CDZ Would you think it okay for a President's spouse to continue to work in their career?

[320 Years of History]

Of course, the context I have in mind for the title question is "while s/he is also First Spouse."

Clearly, that's not been something First Ladies have done, but I think it'd be fine. At the end of the day, the Presidency is still a job, and compared to other C-level jobs -- not one of which requires running an organization as large, as complex, and none of which have nearly as many authoritative constraints -- a very low paying job no less.

In that regard, it makes sense that the spouse of a person as accomplished as a President and their spouse are going to these days be, that the First Spouse would work and collect a paycheck. Strangely, the job of President and First Spouse may be among the very few that actually costs more to have than one earns by having it.

• The cost of living... in the White House
  
• White House living not total free ride - CNNPolitics.com
  
• Obama foots the bill for White House Thanksgiving
  
• Who Pays for the Expenses of the US President? | The Classroom | Synonym
  
• Five myths about presidential vacations

 

[p kirkes]

No, any work by the spouse should be directed toward improving the lot of the American people or some distinct fraction, IE Indian affairs, childrens issues, etc.

On another note, If Hillary becomes President, what will Bill's role be or not be? He is a powerful man and can "take over" (cause confusion) or he could be like an Ambassador at Large, in the style of Eleanor Roosevelt.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Of course, the context I have in mind for the title question is "while s/he is also First Spouse."

Clearly, that's not been something First Ladies have done, but I think it'd be fine. At the end of the day, the Presidency is still a job, and compared to other C-level jobs -- not one of which requires running an organization as large, as complex, and none of which have nearly as many authoritative constraints -- a very low paying job no less.

In that regard, it makes sense that the spouse of a person as accomplished as a President and their spouse are going to these days be, that the First Spouse would work and collect a paycheck. Strangely, the job of President and First Spouse may be among the very few that actually costs more to have than one earns by having it.

• The cost of living... in the White House
  
• White House living not total free ride - CNNPolitics.com
  
• Obama foots the bill for White House Thanksgiving
  
• Who Pays for the Expenses of the US President? | The Classroom | Synonym
  
• Five myths about presidential vacations

In theory of course you are correct. In practice though, I think one of our better traditions is that the First Spouse has always eschewed their career in favor of being a goodwill ambassador who volunteers to champion a cause that is dear to them while residing in the White House.

I found it disgusting when M Obama suggested she should be paid for that.

 

[Correll]

Depends on the career.

A lawyer would be a very touchy career what with likely conflicts of interests or the danger of people tying to funnel money to the President.


A college professor? That should be pretty safe.

A doctor? Safe.

 

[320 Years of History]

No, any work by the spouse should be directed toward improving the lot of the American people or some distinct fraction, IE Indian affairs, children's issues, etc.

Why must they do that and not do it in a paid capacity?

Consider Dr. Biden. Since 2009, she has been a professor of English at Northern Virginia Community College. She gets paid to teach English there. Why shouldn't a Presidential spouse not undertake paid work? Why should a Presidential spouse be forced into volunteerism?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No, any work by the spouse should be directed toward improving the lot of the American people or some distinct fraction, IE Indian affairs, children's issues, etc.

Why must they do that and not do it in a paid capacity?

Consider Dr. Biden. Since 2009, she has been a professor of English at Northern Virginia Community College. She gets paid to teach English there. Why shouldn't a Presidential spouse not undertake paid work? Why should a Presidential spouse be forced into volunteerism?

Tradition AND also to at least mitigate the appearance of impropriety. There are very few fields, none really, where the POTUS couldn't swing a little weight and help his spouse if he desired. Or she, as the case may be.

And let's be real, we're not talking about a job that pays so poorly that the First Family needs a second income.

 

[320 Years of History]

Depends on the career.

A lawyer would be a very touchy career what with likely conflicts of interests or the danger of people tying to funnel money to the President.


A college professor? That should be pretty safe.

A doctor? Safe.

The nature of work one performs has nothing to do with folks will or wherewithal to "funnel money" anywhere.

I think one of our better traditions is that the First Spouse has always eschewed their career in favor of being a goodwill ambassador who volunteers to champion a cause that is dear to them while residing in the White House.

Okay, fine it's a tradition. Surely you can do better than open and stand on an appeal to tradition? Or is that really the beginning and end of your case for why Presidential spouses should not work?

Pick a cause. I bet there're folks in the world championing it and getting paid to do so. Why, other than to merely conform to traditional practice, should the First Spouse not be among those folks? As First Spouse, I suspect one's effectiveness as a champion is made all the more effective than were they to do the same thing and not be First Spouse while doing it. Why should one not be paid merely because one's partner successfully pursued his/her work aspirations?

 

[320 Years of History]

let's be real, we're not talking about a job that pays so poorly that the First Family needs a second income.

Did you read the content at the links in the OP?

Do you have any idea what it costs to send a kid to school in D.C?

• St. Alban's
• Sidwell
• Episcopal
• Madeira
• Foxcroft

 

[I amso IR]

If the election goes Hillary Clinton's way, we are about to find out. She has already mentioned putting Bill to work on national items as opposed to baking cookies. Where is Robert Ludlum when you need him? And yes, "I know", it was, after all, a rhetorical question on my part.

