Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Obama vetoes cuts to former presidents' expense accounts

siv1

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
187
WASHINGTON — President Obama took steps to preserve the office allowances given to former presidents Friday, by vetoing a measure that would have capped those expenses at $200,000 a year.
The veto comes less than six months before Obama will become a former president himself. But Obama suggested in a message to Congress that his veto was more about the "unintended consequences" the bill would have on his predecessors.
At issue: the expense allowances that former presidents get to travel and maintain an office. Obama said that by capping those allowances at $200,000, some current former presidents would have to lay off staff, cancel leases or even return office furniture.
Under current law, the General Services Administration must provide "suitable office space, appropriately furnished and equipped." The total cost of maintaining and staffing those offices currently ranges from $430,000 for former president Jimmy Carter to $1.1 million for former president George W. Bush, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.
The Presidential Allowance Modernization Act of 2016 would have removed the GSA's role in providing office space, instead giving a flat $200,000 allowance.
"Unfortunately, this bill as written would immediately terminate salaries and all benefits to staffers carrying out the official duties of former Presidents — leaving no time or mechanism for them to transition to another payroll," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement. And he said the cuts could even impact Secret Service protection for former presidents.
Earnest said Obama agrees on the need to reform presidential pensions and would sign a bill if Congress makes "technical fixes to resolve these issues."
Obama's veto was something of a surprise. The White House had not issued a veto threat on the bill, and he waited a full 10 days before sending it back late on a Friday when Congress wasn't in session.
House leaders couldn't immediately be reached for comment on whether they would seek to override the veto. The bill had passed both the House and the Senate by voice votes.
The veto was Obama's 11th of his presidency. None of his vetoes has been overridden.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, would also have capped presidential pensions at $200,000 a year, with a cost-of-living increase, and phased out pensions for presidents making $400,000 a year in outside income.
The White House said it consulted with every living former president about the bill before Obama vetoed it.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,656
siv1|1471094750|4065481 said:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/22/obama-vetoes-cuts-former-presidents-expense-accounts/87462850/

Link for above story.

I was surprised...but not really.... this had not been posted here before.
Well you make it sound nefarious! he consulted every living president to get their opinion(s) and then he vetoed it. We don't know how much or what Obama plans to do after presidency - he could make a living speaking.. or maybe he can go back to being a Muslim, Kenyan rabble rouser :) it is noted that George Bush spends twice what Jimmy Carter spends. We need more people like Carter as president. :sun: :sun:
 

Calliecake

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 7, 2014
Messages
7,023
While Jimmy Carter is out in the world trying to do good and help people in the world, George Bush is painting. I've not heard many stories of George Bush dedicating his life to helping other but that's all you hear about Jimmy Carter.
 

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
21,660
FYI...I believe wounded Vetrans and PTSD are George Bush's calling.

dec1004a09a5b8683e082b632bd3a43d.jpg
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,513
Tekate|1471095307|4065484 said:
siv1|1471094750|4065481 said:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/22/obama-vetoes-cuts-former-presidents-expense-accounts/87462850/

Link for above story.

I was surprised...but not really.... this had not been posted here before.
Well you make it sound nefarious! he consulted every living president to get their opinion(s) and then he vetoed it. We don't know how much or what Obama plans to do after presidency - he could make a living speaking.. or maybe he can go back to being a Muslim, Kenyan rabble rouser :) it is noted that George Bush spends twice what Jimmy Carter spends. We need more people like Carter as president. :sun: :sun:
Oh God please, not another J. Carter... :nono: He almost destroyed our country (hyperinflation) during his 4 yrs in office... :knockout: Thank Reagan for cleaning up the big mess that Carter had left behind.. :appl:
 

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,198
Here's the fact.

Congress has voted and approved, year after year, raises for themselves. They barely work as it is.

So they've decided that former presidents are the way to fund their next raise. No. Personally I think Congressmen should get paid hourly. And should have to actually PROVE that they are working in order to get paid. Not let lobbyists and staffers do their jobs for them while they focus on their next campaign the minute they get elected.

And I think in addition to term limits (we really need term limits) and HARD caps on campaign spending for ALL elected officials we MUST to do what they do in the UK. They limit the campaigning period for ALL elected officials. They are not allowed to start campaigning until months before the actual election and that is IT.

We NEED this. That's where we are bleeding money. CONGRESS.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
Gypsy|1471150948|4065764 said:
Here's the fact.

