And before you ask, no “It’s just a drop in the bucket!” is not currently included in the EA Rationalization List. But it will be….
Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa has submitted legislation, titled the “Presidential Allowance Modernization Act.” Under its reforms, former Presidents would receive a pension of $200,000 a year and a $200,000 allowance with cost of living adjustments every year. However, unlike the system currently in place, the allowance would be reduced if the former President earned more than $400,000 a year.
One is forced to ask, what took so long to come up with this change?
“From speaking gigs to Netflix deals and much more, former Presidents have been raking in the dough,” Ernst told the Daily Caller. “Americans should not be on the hook to support those who clearly are having no issues supporting themselves. This common sense bill flips Washington on its head by finally prioritizing taxpayers over politicians.”
I don’t see how anyone can argue with that. But it’s a Republican proposing the bill, so we know someone will.
The provision in place under the current law gives former Presidents a pension equivalent to the salary of a Cabinet secretary. There is an office allowance of $115,000 a year to pay staff for the first two and a half years, then it drops to $96,000 a year. As that Netflix reference should tell you, Ernst was thinking about the Obamas as she described the rationale for the bill, though the Clintons’ money train since Bill left office is also germane. Bill Clinton has a net worth of about $120 million, and former President George W. Bush’s net worth is about $40 million. In addition to the ridiculous Netflix deal, the Obamas also signed a $65 million book contract with Penguin Random House.
Coincidentally, a previous version of the legislation introduced by Ernst passed the House and Senate in 2016, but then-President Obama, in the last months of his final term and preparing to cash in like the Clintons, vetoed it on July 22, 2016. This is one more piece of evidence that Donald Trump isn’t the only President who encounters conflicts of interest.
I will also lay odds that when this version of the bill passes and Trump signs it, the new law will be attacked as part of Trump’s “revenge tour.”
Ethics Alarms 
What staff do former presidents have besides Srcret Service protection? Seems to me former presidents shouldn’t get a cent after the initial pension.
I suspect the staff allowance is analogous to retired federal judges getting their salaries as long as they live, as well as a staffed office for as long as they want to have one. Maybe, as with judges, the thinking is that if a president never has to worry about his future financial security, he won’t be prone to being bribed. Given the Clintons and Obamas, that’s a good one, isn’t it?
The impetus for the Presidential pension had been embarrassment over Harry Truman’s supposed dire straits upon leaving office and returning to Independence, MO. Truman wasn’t that bad off, but enough people thought he was that they pushed through this thing (The only other living President, Herbert Hoover, definitely didn’t need the money, but he took the pension anyway because he didn’t want to embarrass Truman by not taking it, lest it essentially be known as the Bail Out Harry fund).
I would suggest that such a stipend is unnecessary. Today’s candidates are multimillionaires or already have significant retirement plans. It make no sense to provide a pension based on a maximum of 8 years of service. I would argue that Maryland state employees must work 10 years before even being vested. Perhaps the President should do what we are all told to do and that is to invest in a 401K plan or in his case a TSP.
Now do Congress and the federal workforce.
I like it and I like the structure. What I don’t like is the COLA every year. I’d be okay with a COLA assessment every 10 years, least there be incentive to cause rampant inflation.
I like that other sources of income reduce the pension as well and it makes sense to keep it in place in the unlikely event that we get smart and put in a person who is not a millionaire.
I also like this provision for other former government workers. Pensions are a safety net, but if they make additional money, that should be considered, because they are leveraging their government service experience. It lets them have a pension while they take a risk to do consulting work. If they’re successful, the pension should wane. If they are unsuccessful, they have the pension as a safety. How to administrate it? No clue. You have to maintain an IRS apparatus for reporting and enforcement, which is not “free”.
Good progress, good ideas. They’ll figure it out.