Why on the planet would a previous President of the United States require a pension, or some other money-related advantages, so far as that is concerned? They should simply give maybe a couple speeches for every year and they will profit than just the wealthiest of Americans. In the event that they can’t make it on speaking and consulting fees or lucrative book deals, that is quite recently too awful.
We have an example being set by President Trump. He has declined to accept his presidential pay. Almost certainly that practice will extend after he leaves office, appearing as his declining the presidential benefits. While this won’t settle the deficit, it points toward the first thought that those in elected office ought to be national leaders, instead of those searching for a lifetime salary from their government “service.”
Surprisingly Mr. Trump won’t need to settle on that decision to decay the presidential pension. The House just voted to cut the extent of pensions for mogul past presidents. Finally. In the event that Mr. Obama is troubled, he can get the chance to work, albeit any “work” he may do is a far cry from what most by far of Americans do once a day.
“The House easily passed legislation on Monday to reduce the pensions and federal benefits provided to former presidents.
“BEFORE APPROVING THE BILL BY VOICE VOTE, LAWMAKERS EXPRESSED AGREEMENT THAT MODERN-DAY FORMER PRESIDENTS DON’T NEED FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE GOVERNMENT IF THEY ALREADY EARN SALARIES IN THE MILLIONS.”
It’s intriguing to note where this routine with regards to paying past presidents pensions got its begin.
“Under a law established in 1958, former presidents are eligible for an annual six-figure pension, plus funds for staff salaries, office space and other expenses.”
What’s more, here is the place it is probably going to get cut.
“Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.), the author of the bill, questioned the necessity of providing funds for former presidents who can make millions of dollars from book deals and speaking engagements.
“‘Because of these opportunities, it’s no longer necessary to provide taxpayer-funded support to former presidents in the same way as envisioned in 1958,’ Hice said during House floor debate.”
Mr. Obama vetoed a comparative bill, guaranteeing worries over the fate of presidential staff members and the security of past presidents. Whatever. This time around it will be President Trump who will have the chance to sign the legislation.
Also, there ought to be no uncertainty regarding what this president will do.
What do you think about this? Do not hesitate and write your thoughts in the comment section below.