WaPo has an interesting “what people make” chart: Ed Meese makes $293,500 as a Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Not bad for sitting around with your thumbs up your ass churning out right-wing bullshit with the help of some interns.
That’s slightly more than Jon Podesta makes for being the head of Center for American Progress. Strobe Talbot makes $412,500 heading up the Brookings Institute Institution (which, as I understand it, used to be liberal but is now primarily neocon).
Update. This is interesting (from 2004):
Edwin J. Feulner Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation, earned $540,776 in 2003, which consumed about 1.7 percent of the charity’s $31.5-million of income. Mr. Feulner has received bonuses exceeding $200,000 in each of the past seven years — a compensation structure that Ted Schelenski, Heritage’s vice president of finance and administration, attributes to the organization’s desire to “operate as much like a business as possible.”
That was in 2003, so assuming a 4 percent raise per year (which seems about right, based on the typical increases mentioned in the article), he would be making about 685K in 2009.
Update update: In fact, Feulner made 855K in 2007.
John Cole
It’s like a dressed-up cleaned-up bribery. Except they don’t feel the need to even hide it.
debrazza
Upon discovering that NPR host Scott Simon is making $300,000, I now officially know that it was wise of me to withhold my donations to that crappy network. “Public” nothing, especially public talking, should not make anyone rich. And the idea that somehow NPR is living on a shoestring and “needs our help” is totally b.s. now that we know the truth. $300,000 for talking on the radio? Sheesh.
DougJ
Upon discovering that NPR host Scott Simon is making $300,000, I now officially know that it was wise of me to withhold my donations to that crappy network. “Public” nothing, especially public talking, should not make anyone rich. And the idea that somehow NPR is living on a shoestring and “needs our help” is totally b.s. now that we know the truth. $300,000 for talking on the radio? Sheesh.
What bothers me is that I know how little the people who host local shows make in Rochester. It aggravates me that even public radio operates on such a winner-take-all basis.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
They called Heritage a “charity”?!? Then again, in a sense, it is true.
Nutella
Brookings is an Institution, not an Institute. Full name: The Brookings Institution. 30 years ago it was where economists and policy wonks from Democratic administrations hung out during Republican years, so it was a slightly left of center kind of place. Now it’s wall-to-wall neocons.
Beeb
Ed Meese is almost 78. That’s not a salary, it’s a pension.
PeakVT
a compensation structure that Ted Schelenski, Heritage’s vice president of finance and administration, attributes to the organization’s desire to “operate as much like a business as possible.”
So, how has Schelenski failed, specifically?
Maude
Think tanks are like drunk tanks. Nothing good comes out of them.
Funkhauser
Agreed that Scott Simon earns a ridiculous amount for a) following the news, b) interviewing people and c) talking.
Funkhauser
Also, did anyone else notice the racial disparities?
Brachiator
For fiscal year end 2007, Feulner made $854,178. You can run, but you can’t hide from the InterTubes:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3819
By comparison, Bruce R. Lindsey, CEO of the William Clinton Foundation made $248,620, and Strobe Talbot, president of the Brookings Institution, made $379,480, in both cases a much smaller percent of the foundation’s expenses than Feulner.
By the way, the Heritage Foundation spends about 16.7% of its budget on fundraising, which is relatively inefficient. By comparison, the Clinton Foundation spent 2.6% of its revenues on fundraising.
Demo Woman
OT! Don’t forget to vote for little Bitsy.
RSA
Oh. Charity. When are these lazy, good-for-nothing-but-gaseous-exudation, libertarian conservative parasites going to get real jobs? You know, like real Americans?
Beeb
With apologies for the nit-pick, the Heritage Foundation is not a charity. It’s a not for profit. There’s a difference, most obviously in the tax treatment of contributions.
VOR
So do all the free-market advocates survive on only their market-based income? Or do they rely on welfare/donations to survive?