Congress has voted and approved, year after year, raises for themselves. They barely work as it is.

So they've decided that former presidents are the way to fund their next raise. No. Personally I think Congressmen should get paid hourly. And should have to actually PROVE that they are working in order to get paid. Not let lobbyists and staffers do their jobs for them while they focus on their next campaign the minute they get elected.

And I think in addition to term limits (we really need term limits) and HARD caps on campaign spending for ALL elected officials we MUST to do what they do in the UK. They limit the campaigning period for ALL elected officials. They are not allowed to start campaigning until months before the actual election and that is IT.

We NEED this. That's where we are bleeding money. CONGRESS.
I agree with all of this.
 

Calliecake

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 7, 2014
Messages
7,023
Gypsy|1471150948|4065764 said:
Here's the fact.

Congress has voted and approved, year after year, raises for themselves. They barely work as it is.

So they've decided that former presidents are the way to fund their next raise. No. Personally I think Congressmen should get paid hourly. And should have to actually PROVE that they are working in order to get paid. Not let lobbyists and staffers do their jobs for them while they focus on their next campaign the minute they get elected.

And I think in addition to term limits (we really need term limits) and HARD caps on campaign spending for ALL elected officials we MUST to do what they do in the UK. They limit the campaigning period for ALL elected officials. They are not allowed to start campaigning until months before the actual election and that is IT.

We NEED this. That's where we are bleeding money. CONGRESS.
Could not agree more Gypsy.
 

chrono

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Messages
37,363
Gypsy|1471150948|4065764 said:
Here's the fact.

Congress has voted and approved, year after year, raises for themselves. They barely work as it is.

So they've decided that former presidents are the way to fund their next raise. No. Personally I think Congressmen should get paid hourly. And should have to actually PROVE that they are working in order to get paid. Not let lobbyists and staffers do their jobs for them while they focus on their next campaign the minute they get elected.

And I think in addition to term limits (we really need term limits) and HARD caps on campaign spending for ALL elected officials we MUST to do what they do in the UK. They limit the campaigning period for ALL elected officials. They are not allowed to start campaigning until months before the actual election and that is IT.

We NEED this. That's where we are bleeding money. CONGRESS.
Another thumbs up for this, nodding my head in agreement as I'm reading it.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
28,157
Calliecake|1471104056|4065531 said:
While Jimmy Carter is out in the world trying to do good and help people in the world, George Bush is painting. I've not heard many stories of George Bush dedicating his life to helping other but that's all you hear about Jimmy Carter.
I love Carter.
My kind of guy.
 

MollyMalone

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
3,083
siv1|1471094750|4065481 said:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/22/obama-vetoes-cuts-former-presidents-expense-accounts/87462850/
Link for above story.
I was surprised...but not really.... this had not been posted here before.
Well, I'm all for revisiting, and reining in, these expenditures. But as someone who's done a fair amount of legislative policy analysis & bill drafting, I don't consider the veto remarkable.
* The bill, even as amended after languishing for several years in Congress, is poorly drafted.

* The supporting 2015 House Committee Report
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/114th-congress/house-report/209/1
doesn't reflect any analysis of the office and security-related expenditures in recent years, nor does the Report explain how it was determined that the office-security allowance should be generally capped at $200,000 -- which is less than 1/2 of the expenses attributable to former President Jimmy Carter, the lowest of any of the former Presidents currently living -- with the set-off for outside income applied to that category of expenditures vs the pension/annuity payments. (And who knows why the bill generally authorized an increase, to $100,000/year, to surviving spouses of deceased Presidents.)

* After the President issued his veto message, read into the Congressional Record,
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/07/25/CREC-2016-07-25-pt1-PgH5034.pdf
the bill's chief sponsor -- Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) -- merely tweeted that USA Today link without refuting the President's objections:
https://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse/status/758080423087837185
Nor did his office web site "take on" the objections.

* In his veto message, the President expressly agreed "with H.R. 1777's goal of reforming the pensions and allowances provided to former Presidents so as to reduce unnecessary costs to taxpayers"; voiced no objection to the concepts of capping the annuity/pension & allowances paid to past Presidents; and pledged to "work with the authors of the bill and other leaders in the Congress, in consultation with the offices of former Presidents, to explore the best ways to achieve these goals going forward." So it's not as if the veto represents a Presidential slamming of the door on the topic.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    Memorial Day Jewelry 2020
    Memorial Day Jewelry 2020

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top