Answers of the Day: Ex-President Expenses

 

This morning, we posed a question about the news, now we’re posting the best comments. Join the conversation!

The Question of the Day: Should the government spend this much money on ex-presidents? From the comments, here are the Answers of the Day…

From Ralphie:

Just security. They are private citizens when they leave office. No, we shouldn’t be supporting them for years especially where they meddle and make a pest of themselves for future presidents. It seems Republican ex-presidents keep quiet and busy, and Democrats like to be relevant. It is Jimmy Carter that dealt with North Korea, making life harder for Clinton and all who followed.

Michael Brehm:

Give them a handshake for serving their country; they don’t need any of that nonsense you’ve listed. They should return, like Cincinnatus, to whatever occupation they made their livelihood with before they became a politician. (And if they never worked a honest day in their life, well, there are plenty of homeless shelters and soup kitchens that would give them three squares and a cot.)

ModEcon:

I am going to take the balanced approach. We should provide enough security and staff for them to live a “normal” life. Enough security to live in peace without extra expenses, but not enough to tour the world. Also, lets provide enough staffing that they don’t have to deal with fan/hatemail or anything like that, if they don’t do anything like become politically active.

Basically, any former president who doesn’t do anything should live a comfortable life with their expenses related to having been president taken care of. On the other hand, those who return to the fray and continue their public life should take all expenses related to that life upon themselves. Traveling to give a speech or campaign for a political character, all costs should be on them.

Also, I believe that while a former president doesn’t have the same security risk, it isn’t gone. I am sure many presidents know things that enemies would love to know and we don’t want them to. Sure, they don’t have current troop deployments, but they may have in-depth knowledge of ongoing covert operations, combat capabilities, etc. So, lets not pull all the security.

Nick H:

I’m going to buck the trend here and say yes, we should pay them. Not just for security, which is obviously essential, but a regular stipend to cover staff and expenses. Why? Yes, the Founding Fathers had the idea that the President would just go back to being Joe Schmo and could earn a living (or not) just like anyone else. Unfortunately, that idea hasn’t panned out. For better or worse (and yes, I think it’s worse), these days, we seem to think that a former president doing anything but being a former president is a disgrace. Gone are the days when a president could be elected to the House of Representatives or become a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Same goes for private industry. It would be considered unseemly for a former president to become a CEO of a major company or have some pedestrian job like the rest of us. We seem to think that once someone has made it to the top then everything else is beneath them. So if we’re going to have that attitude, then we have to be willing to pay.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.