 

[320 Years of History]

If the election goes Hillary Clinton's way, we are about to find out. She has already mentioned putting Bill to work on national items as opposed to baking cookies. Where is Robert Ludlum when you need him? And yes, "I know", it was, after all, a rhetorical question on my part.

Well, she could appoint him to a cabinet office or to the Supreme Court. In either role, he could collect a paycheck.

 

[Correll]

Depends on the career.

A lawyer would be a very touchy career what with likely conflicts of interests or the danger of people tying to funnel money to the President.


A college professor? That should be pretty safe.

A doctor? Safe.

The nature of work one performs has nothing to do with folks will or wherewithal to "funnel money" anywhere.

Sure it does.

A salaried professorship is far less open to abuse than a lawyer who's income is widely variable depending on clients and cases and work load.

 

[Correll]

let's be real, we're not talking about a job that pays so poorly that the First Family needs a second income.

Did you read the content at the links in the OP?

Do you have any idea what it costs to send a kid to school in D.C?

• St. Alban's
• Sidwell
• Episcopal
• Madeira
• Foxcroft

It is telling that public school is not even mentioned.

 

[I amso IR]

.

let's be real, we're not talking about a job that pays so poorly that the First Family needs a second income.

Did you read the content at the links in the OP?

Do you have any idea what it costs to send a kid to school in D.C?

• St. Alban's
• Sidwell
• Episcopal
• Madeira
• Foxcroft

It is telling that public school is not even mentioned.

let's be real, we're not talking about a job that pays so poorly that the First Family needs a second income.

Did you read the content at the links in the OP?

Do you have any idea what it costs to send a kid to school in D.C?

• St. Alban's
• Sidwell
• Episcopal
• Madeira
• Foxcroft

It is telling that public school is not even mentioned.

Let's not even go there with Bill Clinton, in spite of the fact that not even he would go there. The liability would be too great and "no real money". That was his primary goal following his two terms. "Make some real money", that is.

 

[320 Years of History]

.

let's be real, we're not talking about a job that pays so poorly that the First Family needs a second income.

Did you read the content at the links in the OP?

Do you have any idea what it costs to send a kid to school in D.C?

• St. Alban's
• Sidwell
• Episcopal
• Madeira
• Foxcroft

It is telling that public school is not even mentioned.

let's be real, we're not talking about a job that pays so poorly that the First Family needs a second income.

Did you read the content at the links in the OP?

Do you have any idea what it costs to send a kid to school in D.C?

• St. Alban's
• Sidwell
• Episcopal
• Madeira
• Foxcroft

It is telling that public school is not even mentioned.

Let's not even go there with Bill Clinton, in spite of the fact that not even he would go there. The liability would be too great and "no real money". That was his primary goal following his two terms. "Make some real money", that is.

The question isn't about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Trump, Johnson or anyone else in particular.

 

[320 Years of History]

let's be real, we're not talking about a job that pays so poorly that the First Family needs a second income.

Did you read the content at the links in the OP?

Do you have any idea what it costs to send a kid to school in D.C?

• St. Alban's
• Sidwell
• Episcopal
• Madeira
• Foxcroft

It is telling that public school is not even mentioned.

What do you find yourself being told?

 

[320 Years of History]

Depends on the career.

A lawyer would be a very touchy career what with likely conflicts of interests or the danger of people tying to funnel money to the President.


A college professor? That should be pretty safe.

A doctor? Safe.

The nature of work one performs has nothing to do with folks will or wherewithal to "funnel money" anywhere.

Sure it does.

A salaried professorship is far less open to abuse than a lawyer who's income is widely variable depending on clients and cases and work load.

Red:
I think you don't well understand how earings flow/work for senior/"high unit" partners -- which is almost certainly what one would been in any firm even before becoming First Spouse -- in highly successful firms.

 

[I amso IR]

Fair enough, as you are the OP. In my personal opinion, absolutely, the spouse should be free to pursue their chosen profession as long as incidentals such as family and children are not overlooked.

 

[Camp]

Good Lord, can you imagine if Trump wins and that woman decides to go back into the "modeling" semi-nude business?

 

[320 Years of History]

Good Lord, can you imagine if Trump wins and that woman decides to go back into the "modeling" semi-nude business?

Been there. Done that for all intents and purposes, though I wouldn't call a swimsuit layout "semi-nude."

There are apparently (I make no attestation to the authenticity of the photos) more revealing shots here:

• Donald Trump's Wife Melania Nude Photos Uncovered
• Ivanka trump nude - Slimpics.com

But I'm not one of those "religious right" folks who gives a damn whether Mrs. Trump modeled nude or not. It's not as though lots of hot young women don't dress like that to attend any number of fundraisers, cocktail parties, pool parties, and so on. Most importantly, what I think about Donald Trump and his policy proposals has nothing to do with Melania Trump or anyone else, be they named Trump or not.

If Mrs. Trump wants to take paid modeling gigs while being First Lady, fine by me.

 

[320 Years of History]

Fair enough, as you are the OP. In my personal opinion, absolutely, the spouse should be free to pursue their chosen profession as long as incidentals such as family and children are not overlooked.

You may be very first person I've ever observed refer to family and children as "incidentals."