More useless government spending

United States
April 2, 2013 12:38pm CST
The annual report on what former presidents cost the tax payers came out, the amount of the perks should surprise all of us. The total for 2012 was $3.7 MILLION, and doesn't include secret service protection. The covered expenses are for offices, staff, their own pension, postage, and travel. The problem with all of this spending by these former presidents is that they are already multimillionaires who could easily pay for these expenses out of their own pocket. All of them command huge speaking fees with many of them in the six figures for just a few hours. A bill was introduced to limit this amount last year, but never made it out of committee. GWB, and Clinton combined to spend $2.3 MILLION alone, with Bush Sr. and Carter spending less than half of what the other two did. Although this is nothing in comparison to our huge national debt, it is still useless spending on people living a lavish lifestyle on the backs of the US taxpayers, and should be stopped.
2 responses
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
3 Apr 13
An interesting fact is that President Truman did not have enough money to attend a formal function in Washington. Up until that time there was no pension for the President. He was the first to receive a government pension for being president. I do agree with you that some of the expense could be absorbed by the former Presidents when they can make millions in speaking tours or book deals. IF you are going to look at the President retirement expenses I think that we need to look at congress and their expenses. I think their pension shoud be the same as every other working american a match of what they put in up to 6% as allowed by the IRS and it should be one pension plan that is rolled over no matter what position they hold. I beleive that it was President Ford who made more money in retirement that he ever did while holding public office. He collected as Presient, Vice President and as a congressman each a pension for life plus if he served in any elected position in the state of Michigan. Debater you are right this would be a good place to start cutting and we are not effecting that many people.
1 person likes this
@Fatcat44 (1142)
• United States
2 Apr 13
I saw this floating around last week. I am actually surprised that it was this low, but yeah there sounds like some items we should not be paying for, but that what comes with big government.
• United States
3 Apr 13
I am sure it is much higher when you include the security aspect, and I would assume that this doesn't count the money that they receive to house their very own private security in their house. I don't think this has as much to do with big government as it does with elected officials making sure they take care of their own (and possibly taking care of themselves someday).