Bill Clinton annually costs U.S. taxpayers 45% more than H.W. Bush and....

[lastparker]

BeyondGeography  (1000+ posts)      Fri Apr-11-08 08:07 AM
Original message
Bill Clinton annually costs U.S. taxpayers 45% more than H.W. Bush and 2X more than Carter 
 Taxpayers fund Bill Clinton spending


The Clintons have made a $100-million fortune since leaving the White House, but a Politico analysis found that hasn’t kept Bill Clinton from taking full advantage of the publicly funded perks offered to ex-presidents.

In fact, his presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much as those of the other two living ex-presidents combined.

The price tag for Clinton’s federal retirement allowance from 2001 through the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for George H. W. Bush’s and $4 million for Jimmy Carter’s during the same period.

Since 2001, Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to former presidents — from his pension to his staff’s salaries and benefits to supplies. His $420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both nearly surpassed the totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and the late former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined. As a group, they spent $484,000 on telephone service and $3.8 million on rent in the same span.

The figures come from congressional reports studying the presidential retirement program and from summaries of annual budget requests by the U.S. General Services Administration, which administers the program, created to allow former presidents to enjoy dignified retirements without having to take jobs that demean or commercialize the presidency.

Some of Clinton’s greater spending stems from the fact that he served eight years in office, qualifying him for a federal health insurance plan unavailable to one-term presidents, and that he selected office space in the high-priced Manhattan market.

Politico’s analysis comes on the heels of the release last week of seven years' worth of Clinton family tax documents. They showed that the Clintons pulled in $111 million in total income from 2000, their last year in the White House, through 2007.

Given Bill Clinton’s earning potential and that of future ex-presidents, “the benefits taxpayers shell out for their care and feeding just don’t make sense anymore,” contended Pete Sepp, spokesman for the fiscally conservative, nonprofit National Taxpayers Union...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9531.html

 

 

I just LOVE the DUmp during the primaries.....The campfire is very small so far....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5455395

[Lord Undies]

"It is ****'s fault because prices are much higher...and besides, Clinton has had to be out there counteracting the horrors of ****."

[mamacags]

That is probably because 45% more people hate him than the others.

[Chris_]

I wonder how much of his legal expenses are buried in that total....

doc

[Servonaut]

stellanoir  (1000+ posts)      Fri Apr-11-08 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. And *'s retirement will be even more pricey 
 if what I heard is true. The President's salary was reportedly raised from 200 grand to 400 grand in '01. 

Tis true,

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/24/pay.raise/

Congress considers a presidential pay raise
Chief executive's salary has not increased in 30 years

May 24, 1999

Web posted at: 6:30 p.m. EDT (2230 GMT)


WASHINGTON (May 24) -- A House panel looking into the first presidential pay raise in 30 years was urged by a group of former presidential advisers Monday to at least double the chief executive's annual salary to $400,000 or more.

House legislation to double the current presidential salary of $200,000 would first apply to President Bill Clinton's successor in January 2001. The provision has been included in a $13.7 billion spending bill for the Treasury, White House and other agencies approved by a House Appropriations subcommittee.

[Miss Mia]

If he can make that much money as an ex-president, I don't understand why we give him a salary.  Sure, pay for security, but he can surely afford to pay for the rest of that stuff.

Maybe we should look into a maximum that the tax payers will pay (set to inflation) and cost over and above that the person themselves has to take on, and make it linked to what their income is.   

Secret Service protection, which starting with GWB is only for 10 years, I have no problem with.