H
Harry Dope
Guest
Taxpayers fund Bill Clinton spending
The Clintons have made a $100-million fortune since leaving the White House,
but a Politico analysis found that hasn't kept Bill Clinton from taking full
advantage of the publicly funded perks offered to ex-presidents.
In fact, his presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much
as those of the other two living ex-presidents combined.
The price tag for Clinton's federal retirement allowance from 2001 through
the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for
George H. W. Bush's and $4 million for Jimmy Carter's during the same
period.
Since 2001, Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to
former presidents - from his pension to his staff's salaries and benefits to
supplies. His $420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both
nearly surpassed the totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and
the late former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined. As a
group, they spent $484,000 on telephone service and $3.8 million on rent in
the same span.
The figures come from congressional reports studying the presidential
retirement program and from summaries of annual budget requests by the U.S.
General Services Administration, which administers the program, created to
allow former presidents to enjoy dignified retirements without having to
take jobs that demean or commercialize the presidency.
Some of Clinton's greater spending stems from the fact that he served eight
years in office, qualifying him for a federal health insurance plan
unavailable to one-term presidents, and that he selected office space in the
high-priced Manhattan market.
Politico's analysis comes on the heels of the release last week of seven
years' worth of Clinton family tax documents. They showed that the Clintons
pulled in $111 million in total income from 2000, their last year in the
White House, through 2007.
Given Bill Clinton's earning potential and that of future ex-presidents,
"the benefits taxpayers shell out for their care and feeding just don't make
sense anymore," contended Pete Sepp, spokesman for the fiscally
conservative, nonprofit National Taxpayers Union.
The group has pushed to reduce or cap the perks available to former
presidents and their families. "There's a very flimsy justification for such
generosity in many ex-presidents' cases. In Bill Clinton's case, there's
zero," he said.
But Jay Carson, who worked for Clinton after his presidency and now serves
as a spokesman for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, said the
former president's retirement allowances are justified.
"Since leaving office, President Clinton has represented the American people
at home and abroad, at state funerals, through his work with former
President Bush on the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, and through his
vigorous charitable foundation work to fight AIDS, climate change and
childhood obesity," Carson said in a statement.
None of the retirement resources are used for Hillary Clinton's campaign,
Carson said.
"President Clinton's office's policy is that staff members paid by GSA who
engage in political activity may not do so on GSA-paid time," he noted. In
addition, Carson said Clinton did not spend the full amount allocated to him
over the past three years.
Congress passed the Former Presidents Act in 1958, after news spread of the
financial struggles of former President Harry Truman. He wrote in his
memoirs: "I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable,
that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the
presidency."
The act and subsequent legislation now entitle each former president to a
pension, an office and staff, travel costs, mailing privileges and assorted
other supplies, materials and services.
That's to say nothing of lifetime Secret Service protection, which costs
significantly more than discretionary retirement allowances. It was not
included in Politico's analysis because the agency doesn't disclose its
budget for protecting individuals. The Government Accountability Office in a
2001 report pegged the cost of protecting all former presidents from 1977
through 2000 to $370 million, yet protected parties typically have little
say in the size and shape of their details.
Former presidents can decide whether to accept the act's retirement
benefits, as well as how much to request.
When a former president wants a given perk, his office informs the GSA,
which submits a proposed budget to Congress using previous years' expenses
as a guide. Since 2001, no ex-president has declined all the benefits,
though some have accepted fewer specific perks or turned them down outright.
In 2002, for instance, Ford didn't accept a dime for printing costs, while
Carter did not receive any money for his staff's benefits. According to GAO
and Congressional Research Service records, Reagan from 1996 or earlier,
until his death in 2004, did not accept a health insurance benefit that
two-term presidents can opt to add to their pension payments.
Clinton applied for the health benefit before leaving office, according to
the GSA, and has received it each year. This year, it was $10,000, according
to GSA.
Carson said Clinton never sought increases from the GSA's proposals and, "on
occasion, his staff has recommended decreases to the proposed budgets."
The GSA categorizes the benefits in broad categories that sometimes leave
much to the imagination. For instance, since 2001, Clinton has received more
than the other former presidents for "other services" ($751,000) and
"supplies & materials" ($143,000), while Bush got the largest allowance for
"equipment" ($328,000).
