George W. Bush requests the most taxpayer dollars of ex-presidents

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#1
George W. Bush requests the most taxpayer dollars of ex-presidents

Published: 12:33 AM 05/09/2012
By Alex Pappas - Think Progress


FILE - In this March 26, 2004 file photo, President George W. Bush waves as he boards Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base, Md. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, File)

Former President George W. Bush is budgeted to receive the most money from taxpayers of all the living ex-presidents.

Bush, the most recent former president, is requesting more than $1.3 million in taxpayer dollars for fiscal year 2013, according to a budget proposal document prepared by the General Services Administration.

Those funds go towards an office staff, travel and postage. The former presidents Act of 1958 guarantees taxpayer funding for ex-presidents.

Former President Bill Clinton is requesting more than $1 million. Former President George H.W. Bush is requesting $879,000 and former President Jimmy Carter is requesting $518,000.

As for widows of former presidents, like Nancy Reagan, $7,000 is budgeted for postal costs.

Among expenses, the GSA budget document says the younger Bush is requesting $85,000 for phone costs. Hannah Abney, a spokeswoman for Bush, declined to comment on that when reached by MSNBC on Tuesday.

Clinton is asking for the most in office rentals — nearly four times the amount Carter is asking for — with $442,000 budgeted for rent.

The elder Bush is budgeted to spend $56,000 on travel. Carter is asking for $15,000 for postage costs.

These figures do not include the cost of Secret Service protection.

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz is pushing a bill in Congress that would stop taxpayer funding of ex-presidents if they make more than $400,000 a year.

“Nobody wants our former presidents living the remainder of their lives destitute,” Chaffetz said in February when announcing the bill. “But the fact is none of our former presidents are poor.”

http:/thinkprogress.com2012/05/09/ge...#ixzz1uPQbOV9Y
Fun Fact:
A lot of the Founding Fathers died broke. Jefferson sold his book collection to the Library of Congress after the British torched it, partly to repay a lot of his huge debt.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
#2
The only question is if those expenses are related to their former job (not exactly sure what that could be, but what the fuck do I know?). Anything that is is the same thing as any business expense, I guess. Anything else - GTFO. I don't care what letter you go before your name, especially these rich motherfuckers.
 

caniseeyourtaint

Passive agressive douche
#3
$15,000 for postal costs? What the fuck are these idiots mailing?
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
#4
it'll balance out when his secret service protection expires in 7 years.
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
#6
yeah, fuck that. I don't know what a resonable rate really should be, but if that douche Carter can get by on 518K, how about starting close to there and setting a limit of 500K.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
#8
Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz is pushing a bill in Congress that would stop taxpayer funding of ex-presidents if they make more than $400,000 a year.
Good idea. (except for the part where he ties it to their income - that has nothing to do with it). I wonder who, other than the evil teabaggers, will actually support this bill.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
#20
I'm going to go with "yes"
Well, then they shouldn't. I don't understand why that is always your go-to argument. "But these other undeserving people do it too!" Didn't I say that anything not directly related to any obligations or loose ends from their Presidency plus some kind of retirement payment should not be a taxpayer burden? I believe I said exactly that right at the start of the thread.

It's just not a good argument. I mean, I don't get it. Do you think it's OK for the First Lady to take lavish vacations and for ex-presidents to just bill whatever to the taxpayer? If not, why are you arguing?
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
#21
We heard you! (This is gonna be all I post tonight apparently)
Wackbag has Pertussis AIDS tonight

Well, then they shouldn't. I don't understand why that is always your go-to argument. "But these other undeserving people do it too!" Didn't I say that anything not directly related to any obligations or loose ends from their Presidency plus some kind of retirement payment should not be a taxpayer burden? I believe I said exactly that right at the start of the thread.

It's just not a good argument. I mean, I don't get it. Do you think it's OK for the First Lady to take lavish vacations and for ex-presidents to just bill whatever to the taxpayer? If not, why are you arguing?
Just waiting for the outrage to be equal on both sides. At least there's an argument for the First Lady's trip that she's performing goodwill missions to other countries as an official representative of the United States.

And no one picked up on my Rosalynn/Dixie Carter joke :( I was going to go with Helena Bonham next.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
#22
Just waiting for the outrage to be equal on both sides.
I can't defend hypocrites on either side. However, comparing the Michelle Obama situation to this is unfair as they are two different things. If people were only outraged about Clinton's post presidential expenses, but not Bush's, THAT would truly be hypocritical. Not to mention that the Rep. proposing the limiting legislation is a Republican...

At least there's an argument for the First Lady's trip that she's performing goodwill missions to other countries as an official representative of the United States.
Oooh, a work-cation. How white collar of her. :icon_cool

And no one picked up on my Rosalynn/Dixie Carter joke :( I was going to go with Helena Bonham next.
You should have picked a President people actually cared about for you jests.
 
#23
Well, there's probably the fact that Mooch-elle is spending more than all of these guys combined in a single day. But don't let that get in the way of your false equivalency.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#24
Well, there's probably the fact that Mooch-elle is spending more than all of these guys combined in a single day. But don't let that get in the way of your false equivalency.
So have you read it now that you know it's not a Think Progress hit piece?
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
#25
Well, there's probably the fact that Mooch-elle is spending more than all of these guys combined in a single day. But don't let that get in the way of your false equivalency.
And by "facts" you mean "shit I pulled out of my ass" naturally.
 
Top