Congress wants to cut the pensions and allowances of former Presidents. Your thoughts?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Wed, 20 May 2015 04:05:42 -0400

The bill would cap a former president’s lifetime federal benefits at $200,000 and allow him another $200,000 for an allowance. But for every dollar a president earned over $400,000 a year, this annual allowance would be deducted by a $1. (Apparently we’re now means testing our former presidents.)

Clinton last year received $950,000 from the federal government, about half for office space. Former President George W. Bush was paid about $1.3 million for his pension and expenses. If this bill was law, Clinton, who made around $9.7 million in speaking and book royalties in 2014, wouldn’t get any allowance at all.

======================================================

The author makes a rather snide comment that "apparently we’re now means testing our former presidents" --- WTH? We "means test" people who make a whole helluva lot less money all the time.

======================================================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2015/05/19/congress-wants-to-cut-president-clintons-pension-federal-allowance/?tid=hpModule_308f7142-9199-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239&hpid=z16

Congress wants to cut President Clinton’s pension, federal allowance

Congress seeks to limit how many federal dollars former presidents take in post-White House.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made May 20 at 2015 4:24 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Wed, 20 May 2015 04:24:48 -0400

It's a start! Now we need the ex-presidents to put a bill in to cut the salaries of Congress.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 20 at 2015 5:09 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 20 May 2015 05:09:01 -0400

Where do I sign!!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 20 at 2015 6:30 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 20 May 2015 06:30:25 -0400

The President should Veto it when it gets to his desk just to see what they do. (this is a joke by the way). Then when they start to say something, say "Fix your retirement plan, then worry about mine. There's 535~ of you. There's 1 of me."

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 7:11 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 May 2015 07:11:50 -0400

I am reminded of the story about a female CEO (I am afraid I can remember who or where it was).

She was criticized for nit picking the nickel and dime items in the corporation's budget.

She replied with words to the effect, everyone looks at an tries to control the big budget items. Further scrutiny is not needed there. Few watch the day to day small expenditures.

Response by CSM Carlson C. made May 20 at 2015 7:58 AM

CSM Carlson C. — Wed, 20 May 2015 07:58:28 -0400

You know what, I can understand wanting to cut spend and be fiscally responsible, but there is a huge amount of hypocrisy in this measure. If they want to set an example and reduce spending, congress should first reduce their own wasteful spending before reducing the current leaders and former presidents of this country. Regardless of what you think of the current or former presidents, it is one of the most stressful positions in our government. Not to say yea or nay, but congress should definitely clean up their own house before they speak about another.

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made May 20 at 2015 8:20 AM

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Wed, 20 May 2015 08:20:01 -0400

CAN I GET AN AMEN?!?!

Response by MCPO Douglas Pennington made May 20 at 2015 8:57 AM

MCPO Douglas Pennington — Wed, 20 May 2015 08:57:06 -0400

Great idea. Why should the tax payer pay for their offices and staff when they make over 5 million a year in talking engagements. I think Bubba Clinton said they made like 30 Million since 2014.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made May 20 at 2015 9:55 AM

MSgt James Mullis — Wed, 20 May 2015 09:55:32 -0400

"It's a Trap"! I can just picture Hillary telling America, that now that her and Bill have sacrificed some of their pay and benefits, now its your turn. Obviously, I'm not meaning to compare our future President to Admiral Ackbar, although they do kind of sound alike.

Response by PO1 John Miller made May 20 at 2015 10:27 AM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 20 May 2015 10:27:03 -0400

Ditto what the majority here have said. It's a good start, now do the same with their own pensions AND active pay. Most of these a--holes are already millionaires and don't need their congressional pay!

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 11:11 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 May 2015 11:11:02 -0400

Great as long as they do the same for themselves as well!

Response by PO1 Jason Taylor made May 20 at 2015 11:50 AM

PO1 Jason Taylor — Wed, 20 May 2015 11:50:27 -0400

It's about time!

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made May 20 at 2015 12:34 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Wed, 20 May 2015 12:34:40 -0400

There's only around 3-5 presidents alive at any given time. There are HUNDREDS of Congressmen. Something tells me this is entirely about spiting Clinton and Obama and absolutely nothing to do with "fiscal responsibility." They've probably spent more discussing it than they would save by actually doing it.

Response by SrA Marc Haynes made May 20 at 2015 12:36 PM

SrA Marc Haynes — Wed, 20 May 2015 12:36:52 -0400

The entire federal government, excluding military, needs to have their salaries reduced and any perks need to be taxed.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2015 5:42 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 May 2015 05:42:43 -0400

A presidents pension should not be means tested either he earned in or he didn't. That's like saying military shouldn't get a pension if they make too much money. I will say that presidential pension is vastly better than any other government worker. After a 4 year term they EL 1 pay ($200,000) for the rest of their life immediately upon retiring. The federal civilians get (1.7%/1.1%) times years of federal service times the average of the their highest three earning years. And it vests after 5 years and doesn't pay out until 60 something. So a four year vice president would need to serve an additional year in government to qualify for a ~$20,000 pension in retirement. It's that way for vice presidents, cabinet secretaries, senators, and all the GS employees.

Response by PO1 Tony Holland made Jul 16 at 2017 5:25 AM

PO1 Tony Holland — Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:25:02 -0400

No politician should be receiving a pension for their political 'service' -- (said so-called service actually makes me want to throw up in my mouth).

Response by MSgt Harry Coleman made Dec 25 at 2017 11:34 PM

MSgt Harry Coleman — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:34:12 -0500

How about averaging the top three years and dividing that in half, take away Life Insurance, Dental Insurance, place them on Tricare or make them use the VA Medical System. Sounds like a fair retirement system to me...

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2017 6:41 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 06:41:10 -0500

CUT! CUT! CUT! We spend millions on these people every year!

http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2016/03/which-ex-president-cost-government-most-fiscal-2015/126826/

126826