The GSA said "supplies" include "office supplies, publications and
subscriptions," while "equipment" means "computers and peripheral equipment,
as well as servers."
Some expenses, like phone bills and rent, have no limit, while others, like
staff salaries, are capped.
Presidential pensions are statutorily set at the same amount per year as the
salaries of sitting Cabinet secretaries, who will earn $191,000 this year.
As for the higher rent for Clinton's office, which is located in a penthouse
in New York City's Harlem neighborhood, Carson said it's a function of
location, location and location.
While Clinton's office is costlier per square foot, it is also more spacious
than that of Bush or Carter.
This year, according to a 2007 Congressional Research Service report,
taxpayers will fork over $516,000 for Clinton's 8,300-square-foot Harlem
office, while Carter's 4,200-square-foot Atlanta digs will run them
$102,000. Bush's 4,600-square-foot Houston spread will cost $175,000.
Carson stressed that not all of the space in Clinton's office is usable.
Clinton's rent would have been less if his office were on a lower floor,
according to a 2001 GAO report, which said the rent per square foot for
Clinton's office is about 4 percent higher than that of a Social Security
office located on a lower floor in the same building. But the lower office
doesn't have the same view of Central Park, the George Washington Bridge and
most of Manhattan as that reportedly offered by Clinton's suite.
The offices of Bush and Reagan both also offered "good panoramic views,"
according to the GAO report, which said that, when it came to selecting
Clinton's office, "no other comparable properties exist in the area."
Clinton's rent is quite a bit less than that of the office that was his
first choice: a 56th-floor midtown Manhattan suite two blocks south of
Central Park. Clinton backed away from plans to locate there amid criticism
from congressional Republicans, then in the majority, over the estimated
$811,000-per-year rent.
Carson said Clinton's Harlem office continues to serve a vital function,
even as Clinton travels the country - paid for by his wife's presidential
campaign, not taxpayers - stumping for her.
"While President Clinton is devoted to supporting Sen. Clinton's candidacy,
his office continues to function," Carson said. "Each year, former President
Clinton's office receives, processes and responds to tens of thousands of
pieces of mail and e-mail correspondences and thousands of scheduling
requests, the majority of which are related to his position as a former
president."
The Clintons have made a $100-million fortune since leaving the White House,
but a Politico analysis found that hasn't kept Bill Clinton from taking full
advantage of the publicly funded perks offered to ex-presidents.
In fact, his presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much
as those of the other two living ex-presidents combined.
The price tag for Clinton's federal retirement allowance from 2001 through
the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for
George H. W. Bush's and $4 million for Jimmy Carter's during the same
period.
Since 2001, Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to
former presidents - from his pension to his staff's salaries and benefits to
supplies. His $420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both
nearly surpassed the totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and
the late former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined. As a
group, they spent $484,000 on telephone service and $3.8 million on rent in
the same span.
The figures come from congressional reports studying the presidential
retirement program and from summaries of annual budget requests by the U.S.
General Services Administration, which administers the program, created to
allow former presidents to enjoy dignified retirements without having to
take jobs that demean or commercialize the presidency.
Some of Clinton's greater spending stems from the fact that he served eight
years in office, qualifying him for a federal health insurance plan
unavailable to one-term presidents, and that he selected office space in the
high-priced Manhattan market.
Politico's analysis comes on the heels of the release last week of seven
years' worth of Clinton family tax documents. They showed that the Clintons
pulled in $111 million in total income from 2000, their last year in the
White House, through 2007.
Given Bill Clinton's earning potential and that of future ex-presidents,
"the benefits taxpayers shell out for their care and feeding just don't make
sense anymore," contended Pete Sepp, spokesman for the fiscally
conservative, nonprofit National Taxpayers Union.
The group has pushed to reduce or cap the perks available to former
presidents and their families. "There's a very flimsy justification for such
generosity in many ex-presidents' cases. In Bill Clinton's case, there's
zero," he said.
But Jay Carson, who worked for Clinton after his presidency and now serves
as a spokesman for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, said the
former president's retirement allowances are justified.
"Since leaving office, President Clinton has represented the American people
at home and abroad, at state funerals, through his work with former
President Bush on the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, and through his
vigorous charitable foundation work to fight AIDS, climate change and
childhood obesity," Carson said in a statement.
