With presidents making millions of dollars after they finish their time in office (which is perfectly fine), it makes no sense for the taxpayers to be providing them with an income regardless of their other arrangments.
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously approved a bill that would cut presidential pensions, saving the taxpayers millions.
The bill, which was introduced by Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, would cap the pensions at $200,000, with adjustments made for the increase in the cost of living each year.
In addition, the legislation includes language that for every dollar above $400,000 that a president makes from things like speeches and other post-presidential events, one dollar would be taken off the pension. Bloombergnoted that former President Barack had Obama already made $400,000 from one speech given to clients of Northern Trust Corporation.
Please, please, please, let this law be passed by Congress and signed by the President. Every little bit of help to reduce federal spending will help.
They also need to cut way down on Secret Service protection for former presidents and their families..........
ReplyDelete"In addition, the legislation includes language that for every dollar above $400,000 that a president makes from things like speeches and other post-presidential events, one dollar would be taken off the pension." From your mouth to God's ear. I have no problem with former presidents and first ladies receiving a pension, but given the nature of things they become billionaires during and shortly after their time in office if they're not in that situation to begin with.
ReplyDeleteHow about not wasting money on more tanks the Army doesn't want, or more air planes the Air Force doesn't need. How about ending the War in Afghanistan? How about eliminating welfare for wetbacks? Let's get rid of the Bureau of Land Management while we are at it! The Department of Education, the Food and Drug Administration, The Environmental Protection Agency, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Department of Agriculture, the National Endowment to the Arts, or how about the FCC? is it necessary for the federal government to regulate and control every damned thing? I want National Parks and wildlife preserves but I don't understand why we have the Bureau of Land Management. Can't each state manage their own land? Why do Congressman and Senators travel overseas on "fact finding" missions? Why do we need that? Why do we spend millions of dollars on military bases and then turn around and shut them down later? I can list lots of wasted money we could save. Don't hold your breath waiting to see it happen!
ReplyDeleteYeah, all of that
DeleteYer speakin' my language here! Sadly, congresscritters don't.
DeleteHow about starting with something!!!! Yeah, there is a whole bunch of crazy money pits in this country; but cutting back has to start somewhere. so yeah, the best place to get peoples attention is in their pocketbooks. Let the ruling elite lose some money; maybe then they will get serious about trimming the budget.
DeleteSteve
It would be great if it was for ALL of Congress and former administration - and bureaucrats. Paying pensions while watching them leverage their public entrusted positions to make millions is a tad bit irritating.
ReplyDeleteNo reason why any elected or appointed government employee, including judges, should be paid a pension by the tax payers.
ReplyDeleteMy two wishes related to this topic: make Congress subject to all laws they pass/ impose on the rest of us; And no taxpayer funded travel other than coach fare for any member of Congress (if they want to use their own money (not campaign funds, their own money) to upgrade to first or take a private jet, fair enough, but we shouldn't be paying for it); and one more: anyone voting for gun control legislation immediately gets their taxpayer funded bodyguards discontinued! That would include presidents who sign such legislation...
ReplyDeleteIs that $400,000 for each speech or an aggregate total? I mean if it is for each speech then the bastards would "only" pay $399,999. But if it was a gross amount; then yeah, go for it!!!!
ReplyDeleteDidn't Glenn Reynolds propose something similar? Something like; if you are a government employee and you go into the private sector you get taxed at a high rate for every dollar over your old government salary. Yep, found it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/28/revolving-door-government-ethics/1868597/
Steve