Morning Coffee (145)

It just keeps getting better, doesn't it. The news, I mean. Some days, you just wish the insanity would stop. Madoff, Blagojevich, Franken, Burris. Obama's going to appoint Leon Panetta as the Director of Central Intelligence. Diane Feinstein's pretty mad about that. Obama's thinking about appointing Sanjay Gupta of CNN as the Surgeon General (not a shabby idea, frankly). Rent is falling in Manhattan. Oh, and the standard of living is falling everywhere else. Ditto the sky.

Rent Brought to You by, the Taxpayer:
Have you ever wondered what former Presidents get in the way of benefits? I have. What would you expect to be reasonable compensation for such a job, which can last no more than eight years? I mean, we can't have our Presidents living in poverty, can we.

Prior to 1958, when Congress enacted the Former Presidents Act, it was entirely possible that a President could become destitute. This issue was considered much earlier though, as Andrew Carnegie offered to fund pensions for former Presidents in 1912, which induced Congress to act, as a private citizen funding Presidential pensions was deemed inappropriate by that esteemed body. Despite their noble efforts, nothing was ever passed until 1958, when it became apparent that a former Leader of the Free World, Harry Truman in this case, could actually become poverty stricken. Truman wasn't doing so well in 1955, living only on the proceeds from his memoirs, for which he received a flat payment of $670,000 (after taxes and paying his assistants, Truman netted $37,000) and the sale of his father's farm. So, Congress acted. The Former Presidents Act provided a $25,000 yearly pension. The only two living Presidents at the time were Truman and Herbert Hoover, who allegedly took the pension to avoid embarrassing Truman, as Hoover didn't need the money. Using the a tool found on the website Measuring Worth, $25,000 in 1958 would equal $179,237 in 2007 using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Not a bad deal for taxpayers, really.

Of course, that was in 1958. From what I can tell, the scope and breadth of the Former Presidents Act has ballooned somewhat. One might say grotesquely so. I did a cursory search for the wording of the original act, but I could not locate it. This doesn't matter, as the wording in a 2007 CRS Report for Congress, "Former Presidents: Federal Expenditures for Pensions, Office Allowances, and Protection," tells me just what I wanted to know, specifically that:

"It was noted that the increases in the staff and office allowances for Former Presidents had greatly exceeded the "original expectations" Congress had when it enacted the Former Presidents Act in 1958."

Greatly exceeded the original expectations. You could say that again, and more. An updated version of the 2007 report was put out in 2008. Both are fascinating reads, to be honest. Well, if one is concerned or interested in such things. They go into the history of the Act, as well as the current state of former Presidents' benefits. According to the most recent report, we taxpayers paid $2,466,900 to the three living former Presidents in 2008; $518,300 to George H.W. Bush, $786,300 to Jimmy Carter, and $1,162,300 to Bill Clinton. The 2009 budget requested $2,934,000 for former Presidents because of the addition of George Bush to the fraternity of Commanders-in-Chief.

This benefits package is a far cry from the $179,237 each they would have received had the original act merely adjusted for inflation. But Presidents no longer only receive a pension. The "pension" part of their 2008 benefits alone amounts to $191,300 for both Bush and Carter, and $201,300 for Clinton, who asked for and received $10,000 for health benefits insurance. This pension also rises from time to time to reflect inflation or cost of living increases. Each also receives money for staff salary and staff benefits, travel, rent for office space, telephone, printing, postage, office supplies, equipment, and "other services." The rent issue is the main point of contention, from my perspective, as Clinton's yearly rent is nearly as much as Bush's total benefits package ($516,000 to $518,300). This is if, of course, I were to concede that our former Presidents rate anything more than a flat pension and limited Secret Service protection, which I do not. There appears to be no cap on former Presidents' rent. Clinton's daily rent amounts to $1,413.70, which is more than my monthly rent, and nearly double my monthly mortgage payment. Every month Clinton rents that place is the equivalent to us US taxpayers paying 120 normal-person mortgages.

