At least serving in office has brought wealth to our Presidents after they leave office. It is incredible there is such a financial liability to people at the top of our governing structure.
June 27, 2014
By Phillip Rucker
...Bill Clinton (click here) has been paid $104.9 million for 542 speeches around the world between January 2001, when he left office, and January 2013, when Hillary Clinton left as secretary of state, according to a Washington Post review of the family's financial disclosures....
I've always heard how expensive it is to live in Washington, DC by Senators and House members, but, dearly few have stated it is an enormous burden to the President while serving in office.
The Late Jackie Kennedy refurbished the White House in the short time they resided at the White House and people complained about the budget she was given. Well, what was she going to do use her own funds?
I suppose the Obamas are lucky to have the girl's grandmother living with them, otherwise, the nanny costs would be a ridiculous amont. I have to wonder if the household budget, including a gardening hobby, is more than sufficient to support The First Family.
The nation has to recognize this family is on call to the nation's need 24/7. That is unrealistic in expecting them to handle all the costs on their own.
The comments by the Former Secretary of State makes me wonder a great deal as to what expenses while servicing in office accumulates large debt. Serving in the Presidency should never add so much debt that the years after leaving requires working for large sums of money. I imagine there are requests for their time at meetings by worthy and perhaps even preferred organizations the Former First Family cannot accommodate because of their need to earn their way out of debt.
It concerns me there is such financial liability in serving as President and First Lady. I am wondering if the US House actually undercuts the White House budget to force ill relations between the legislative and executive branch. The White House budget and cabinet budget should not be decided by the US House, but, determined by an autonomous branch of the government, such as the GAO.
I am thinking the GAO can bring forward the costs of the Executive Branch for review and increases to carry necessary operation. I am viewing this with some surprise that the US House handling the operations of the Executive Branch isn't governed by separation of powers. The US House should never have the capacity to bring covert pressure on the Executive Branch. I think the White House and Cabinet budgets should be litigated for separation of powers.
The US Senate should pass a bill assigning a formula for the GAO to identify the expenses of running and living within the Executive Branch. The math formula could then be reviewed for increases and/or decreases. The White House and Executive Branch budget needs to be autonomous and somewhat generous, especally when realizing this the Commander and Chief of our military. Four years minimally is a long time to place personal assets into trust while maintaining the integrity of those investments. The entire budget issue for the Executive Branch concerns me. It is probably necessary to carry out a formula for the Vice President as well. I don't think the nation has carried it's responsibility for these people.
June 27, 2014
By Phillip Rucker
...Bill Clinton (click here) has been paid $104.9 million for 542 speeches around the world between January 2001, when he left office, and January 2013, when Hillary Clinton left as secretary of state, according to a Washington Post review of the family's financial disclosures....
I've always heard how expensive it is to live in Washington, DC by Senators and House members, but, dearly few have stated it is an enormous burden to the President while serving in office.
The Late Jackie Kennedy refurbished the White House in the short time they resided at the White House and people complained about the budget she was given. Well, what was she going to do use her own funds?
I suppose the Obamas are lucky to have the girl's grandmother living with them, otherwise, the nanny costs would be a ridiculous amont. I have to wonder if the household budget, including a gardening hobby, is more than sufficient to support The First Family.
The nation has to recognize this family is on call to the nation's need 24/7. That is unrealistic in expecting them to handle all the costs on their own.
The comments by the Former Secretary of State makes me wonder a great deal as to what expenses while servicing in office accumulates large debt. Serving in the Presidency should never add so much debt that the years after leaving requires working for large sums of money. I imagine there are requests for their time at meetings by worthy and perhaps even preferred organizations the Former First Family cannot accommodate because of their need to earn their way out of debt.
It concerns me there is such financial liability in serving as President and First Lady. I am wondering if the US House actually undercuts the White House budget to force ill relations between the legislative and executive branch. The White House budget and cabinet budget should not be decided by the US House, but, determined by an autonomous branch of the government, such as the GAO.
I am thinking the GAO can bring forward the costs of the Executive Branch for review and increases to carry necessary operation. I am viewing this with some surprise that the US House handling the operations of the Executive Branch isn't governed by separation of powers. The US House should never have the capacity to bring covert pressure on the Executive Branch. I think the White House and Cabinet budgets should be litigated for separation of powers.
The US Senate should pass a bill assigning a formula for the GAO to identify the expenses of running and living within the Executive Branch. The math formula could then be reviewed for increases and/or decreases. The White House and Executive Branch budget needs to be autonomous and somewhat generous, especally when realizing this the Commander and Chief of our military. Four years minimally is a long time to place personal assets into trust while maintaining the integrity of those investments. The entire budget issue for the Executive Branch concerns me. It is probably necessary to carry out a formula for the Vice President as well. I don't think the nation has carried it's responsibility for these people.
