GovernmentExecutive.com

The top pay for senior White House aides, including Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Legislative Affairs Director Candida Wolff, was boosted to $161,000 at the beginning of July, according to a list sent to Congress and obtained by National Journal.

The top salary, paid to 19 aides, is up $4,000 from last year, barely matching the annual inflation rate. At the low end of the pecking order, some young staff assistants and correspondence aides earn $30,000 for the honor of sitting on the fringes of history.

Others among President Bush's highest paid advisers are Claude Allen, head of domestic policy; Counselor Dan Bartlett; Jack Crouch, deputy at the National Security Council; Nicolle Devenish, who succeeded Bartlett as head of communications; Michael Gerson, assistant for policy and strategic planning; Stephen Hadley, head of the NSC; Joe Hagin, deputy chief of staff; Al Hubbard, National Economic Council director; and Brett Kavanaugh, White House staff secretary.

Also compensated as assistants to Bush are I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to the vice president; Scott McClellan, press secretary; William McGurn, chief speechwriter; Harriet Miers, White House counsel; Jim Towey, director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; Fran Townsend, homeland security and counter-terrorism director; and Liza Wright, the new head of presidential personnel.

The full list is available at Nationaljournal.com.

COMMENTS

• Um, I make 3.2% of $157,000 ($161k - $4k) to be $5024 rather than $4,000. Their raise was more like 2.5%, close to inflation, as the story stated. Note that $161k is significantly more than senior civil service management receive in compensation (I believe that SES is capped at around $145k???). There was no mention of what the staff assistants and aides raise was (the story doesn't even mention whether the $30k was before or after the raise although it is implied that it is the post-raise figure) therefore, unless you have information from a source other than the story it is pure speculation what their raise(s) may have been. Maybe it was 3.2%, maybe it wasn't. GovExec.com reader Posted August 1, 2005 10:46 AM
• Taxpayer, You are wrong again. Where did you get your economics degree? You sound like one of King Georges coolies. Simply put, $4,000 for a government worker is a nice raise. For the lackies of the King it is nothing. They are probably scoffing at the low figure. GovExec.com reader Posted July 29, 2005 7:55 AM
• Alexis and Government executive editors need to learn about relativity. Prices (that includes wages) are relative not absolute. The pay increase should be evaluated in terms of relativity or percentage increase. The Democrats use absolutes in terms of tax changes to show that poor people did not receive as great a dollar change in taxes as the rich did. How stupid is that! Alexis does it here by stating that the $161,000 a year people got almost a $4000 (about 3.2%) while the do nothing wet behind the ears hanger ons only got $30,000 in total. But what was the increase for the $30,000 people? I bet it was about $1000, which is about the same percentage as for the higher paid! Thus, everyone at the white house retained their earning power and there is not difference between the higher paid and the lower paid! This kind of bias reporting destroys the creditability of the publication and the editors should stop it! taxpayer Posted July 28, 2005 6:53 AM