I will be the first to admit that the total amount we pay to our former Chief Executives is really not that large in the grand scheme of things, but that's not really my point. My point is that I simply do not understand why we should pay for the staff, rent, postage, and long-distance telephone service for men who have careers as authors and speakers that are rather lucrative, not to mention who receive other pensions as former Congressmen and public servants, or have other incomes that far and away outstrip the pensions they lawfully rate as serving as President. Surely, such a thing might have been necessary in the early to mid-20th century, but back then only a pension was needed, not the funding of an operating budget for a small corporation. I won't argue that the entire pension needs to be removed, although I think the affluence of Bill Clinton post-Presidency could alone make the case for such a thing. Remember, Clinton made $52 million from just speaking to people since he left office. He and his wife made a total of $111 million from 2000 to 2007.

Is it wrong for a President and his wife to make money speaking and writing? Absolutely not, but why then are we on the hook for Bill Clinton's $516,000 a year rent in Harlem or $10,000 in health benefits insurance when he can clearly afford such an office in a few speeches? (For those interested, you can find some tax history of Presidents and candidates at Tax History's page. Interesting stuff. Almost makes you wonder why our elected officials feel the need to allow themselves raises every year as their various side ventures allow them a comfortable living. Wait, I thought being a representative of the people was a full time job, thus demanding of the maximum pay possible. Guess not.)

Clinton's office and the amount of money we spend on it is really what first came to my attention on this subject, and the more I looked into it, the more absurd I felt the whole thing was. Clinton's office is 8,300 square feet in size, which is slightly less than double the combined size of Carter's and Bush's. His rent costs us nearly five times as much as either Carter's or Bush's. And here's an interesting fact, which is found in the highly enlightening footnotes of the CRS report: the Secret Service occupies 308 square feet of Clinton's office space, and the Secret Service reimburses GSA (the manager of all this pension business) for that space. The Secret Service pays rent to protect the former President. I'm fine with allowing former Presidents office space, but how about we do it in federally owned or leased buildings. Since the President's pension is the same as the salary of a head of an executive agency (Cabinet level), the GSA generally approves of "cabinet-level office standards" for the quality of a former President's office space and furnishings. If 4,000 square feet is the norm, as in Carter's and Bush's, how is 8,300 square feet anything but extravagant?

Another thing to consider in all this is the relative youth of our Presidents upon their retirement nowadays. Clinton was 54 when he left office. President Bush will be a mere (and pretty healthy) 62. And Barack Obama will be 55 if he serves two terms as President. This means they'll be collecting pensions and renting office space for years to come. This fact was somewhat acknowledged by Congress in 1997 when they decided that lifetime Secret Service protection for former Presidents was a bit much. Thus, Clinton will be the last with lifetime protection. Of course, the Department of Homeland Security can approve temporary use of the Secret Service to any former President if necessary.

It should be noted that nothing is said in legislation regarding a President who serves less than a full term, but it is assumed by the author of the report that even they would rate full benefits. By all means, give our Presidents the opportunity to live comfortably; let them have a pension. But I ask that we consider exercising some fiscal responsibility, nay, common sense, in doing so.

So much more to talk about, like Obama's so-called "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan," but I think I've bored you enough with my rampant criticism of fraud, waste, and abuse for one edition. Maybe tomorrow I'll ask how in the hell he's going to "create three million new jobs, more than 80% of them in the private sector." Maybe tomorrow we'll discuss that 20% of three million is 600,000 and that non-private sector likely means government and that 600,000 new government jobs will cost something like $24 billion a year. Nah, who cares, it's all Monopoly money anyway. Marx is wrong: religion is not the opium of the masses, this rhetoric is. Lulls us into a false sense of comfort, makes us feel good, and distracts from the fact that it all seems fiscally untenable.

Word of the Day: Beleaguer (verb): 1. to surround with troops; besiege; 2. to surround or beset.

On This Day in History: Joan of Arc was born (maybe) (1412). Mother Teresa arrives in Calcutta to help the poor, diseased Indians die slow, agonizing deaths (1929). Thomas Edison submits his last patent application, for a Holder for Article to be Electroplated (1931). Nancy Kerrigan is clubbed in the knee (1994).

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." - Thomas Jefferson.