Millionaire Ex-Presidents Can Pay Their Own Way

Townhall.com ^ | May 26, 2015 | Jeff Jacoby

[Kaslin]

THE AVARICE of Bill and Hillary Clinton is a wonder to behold. They crave wealth, it seems, even more than they crave power, and display no qualms about exploiting their political stature to amass it. According to a required financial disclosure filing last week, the former president and his wife have collected more than $30 million since January 2014, most of it from speaking engagements for which they charged an average of $240,000 each. To put that figure in perspective, what the Clintons earn per speech is nearly five times what the median US household earns per year.

Since leaving the White House in 2001, the Clintons have made more than $125 million just from what The New York Times has called "the family speechmaking business." Huge book advances have been worth many millions more. For all their poor-mouthing about being "dead broke" and needing to "pay our bills," the Clintons' income puts them well within the top one-tenth of 1 percent of all Americans.

So why, pray, should taxpayers be giving Bill Clinton an allowance that amounts to another million dollars a year?

Indeed, considering that every living past president is a multimillionaire, why should taxpayers have to fund an allowance for any of them?

That question has been on the minds of US Representatives Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the chairman and ranking Democrat, respectively, of the House Oversight Committee. Under a bill they have introduced, presidential pensions would be capped at $200,000 yearly, as would the amount available for office space, travel, and staff. For any former president making more than $400,000 a year, the expense account (though not the pension) would be reduced dollar-for-dollar, zeroing out once an ex-president's earnings surpassed $600,000. That's about two-and-a-half speeches, at Bill Clinton's usual rate.

On Tuesday, the committee voted in favor of the measure, sending it to the House floor. Now House members ought to do the right thing and advance it, with bipartisan approval, to the Senate.

For most of American history, presidents weren't showered with taxpayers' money after leaving office. Nor were most former presidents willing to cash in on their White House service by chasing paid speaking gigs or lucrative board memberships. Calvin Coolidge spurned offers to endorse commercial products. The money was being dangled "to hire not Calvin Coolidge, but a former president of the United States," he said, and it would be shabby to "make that kind of use of the office."

It wasn't until 1958 that Congress, learning of Harry Truman's financial struggles, enacted the Former Presidents Act to provide a pension and expense account for retired presidents. Its purpose, the Congressional Research Serviceexplained in a 2014 report, was "to maintain the dignity" of the presidency, and ensure that no ex-president would be forced to engage in activities "which would demean the office he has held or capitalize upon it in any way deemed improper." In that more innocent era, members of Congress took it for granted that former presidents would be loath to devote their post-White House years to hustling six- and seven-figure honoraria, or peddling their availability toinfluence-seeking special interests.

Well, those days are gone, and they vanished long before the Clintons were on the scene.

Gerald Ford devoted his after-presidency to aggressive moneymaking, accepting the kind of corporate directorships and consultant contracts that earlier presidents avoided on principle. "I have to earn a living," he offered as a justification. Ronald Reagan cashed a $2 million check from a Japanese media conglomerate in exchange for giving a couple speeches and attending a dinner.

George H. W. Bush took the money-grubbing to new heights: Within four years of leaving the White House, reported The Wall Street Journal in 1997, he had "earned millions of dollars speaking publicly for about 40 companies." His son has followed suit, amassing a fortune of his own in speaking fees and royalties.

Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't start the fire of post-presidential buckraking. What makes their greed distinctive is the way they have pushed it to previously unimagined levels, leveraging Hillary's political career to advance their financial interests, and vice versa.

It's crass and unseemly; it would have appalled Coolidge and Truman. But if former presidents are hell-bent on turning the prestige of the presidency into a license to print money, there's little the rest of us can do to stop them. Electing leaders with better character would help. In the meantime, taxpayers shouldn't have to treat fabulously wealthy ex-presidents to even more wealth. The Clintons and Bushes won't go hungry if they have to cover their own office rent and retirement expenses. After all, they're not royalty. Even if they are richer than 99.9 percent of their fellow citizens.

[etcb]

Many people like to speak ill of President Nixon, but as far as I know, he is the only President in modern history to renounce his pension, secrete service protection, and other benefits provided for former presidents. I believe he did this after publication of his second book.

[I want the USA back]

They talk about equality but don’t practice it. For true equality the clintons would have to give me as much of their money as necessary to make us equally rich.

[i_robot73]

The LEAST they could do is wrangle it in to where the State they represented gets the ‘honor’ of paying for their pensions.

Why do the other 56 (/s) States’ Citizens need to pony-up $$ when for someone who didn’t represent them; not saying their own rep ACTUALLY represented anyone but themselves...

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

That’s what it is isn’t it, it’s bribery and nobody does anything about it.

[generally]

Excellent questions. I’d sure like to know.

My bet: Payment are for services already rendered that we know little about. Contracts already steered to the company. Protective legislation already passed. Etc.

[generally]

Zero pensions.