None of the retirement resources are used for Hillary Clinton's campaign,
Carson said.
"President Clinton's office's policy is that staff members paid by GSA who
engage in political activity may not do so on GSA-paid time," he noted. In
addition, Carson said Clinton did not spend the full amount allocated to him
over the past three years.
Congress passed the Former Presidents Act in 1958, after news spread of the
financial struggles of former President Harry Truman. He wrote in his
memoirs: "I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable,
that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the
presidency."
The act and subsequent legislation now entitle each former president to a
pension, an office and staff, travel costs, mailing privileges and assorted
other supplies, materials and services.
That's to say nothing of lifetime Secret Service protection, which costs
significantly more than discretionary retirement allowances. It was not
included in Politico's analysis because the agency doesn't disclose its
budget for protecting individuals. The Government Accountability Office in a
2001 report pegged the cost of protecting all former presidents from 1977
through 2000 to $370 million, yet protected parties typically have little
say in the size and shape of their details.
Former presidents can decide whether to accept the act's retirement
benefits, as well as how much to request.
When a former president wants a given perk, his office informs the GSA,
which submits a proposed budget to Congress using previous years' expenses
as a guide. Since 2001, no ex-president has declined all the benefits,
though some have accepted fewer specific perks or turned them down outright.
In 2002, for instance, Ford didn't accept a dime for printing costs, while
Carter did not receive any money for his staff's benefits. According to GAO
and Congressional Research Service records, Reagan from 1996 or earlier,
until his death in 2004, did not accept a health insurance benefit that
two-term presidents can opt to add to their pension payments.
Clinton applied for the health benefit before leaving office, according to
the GSA, and has received it each year. This year, it was $10,000, according
to GSA.
Carson said Clinton never sought increases from the GSA's proposals and, "on
occasion, his staff has recommended decreases to the proposed budgets."
The GSA categorizes the benefits in broad categories that sometimes leave
much to the imagination. For instance, since 2001, Clinton has received more
than the other former presidents for "other services" ($751,000) and
"supplies & materials" ($143,000), while Bush got the largest allowance for
"equipment" ($328,000).
The GSA said "supplies" include "office supplies, publications and
subscriptions," while "equipment" means "computers and peripheral equipment,
as well as servers."
Some expenses, like phone bills and rent, have no limit, while others, like
staff salaries, are capped.
Presidential pensions are statutorily set at the same amount per year as the
salaries of sitting Cabinet secretaries, who will earn $191,000 this year.
As for the higher rent for Clinton's office, which is located in a penthouse
in New York City's Harlem neighborhood, Carson said it's a function of
location, location and location.
While Clinton's office is costlier per square foot, it is also more spacious
than that of Bush or Carter.
This year, according to a 2007 Congressional Research Service report,
taxpayers will fork over $516,000 for Clinton's 8,300-square-foot Harlem
office, while Carter's 4,200-square-foot Atlanta digs will run them
$102,000. Bush's 4,600-square-foot Houston spread will cost $175,000.
Carson stressed that not all of the space in Clinton's office is usable.
Clinton's rent would have been less if his office were on a lower floor,
according to a 2001 GAO report, which said the rent per square foot for
Clinton's office is about 4 percent higher than that of a Social Security
office located on a lower floor in the same building. But the lower office
doesn't have the same view of Central Park, the George Washington Bridge and
most of Manhattan as that reportedly offered by Clinton's suite.
The offices of Bush and Reagan both also offered "good panoramic views,"
according to the GAO report, which said that, when it came to selecting
Clinton's office, "no other comparable properties exist in the area."
Clinton's rent is quite a bit less than that of the office that was his
first choice: a 56th-floor midtown Manhattan suite two blocks south of
Central Park. Clinton backed away from plans to locate there amid criticism
from congressional Republicans, then in the majority, over the estimated
$811,000-per-year rent.
Carson said Clinton's Harlem office continues to serve a vital function,
even as Clinton travels the country - paid for by his wife's presidential
campaign, not taxpayers - stumping for her.
"While President Clinton is devoted to supporting Sen. Clinton's candidacy,
his office continues to function," Carson said. "Each year, former President
Clinton's office receives, processes and responds to tens of thousands of
pieces of mail and e-mail correspondences and thousands of scheduling
requests, the majority of which are related to his position as a former
president."