Something to keep in mind every time they claim that all public infrastructure projects must be self-funding.
The Grand Panjandrum
John Podesta made $283,000 as head of Center for American Progress. Here is Jane Hamsher of the Left taking down the “progessive think tank” crowd after they failed to come to the aid of Van Jones.
It’s fine to point out wingnut welfare but our side needs to seriously take a look at who’s in charge and who influences policy and call bullshit. (I have looked at the next thread up and I could have posted it in that one as well.)
James
I notice they don’t tell you what THEY make. Here’s what I know. WaPo political journos make around $125,000 per year. Politico pays more like $150,000 to start. I hear Mike Allen makes in the neighborhood of $300,000 per year. TV journos make in the mid 6 figures and up — Gregory in the millions of course, but even the grunts make over $300,000 for their facetime. This info from someone in the biz, whom I have no reason to disbelieve.
Keith G
@Funkhauser, et al.: I* cannot get that excited about the amount \Scott Simon makes.
He is a, if not the, marquee presence on NPR. He is very good at human interest interviews. I tend not to listen to WESat if he is not there and I suppose his listeners do contribute subsantial money. I know several who do.
arguingwithsignposts
{sigh} Our compensation structure in this country is so fucked up it’s beyond repair. People bitch about teachers making $40,000 on the public “dole” and having to deal with kids with authority issues and wacked out fundevangelical parents, meanwhile these assholes make six figures for flinging poo all day.
And don’t get me started on Katie Couric or Rush Limbaugh.
AJ
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
— Upton Sinclair, talking about our lying media
PurpleGirl
The two most disgusting salaries to my mind: Wayne LaPierre’s over $600,000 at the NRA and Alberto Gonzalez’s $100,000. Both of them should be counting their daily takes in spare change.
RSA
$100K for an adjunct–oh, sorry, “visiting”–professor who may teach one course a semester? If I were paying tuition at Texas Tech, I’d be pissed.
JGabriel
Meaning that Feulner gets a bonus proportionate to how much money they lose each year?
I must admit, at least that philosophy seems more appropriate to the world of charity than the world of business.
.
Dave_Violence
Man, I don’t get you folks, well, some of you.
First of all, there is a world of difference between public and private employees. So a lobbying group (like a Civil Rights Organization such as the NRA) or think tank (Strobe Talbot a neocon? WTF? You folks is ignorant!) or pro sports team can pay their folks whatever they see fit. The rest of us can just eat shit and die, or, perhaps, go out on our own and make the huge bucks.
It’s all about what you can get someone to pay you. Of course, if their job is to take away money from me, it’s a different story.
Dave_Violence
Then again, $275 grand for the DC school chancellor… She must do a great job.
DougJ
Strobe Talbot a neocon? WTF? You folks is ignorant!
I realize that he isn’t, and that’s why I said “mostly”. Most of the things I read from Brookings on foreign policy are neoconservative.
Wile E. Quixote
@Dave Violence
Shitty example. Every professional sports team out there is massively subsidized by public money. If pro sports teams had to buy and maintain their own facilities instead of whipping up hordes of moronic sports fans (all of them in my book, sports fans are like teabaggers, only not as unintentionally amusing) to pressure local politicians to pay for new stadiums and facilities, they’d be getting a lot less money. The job of professional sports teams is to take as much money away from the taxpayers as they possibly can since their business model would much less lucrative if they didn’t. Pro sports are welfare for rich people paid for by poor and middle-class taxpayers.
Ask yourself a question. If a horrible plague came along and killed every professional athlete in the country, and every team owner and every hanger on, how much worse off would we really be? I don’t think we’d be that much worse off, and a lot of Philadelphia area dogs would be safer if Michael “I’m the next O.J.” Vick were taking a dirt nap. Now, if a horrible plague came along and killed every nurse in this country, or every teacher, how much worse off would we be?
J
We’re all in it together though, and stand to suffer equally, e.g., from the passage of health care reform with a robust public option.
