Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 6:01 PM
An interesting question came up during last night's CNN-YouTube Democratic presidential debate: Would candidates, if elected to the White House, be willing to forgo the president's annual salary of $400,000 in exchange for the federal minimum wage, which just went up to $5.85 an hour?

Edwards? Sure. Hillary? Yep. Obama? No problem. Sen. Chris Dodd? No way.
DODD: I have two young daughters who I'm trying to educate them. [Ed: On the basis of that sentence, you may not want to home school them.] I don’t think I could live on the minimum wage...
Fair enough, Senator. That's why people distinguish between the minimum wage and a living wage. And you've done admirable work on this issue in the past, seeking to raise the minimum wage to more than $7. But what surprised me most was your next comment, which suggested that you consider your Senate salary a little spare:
OBAMA: Well, we can afford to work for the minimum wage because most folks on this stage have a lot of money. It's the folks... on that screen who deserve -- you're doing all right, Chris, compared to, I promise you, the folks who are on that screen.
DODD: Not that well, I'll tell you, Barack.
Really? In fact, Sen. Dodd, you make $165,200 a year as a senator; your net worth has been reported to be between $1.5 million and $3.5 million; and you own a vacation cottage in Ireland. What's more, you can anticipate a nice retirement thanks to your Senate pension, which averaged about $50,000 a year in 2000. Would that the rest of us could be so fortunate.
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More