The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7
I have often thought it a pity that the “Emoluments Clause,” cited above, could not be stretched enough to bar the debilitating spectacle of former presidents greedily groveling for money by mouthing high-priced platitudes before fawning audiences here and abroad and extorting huge advances from equally greedy (and, fortunately, frequently gullible) publishers by “writing” (I use the term loosely) memoirs that both history and History could usually do without. (There are, of course, exceptions: U.S. Grant’s memoirs are a classic, and both Truman’s and Eisenhower’s are as serious as their authors.)
As usual, ex-president Clinton has taken an already depressing practice to new depths.
The Washington Post reports today that ex-pres Bill received $9.2 million in speaking fees in 2001 and $9.5 million in 2002. Adding in the small change of the million or two in advances that he received for his forthcoming memoirs, his two-year income is well over $20 million, and this of course doesn’t count the salary and huge expenses he receives by virtue of being a former president.
Sure, “they all do it,” as Clinton’s defenders (like Nixon’s before him) have long been fond of pointing out. Reagan was paid $2 million by the Japanese for two twenty-minute speeches, and Ford also was heavily overpaid for his memoirs. Still, Clinton’s greed, like his other appetites, promises to exceed that of his predecessors by a considerable margin.
Reluctantly, I recognize that the Emoluments Clause can probably not be used to prevent this post-presidential cashing in on the presidency. Still, there is no reason why Congress, witnessing yet another Clintonian orgy of self-gratification at public expense, could not revise the legislation providing a huge budget to former presidents for their staffs, offices, protection, etc., to provide for reducing such benefits one dollar for each dollar above, say, five times the allotted pension+benefits earned by former presidents.
That said, the WPost story also reveals some additional information that I believe could (read: should) raise an Emoluments Clause flag. Despite raking in cash for the past two years even faster than they can talk (Mrs. Clinton has also received over a million dollars, not counted above, of an $8 million advance), the Clinton’s still owe up to $6.5 million to their lawyers, including $5 million to Williams & Connolly. Since those fees were incurred while Clinton was president, isn’t it possible that the, er, generous terms he enjoyed while in office, and beyond, constitute an emolument?
And then there’s this interesting tidbit:
The legal fees included a bill for $100,000 to $250,000 from a Little Rock law firm for work done in 1998. The statement said the law firm, Wright Lindsey & Jennings, did not identify invoices for the work until 2002.
What exactly does “did not identify” mean in this context? Did the law firm not know of this rather substantial Bill bill? Whether it did or not, doesn’t this look like a benefit he received while in office?
True, these “emoluments” were not from “the United States, or any of them,” but what’s the point of having Constitutional provisions like the long-ignored Emoluments Clause lying around for all this time if you don’t haul them out and use them once every century or so, especially when needed? Without amending the Constitution, however, Congress could clearly reduce the benefits it provides to ex-presidents by a small fraction of their excessive speaking and “writing” fees.
I have a problem with this notion. Obviously there’s no Constitutional conflict if the post-Presidential perks are capped, but I’m not particularly keen on changing a system just because one individual seems to be especially clever at “beating” it. It seems impossible in this day and age, but someday we may elect someone comparatively modest, and I’d hate to see this person penalized just because Billy Jeff hogged the spotlight.
In my view, Clinton has, as usual, taken the post-pres perks system to the depths, but I would argue that any ex-pres who makes big bucks speaking and writing should have his publicly-funded perks reduced by some amount. A recent example would be Modest Ford, who also was paid handsomely for his memoirs. A retired ex-pres who stayed retired, or did good works instead of getting paid big bucks, would of course, under my system, not have his or her perks reduced at all. Understand, I believe in means-testing all gov’t benefits, including those to ex-presidents.
The virtue of consistency, at least. :)
I think Social Security is a fine model for the treatment of former Presidents. For every dolllar earned over ~$17,000, SS benefits are reduced by $.50. Of course, what the government expects the elderly to live on is far to low for our leaders; however, a 50% reduction in benefits for money earned over, say, $200,000 seems reasonable to me.
If I recall correctly, the Presidential pension system was instituted because when Truman left office he was essentially broke. Now that is an honest polititian. The system was created for one individual; there is no reason not to change it due to one individual.
Pres pension trivia: the government pays for security for all former Presidents. The only one to (eventually) pay for it himself was Nixon.
The idea that taxpayers should continue to pay money to someone with an annual income over 100 times greater than average is disgusting. He can take care of himself. There are many better uses for the money than that, including not taking it from taxpayers in the first place. If the man had any shame he would cover his own costs.