We all know about the conservative media bias. Or something.
The St. Petersburg Times chose to print a story from Slate about White House staff salaries.
The story talks about the levels of compensation. The highest paid staffer under President Obama makes $193,000. Not too outrageous.
The story talks about how salaries are determined via a formula depending on rank. Assistants to the president earn the most. And we learn that Obama has more assistants than did his predecessor, 22 compared to 18. Plus experience can help a staffer earn more within his pay classification.
We learn from the story that "President Bush requested a total of $51.9 million for White House office salaries."
Some of us begin to wonder about how much Obama's staff will cost.
The story says the salaries go up every year. Obama, however, put a freeze on the salaries of staffers making $100,000 or more.
Some of us still wonder how much Obama's staff will cost.
Author Christopher Beam gives us a brief history of the growth of the White House staff, followed by an expert's estimate of the total cost of the staffing connected to the White House--obviously a number we cannot fairly compare with the amount Bush requested for office salaries.
Is that a hole in the story or what? If Beam can't tell us how Obama's staff compares with Bush's then he should explain why not. Otherwise, folks might think Beam is carrying water for the guy.
Unless he just didn't want to embarrass Bush with Obama's lower costs?