of the here and now, and Televangelists.

[jopperm2]

You can make ten, fifteen million a year in the private sector though. I'm not saying it isn't a great salary, It's just not the best paying job compared to the power level.

[Maharlika]

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is a telecom tycoon before he entered politics.

A number of his administration's directives and policies favor his and his associates' business.

I think that this guy doesn't know the phrases "sense of propriety" or delicadeza, and "conflict of interests."

Fable, I think power can be so intoxicating, greed is normally nearby.

Oh yes, lest I forget, does anyone know the late Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and her wife, the lady of a thousand pair of shoes, Imelda Marcos? I think the word "imeldific" became an official english word in "honor" of this woman.

[Chanak]

@Mah: Indeed, I remember Ferdinand and Imelda very well, since they were still in power when I lived on Clark AFB. The US government propped up Ferdinand like a war hero who was officially anti-communist. Most Americans had no clue about the truth behind what they did to Filipinos, and the money they stole from the country.

@Jopp: The majority are fresh from making that sort of money, and still make lots of money from sources related to their previous interests. Hardly any sort of loss at all considering the power they gain, and what they have going for them afterwards when they leave office. Politics are a win-win for the elite, unless they have the misfortune of becoming a patsy and end up taking a fall to help cover up nefarious goings-on (an occupational hazard, one might say).

[fable]

Mah, can't say I ever heard "imeldific" before, but perhaps it was local slang. I do know that in certain quarters (including this house) any reference to a person as an Imelda means extravagant expenditure on tons of clothing. That's probably her most enduring image here in the West. As a vicious, pampered, clothes horse.

Jopperm2, think of an analogy to RPGs. In the early part of a game, you may be concerned with making as much money as possible, to afford all the great things you see on sale at merchants. But in some titles, at least, you reach a point where you're rolling in wealth. You no longer care about that. You're making so much it's insigificant, and you can always make more any time with your connections. You have new goals to attend to.

So it is with industrialists and lawyers who move to politics. When your net capital is in excess of $25 million and your stock portfolio along brings in another million a year or more (and some of the politicians in the US Congress and the White House--such as the president and vice-president--are worth in excess of $200 million), you can afford to drop the hands on day-to-day business, take a position on the board of directors or the name plaque, still rake in a huge amount for that alone, and graciously agree to acquire power over all the people in your state or nation. You don't lose. Anything. You just shift your goals to grander things.