Like Kryptonite To Stupid
» Breaking News
Babysitter Synjan Mitchell Arrested For Leaving Kids To Go Drinking
Gemma Atkinson Promotes Command & Conquer Red Alert
Uganda Cops Warn About Knock-Out Breasts
CNBC Forced To Cut Costs
Sumner Redstone Sells Midway Games To Ease Cash Crunch
The headline: Taxpayers fund Bill Clinton spending
The reality: Oh, Bill Clinton is the first person to become an ex-president in the 21st century, you say? The funds being used are federally marked out so ex-presidents aren’t pushed to become Viagra pitchmen? The main complainer about this is a right-wing pressure group (the “National Taxpayers Union”)?
Give me a freaking break.
Oliver Willis
owillis@gmail.com
AIM: oliverwill
OW @ MySpace
OW @ Facebook
OW @ Flickr
OW @ XBox Live
OW @ Twitter
Given (and it as a given) that ex-Presidents, no matter how unpopular while in office, will rake in the money from their personal businesses once they leave office, why in the world should they get anything at all from taxpayers?
Sean has a point. Except for SS protection we shouldn’t pay for anything for them.
Right. Presidents shouldn’t get a pension, social security benefits or health care.
Neither should auto workers, teachers, bankers, CEOs or any other working American, blue collar or white collar, public or private sector. When people leave their jobs in their senior years after years of dutiful work and service, they should all just get other jobs and keep working until the die.
And there is the conservative vision of America in a nutshell. It truly boggles the mind.
Fafaroo, the last time I checked, a former auto worker wasn’t getting a perk of having an office suite paid for each year to the tune of $500,000.
I can understand a pension, SS benefits or a health plan, but you cannot seriously defend ex-Presidents living off the govt tit and using 328,000 taxpayer dollars for “equipment” or covering rent for offices with six figure price tags.
There will never be a former President who won’t make millions upon leaving office. Give them the basic benefits. The rest they should pay for themselves.
fafaroo:
The days of Harry Truman are long gone. As bad as The Shrub has been, isn’t he gonna make a ton of money off of a book deal? You don’t think Daddy Bush will set him up with a do nothing job at Carlyle? All future Presidents will end up on corporate boards and the like. It’s about time we cut wasteful spending and this is as good a start as any. Give them free health care(since hopefully we’ll have universal some day soon) and say $150,000/yr pension plus SS protection. They can do just fine. Besides, how many families will ever make $150,000 in a year?
Look, whether it’s Clinton or the current Bush giving ex-presidents benefits beyond the basics makes senses. Presidents don’t becoming symbols and ambassadors of this country the second they leave office. They can still and should continue to play an active role in promoting the interests of this nation, albeit perhaps, in a less ideological way. Giving ex-presidents perks allows them to continue acting as public servants and I think it’s pretty clear from some of the quotes in that article that Clinton and his staff are doing just that in a variety of capacities. The country should encourage that kind of continued non-political, civic participation in our ex-presidents rather simply expect them to exploit their office for profit. If a president took the perks but didn’t use them to engage in public service, that would be a problem. But that obviously is not the case with Clinton.
that should read: “Presidents don’t stop being symbols …”
fafaroo: Look, whether it’s Clinton or the current Bush giving ex-presidents benefits beyond the basics makes senses…Giving ex-presidents perks allows them to continue acting as public servants and I think it’s pretty clear from some of the quotes in that article that Clinton and his staff are doing just that in a variety of capacities.
Absolutely disagree about giving any benefits beyond the basics. and by basics I mean only covering the costs of security since any danger they are in derives directly from them having held the position of president.
Beyond that, I don’t see the purpose. They are going to make more than enough money to cover the costs of their expenses without it making any noticeable dent in their standard of living. Clinton made over 100 million dollars since leaving office. Do you really think paying 3% of his income to cover his office expenses is going to really register? Sure, 3 million is not small money. But if he made that much less in the last several years, if he made 105 instead of 109 million, would anything about his life be any different?
If he and his staff continue acting as public servants, well, good for them. Are you really saying they will only do it if we pay them to? That puts a lot of tarnish on their public servant halos.
Carter, Clinton, Bush and soon Bush will continue to derive a lot of benefits from their years in office. By us having elected them to office, we have made it possible for them to get those benefits. I don’t see why they need any more.
“Are you really saying they will only do it if we pay them to? That puts a lot of tarnish on their public servant halos.”
I’m not saying anything about their motives or motivation. But yes, making such funding available encourages continued public service. Just as it does in other areas of public service, from top to bottom.
If you think that tarnishes their “halos” do you apply the same argument to teachers who ask for cost of living raises? Does it tarnish their dedication to teaching to suggest that higher teacher salaries will attract better teachers, people who might otherwise stay in the private sector to make money? I know teachers aren’t making $100 million in book deals and consulting etc. but if you want to make an argument based on the ethics and morality of it, you have to apply it consistently, don’t you?
At the same time, I think it’s also a way to limit the extent to which ex-Presidents exploit the office for financial gain after they leave, which tarnishes the office.
It also looks to me like this is a program with plenty of oversight and accountability to limit abuses. Do you think Clinton is abusing the system or do you have a problem with the system itself?
“If you think that tarnishes their “halos” do you apply the same argument to teachers who ask for cost of living raises?”
If the president wanted to ask for a cost of living raise while in office, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. (The asking, mind you. Given the other perks of the office that we pay for I’d be very skeptical that any raise was actually needed.)
“I know teachers aren’t making $100 million in book deals and consulting etc. but if you want to make an argument based on the ethics and morality of it, you have to apply it consistently, don’t you?”
Sure, consistency is good and fair. But I’m not making an argument just on morals/ethics and the amount of money involved (100 million or whatever it may actually be for a particular ex-prez) makes a comparison with teachers inherently inconsistent.
Clinton can command the speaking fees he does BECAUSE he was president. No other ex-governor of Arkansas can come even close to that. His ability to make money as he does is a direct result of our having elected him to serve as President. We gave him a huge salary during his term as well as all sorts of other perks from free food to health care. And he’s now benefiting from the biggest perk of all, the money making opportunities provided to any ex-president. Name any other position that provides a “pension plan” that pays as well. Certainly teachers don’t get anything even proportionally close after only 8 years on the job.
I see no reason we should continue to foot the bill. An ex-prez doesn’t need the money. They wouldn’t miss the money. I can’t see what effect not having it would have one way or the other on what they do. So from a strictly rational view, just what is it we’re paying the money for?
“Do you think Clinton is abusing the system or do you have a problem with the system itself?”
Abusing it only in that he’s participating in it. And as it’s there I don’t have a problem with him taking the money since that is the rules of the game currently. So to be clear, I’m not saying he’s doing anything wrong.
I do have profound problems with the system itself as it stands and would like to see those rules changed.