Ex-Presidents

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:48 pm

We're paying the ex-Presidents a lot of benefits.

http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=9711747

SPOKANE, Wash. - In 1958 Former President Harry Truman was living solely on his WWI army pension and told Congress he couldn't even afford postage stamps for "official business." Congress immediately responded with the Presidential Pension act of 1958, giving Truman a retirement salary of $25,000, benefits and a staff.

Today taxpayers are supporting our former presidents to the tune of more than $2.9 million. Their yearly salary pension is $191,000. Aside from that, each gets a staff; that staff costs you, the taxpayer, $96,000 per president. Among the amenities we pay for is rent for their office space - President Clinton's rent in Harlem is $516,000 a year, while the first President Bush spends $69,000 a year on "equipment" and

President Jimmy Carter spends $83,000 a year on "other services". The spending doesn't stop there.

We are paying for President Bush's subscription to the Wall Street Journal which costs $242 a year and he spends money on office furniture at Brookstone. His total for supplies in just January of 2006 alone was $7,538.

Former President Bill Clinton seems to spend the most across the board. His phone bill from the records KHQ received from 2006 cost taxpayers $104,000. We also pay for the satellite TV in his office, complete with eight separate receivers and all the movie channels that come with the "entertainment package". Your cost? $1,800 per year.

Congress regulates and approves this money for our former presidents, all of which have a net worth in millions and tens of millions. In retirement, President Bill Clinton's speaking fees earned him more than $40 million in addition to the $12 million his book deals have put in his pocket since he left office.

It all begs the question, why are taxpayers subsidizing ex-presidents who are millionaires?

If you are wondering why President Jimmy Carter hasn't been mentioned much, it's because he spends far less. In 2008 he spent $518,000, less than half of President Clinton's 1.1 million, the first Bush 41 fell somewhere in between.

With the budget getting bigger and bailouts in the billions, retirement has never looked scarier for many Americans, unless you can go "presidential".

Jimmy Carter - the most frugal of the living ex-Presidents - is costing the taxpayers over half a million dollars a year.

I don't mind giving them a good pension, but why are we footing the bill for their offices, staff, satellite TV and other amenities?

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:09 pm

I'm not sure we should be giving them much of anything after they are president actually. They can go back to their jobs that they had before they were in public service. Hell, they can make enough money on the public speaking circuit.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:11 pm

One would think the $191,000 a year and a permanent secret service detail would be plenty.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:42 pm

One would think the $191,000 a year and a permanent secret service detail would be plenty.

would be for me.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:15 pm

me too...is this part of that whole transparancy thing that Obama claims he doing?

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:19 pm

small drop in the bucket imo...all deserved for being on call for your country 24/7 for how ever long you were the number 1 or 2 guy.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:38 pm

Small drop in the bucket is code for "I don't mind big government or government waste", IMO. If we don't start cutting somewhere we will destroy ourselves.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:48 pm

you guys wanna cut 83K on jimmy carter? wtf is 83K gonna do? times it by 10...what's 830K gonna do?

you're focused on the wrong things.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:08 pm

Better than being focused on NOT cutting back big government (i.e. radbag). Gotta start somewhere bro.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:24 pm

Better than being focused on NOT cutting back big government (i.e. radbag). Gotta start somewhere bro.

agreed, but rad has a valid point - save our bullets for bigger targets (social security and welfare)

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:30 pm

Oh I agree that politically it wouldn't be the best use of resources to attack this practice. But accepting the practice because it's too difficult to change is still short sighted, IMO.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:40 pm

no one said they were accepting it because it was too difficult to change. Just that our resources are better spent elsewhere, and perhaps a concession to these ex-presidents is warranted for their service (I don't disagree, but there has to be a breaking point).

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:48 pm

Werd.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:02 pm

yeah - i don't think it's too difficult to change...they can just change it like THAT if they wanted to...agreed though that big gov't has to be toned down but addressing this first and foremost makes one look ridiculously clueless.

it's like losing your job and cutting your expenses...the wife goes to the spa every week, gets her nails done every 3 days, goes to the gym, yoga, tennis lessons, and goes to the theater every week...wife doesn't like to cook if she doesn't have to so you eat out 4-5 times a week, got 4 cars, and a winter chalet in aspen....FIRST THING we're going to address is cutting off delivery of the sunday paper...we're spending too much and we've got to address these issues pronto....we gotta cut somewhere right? lol.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:11 pm

Cutting anything is a step in the right direction. But you're right--prioritization is important.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:20 pm

especially in a government type of sense....besides blaming the last administration for your future, inevitable failings = 'token acts' are tops in the "politics for dummies" handbook.

"HEY NOW -- we cut stuff...let the record show we addressed stuff and fixed it...we're "do-ers", not just talkers"