Never have my feelings of solidarity with people who make 5, 6, 7 + as much as I do for promoting wars abroad and fighting measures to combat global warming, improve the lot of ordinary Americans and the like been stronger.
Slugger
Obviously, salary does not equal justice. I am pleased to see that the founder of Alley Cat Allies makes more money than Alberto Gonzales.
liberal
I don’t think they’ve been truly liberal for decades now. My impression is that they had a head named Schultz and he moved them rightward, in the 1980s.
In terms of their current standing, I think that tool O’Hanlon has articles on ballistic missile defense, discussion it as if it’s anything other than a complete waste of taxpayer money.
liberal
@Wile E. Quixote:
Damn straight, and well said.
liberal
@Brachiator:
When I was going to give away a good chunk of change, I subscribed to the preeminent newsletter that covers philanthropic orgs. Based on the grades orgs received, it seemed that ideological orgs, especially those that did anything one would remotely call lobbying, fared much worse. So I figure it must have something to do with the way activities are structured, and doesn’t mean those orgs are necessarily inefficient. The newsletter maybe mentioned something about that, too.
Then again, I hope Heritage drowns in inefficiency as soon as possible.
Phoebe
Strobe Talbot is a name I cannot believe exists.
Sly
Best part about those numbers:
When the Koch’s and the Bradley’s and the Olin’s and the Scaife’s shell out all that money to pay those salaries, it’s tax deductible. Big reason behind why they shell out all that money in the first place.
arguingwithsignposts
@Dave_Violence:
In a sort of twisted bit of philosophical logic, I don’t necessarily see a problem with some people making more than other people. However, all of these “think tanks” and lobbying organizations are aimed at swinging public policy in one direction or other. Therefore, the six figure salaries they make are directly attributable to their ability to get into the public’s pocket and make the most of it. Just look at that fucker Grover Norquist. Look at how much damage he’s wrought in this nation, for instance. The entire wingnut welfare system is the same way.
You could make the same argument for union brass, or civil rights orgs., I suppose. But I’d like to see a comparison chart between the amounts those leaders make and the amounts the wingnut welfarians make before doing so.
Re: athletes and anchors and other entertainers – again, I don’t have a problem with people making more than other people, but the larger issue is what does it say about our priorities.
As someone said above, wipe out all the pro athletes, and we’d all get along somehow. Wipe out all the nurses or teachers and we’d all be screwed. Yet we cry and moan about teachers making far less than Michael Vick will get this season, despite his penchant for killing dogs.
Yes, we can all just eat shit and die. But tell enough people to eat shit and die, and eventually they’ll get pissed off enough to do something about it. Or, nobody will have enough money to pay these rarified individuals all that extra dough (witness the new Yankees stadium reduction in seat prices).
It’s somewhat sick that in a country where millions of people are getting laid off or asked to take pay cuts or extra days off, nobody blinks an eye when the pro teams sign players to bigger and bigger contracts, or ESPN pays a buttload of money to air SEC games when the people who play in those games are sharecroppers.
jl
Heritage is PR outfit that does not even claim to do much original research. I read something they put out that admitted that a few years ago. As I remember that was their ‘response’ when they could not back up some of their claims when challenged on some of their BS by another think tank.
I am sure they have degenerated since then.
Brookings has gone neocon on foreign affairs. On economics and social policy they are still a respectable middle of the road think tank that sponsors first rate original research (at least by US economic profession standards, for what it is worth) and allows a range of honest opinion.
But I think you are correct on foreign policy.
jl
Point being on Heritage, since they are a PR outfit, their boss should be PR flack wages. Even a hack’s soul comes at a steep price.
bob h
“operate as much like a business as possible.”
Except for the bit about selling their product at a profit. An interesting question for me is where these institutions got their massive endowments in the first place. Shouldn’t they be showing some pain from the financial panic, like the Universities?