If these people are really interested in “serving” it should not be a financial bonanza for them. If there is a financial incentive, it just encourages corruption.

Let them save money in a 401(k) like most Americans do. If these people had to live like normal Americans, there would be no need for “listening tours” because they wouldn’t be so out of touch.

The US was founded on the idea of self-rule. The point was to eliminate the aristocracy, not to create a new one which is what has happened.

[9YearLurker]

Agreed.

[Stosh]

Any and all retirement programs for government workers (including elected officials) should be defined contribution in nature, NOT defined benefit. That approach would do much to alleviate many looming budgetary problems at the state and local level, and one way to encourage that approach is to start at the very top.

Presidents, VP’s, senators, representatives get a fixed amount towards retirement while they “serve” in office; once they’re out, that’s it. The amount they get to put towards retirement can be relatively lavish - within reason - since most only stay less than 10 years, but no defined benefits.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

That’s exactly what it is, the speeches are just a ruse, an excuse to hand over that money. I mean seriously, what kind of nut would hand over a quarter of a million bucks to these two crooks just to hear them jabber on? If I was an investor in that company or an employee I would flip out, I would go nuts from such a waste of money. But it isn’t a waste because it’s bribe money. It’s unreal how these two can stay out of jail.

[skeeter]

I remember Reagan going to Japan once immediately following his retirement. He did it once and that was it. He was gone from public life.

There is no comparison between what he did and the money machine the Clintons have built. NONE.

[kabar]

No doubt that Clinton carried it to extreme, but all the politicians, including Reagan, cashed in on their Presidency. And these Presidential libraries should be abolished. They are built by private donations, but the taxpayers pick up the operating costs.

Back in 1989, the Fujisankei Communications Group in Japan paid this former president a cool million per speech to come to the country and tour. Reagan gave two speeches while there as well as speaking at media outlets and giving interviews. Still, Reagan didn’t make out too shabby with $2 million (in 1989 dollars) under his belt for sharing his business and presidential experience with the company desperately in need of public relations help. The Reagans created a national sensation in Japan, boosting the company’s profile.

In a bit more than two hours, Reagan has earned his private-sector speech price of $50,000 (no charge to charities or schools), less a commission of about 20% to his lecture agents, Washington Speakers Bureau Inc. At sunny resorts from Palm Springs to the Bahamas, where he spent his birthday Feb. 6 as a luncheon speaker for Sara Lee Corp., Reagan does "a couple or three a month" of these unpublicized Fortune 500 appearances, Weinberg says. Reagan is grossing as much as $1.8 million a year from this source alone.

Reagan's health problems contributed to his dropping out of public life when he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.

[Liz]

At first glance, the Clinton’s lucrative speeches seem to provide the bulk of the couple’s income. Bill's honorariums increased dramatically---earning some $50 million during Hillary's four-year term as secretary of State....including an Irish scholarship fund, a Korean conglomerate, and, a Nigerian newspaper company......each of whom paid Clinton more than half a million dollars for a single speech.

The Wash/Post reports Hillary earned $11.7 million for 51 speeches since Jan 2014.....she pocketed an astonishing $625,000 for two speeches in one day!

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

But the calculated Clintons have also sought to branch out into other business activities......though little is known about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton’s non-speech business interests.

Recent reports indicate the Clintons were party to multi-billion dollar Mideast arms deals....Kazakhstan uranium mines....and Haitian gold mines...and other lucrative business interest which they cunningly intertwine w/ their Foundation do-good activities.

Clinton made a big show of do-goodism in earthquake-ravaged Haiti.

Bill and Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra in Haiti June 2014.

That day, the "Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership"
launched the Acceso Peanut Enterprise Corp. (Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty Images)

REALITY CHECK Then-Secy Hillary supposedly gave Haiti $3.1 billion tax dollars for Earthquake Relief.

But Haitian-American protesters claim that American aid to Haiti was a cover-for foreign governments to funnel kickbacks of hundreds of millions of dollars to The Clinton Foundation.

For example, gold expert Giustra "gave" the Foundation $100 million....after Bill helped him make billions off uranium deals. Hillary's brother mysteriously got a gold mining license in Haiti.

[Liz]

Donatimg $100 million, and more, Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra is apparently one of the Clinton Foundation’s largest donors. Giustra's contributions go directly (1) to the tax-exempt Clinton Foundation, and, (2) to the Canada-based "Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership," which in turn sends money to the Clinton Foundation......(according to Canadian tax records researched by "Clinton Cash" author Schweizer).

DATA Sources: Clinton Foundation, CGEP (Canada);
Canadian tax records; compiled by Alberto Cuadra and
Rosalind Helderman May 3 at 8:11 PM

ARTICLE LINK http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/wealthy-canadian-helps-fund-the-clinton- foundation/2015/05/03/f855ea22-f1ea-11e4-90bc-afe06f530791_graphic.html