Dems Rebuild

[RedDenver]

Walk me thru that Red ... when I read through your comments they seem to align to the fact that a President should not speak to a group of individuals that they potentially could help in their role as POTUS (i.e. pay for play - totally understand and agree with this). Nor should they speak after their presidency to any groups that they helped or may have "helped" (or perceived to have helped) during their time in office. After 8 years in that prime leadership position, touching all that they do wouldn't that pretty much mean they couldn't speak to any group?

It's not the speaking - it's the payment.

 

If I'm understanding correctly, the argument is entirely that perhaps Obama is collecting his reward for not going after bankers harder during his presidency.

Yes, but it's broader than that. Consider these thought experiments that are also unethical:

1) Trump builds a border wall. After his presidency he gets paid to give speeches to the trade association Border Walls 'R Us, whose members include companies that profited from the border wall.

2) Alternate universe where Bernie Sanders won the presidency and passes a law that makes unions powerful. After his presidency, he gets paid by the trade unions to give speeches.

 

Also consider the slippery slope that Obama getting money creates. Even if it wasn't a pay-for-play in Obama's case, it's an incentive for other political figures to do pay-for-play and allows industry figures to induce them to do so. For example, the firm that is paying Obama for a speech could go to Trump and intimate that he could get the same treatment if he treats them favorably.

[zoogs]

You make lucid points, but I think all any of these show is an affinity that was always there. I don't think there's a way to get rid of it. What sorts of things can a President do for pay, then? Any sum of money is going to come from somewhere, which of course, is really broad.

 

I look at this way: a President can basically book his choice of speaking engagements no matter what. The more diversity there is to his post-presidency career, the better. They reflect his ongoing interests more than anything else, and there's room for criticism there: i.e, 'look at how friendly to banks he always was'...'this guy is such an NRA darling' or 'of course, the unions adore him'...'yeah, he WOULD speak at Harvard', etc.

[commando]

 

Walk me thru that Red ... when I read through your comments they seem to align to the fact that a President should not speak to a group of individuals that they potentially could help in their role as POTUS (i.e. pay for play - totally understand and agree with this). Nor should they speak after their presidency to any groups that they helped or may have "helped" (or perceived to have helped) during their time in office. After 8 years in that prime leadership position, touching all that they do wouldn't that pretty much mean they couldn't speak to any group?

It's not the speaking - it's the payment.

 

If I'm understanding correctly, the argument is entirely that perhaps Obama is collecting his reward for not going after bankers harder during his presidency.

Yes, but it's broader than that. Consider these thought experiments that are also unethical:

1) Trump builds a border wall. After his presidency he gets paid to give speeches to the trade association Border Walls 'R Us, whose members include companies that profited from the border wall.

2) Alternate universe where Bernie Sanders won the presidency and passes a law that makes unions powerful. After his presidency, he gets paid by the trade unions to give speeches.

 

Also consider the slippery slope that Obama getting money creates. Even if it wasn't a pay-for-play in Obama's case, it's an incentive for other political figures to do pay-for-play and allows industry figures to induce them to do so. For example, the firm that is paying Obama for a speech could go to Trump and intimate that he could get the same treatment if he treats them favorably.

 

trump would laugh at them if all they offer is $400,000. he is milking the taxpayers for millions now

[RedDenver]

You make lucid points, but I think all any of these show is an affinity that was always there. I don't think there's a way to get rid of it. What sorts of things can a President do for pay, then? Any sum of money is going to come from somewhere, which of course, is really broad.

 

I look at this way: a President can basically book his choice of speaking engagements no matter what. The more diversity there is to his post-presidency career, the better. They reflect his ongoing interests more than anything else, and there's room for criticism there: i.e, 'look at how friendly to banks he always was'...'this guy is such an NRA darling' or 'of course, the unions adore him'...'yeah, he WOULD speak at Harvard', etc.

As to your first point, here's what the president makes:

According to Title 3 of the US Code, the US President "shall earn" a salary of $400,000, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment.

 

Like most employees, the president receives benefits in addition to a salary. Unlike most employees, though, these benefits include free transportation in the presidential limousine, Marine One, and Air Force One and free housing in the White House.

 

Another bonus: At the end of their terms, presidents are still on government payroll, which includes an annual pension of about $200,000, healthcare, paid official travel, and an office.

So he doesn't actually need to make any additional money. As for how to get rid of the ethical issues, we could make it against the law for a former president to receive compensation, forbid it for some period of time (4 years since their presidency ended, 10 years, etc.), or make it a case-by-case question determined by a judge or ethics board, or some combination of those.

 

Your second point is more a political cost argument, which I'm not really for or against. People could hold his speeches or other actions against him even if he did them for free or donated the money or whatever. There's no way to prevent political costs (or benefits), nor do I think we even want to attempt to regulate them.

[NM11046]

I think the perspective that he doesn't "need" to earn any additional money is a personal opinion Red. 200k sounds like a lot to many of us, but he's got kids going to private schools and enrolling in top tier colleges, he's carrying the family when he used to be he and his wife were very high earners and they live in high cost of living cities. A person shouldn't have to take a financial step back for their entire lives for having held that office. Michelle would be making more than that as a salaried lawyer, significantly more as a partner, and I'd think he'd be on a similar path.

 

I actually like your idea to put a restriction Presidents (or any Senate/Congressman) speaking for a paid fee for a certain number of years post holding office. I wish that the rules established (or at least spoken about) having lobbyists move between political positions and corporate positions or representing corporate interests. I know that's been talked about for a long time but nobody seems to hold anyone else accountable for monitoring it.

[zoogs]

I really do not think a 200k pension with perks -- while nice -- is "don't need to make money ever again" territory.

 

I mean, if that were me, I wouldn't retire. And if I do go work, I wouldn't do it for free. I'd be a former POTUS, man. My time is valuable. Pay for it.

 

I do agree there's not much to regulate about political costs. It comes down to optics and I think it's quite fair to scrutinize the motives behind the arguments that are optics-based. There are some good ones, like why is he being so tone deaf. This one, though...I mean, I don't really understand not wanting him to ever do a speaking engagement with the financial sector. That's one among many intimately relevant groups for a guy who supervised national domestic and economic policy for a while. Where's the virtue in cold-shouldering them into perpetuity?

[RedDenver]

I think the perspective that he doesn't "need" to earn any additional money is a personal opinion Red. 200k sounds like a lot to many of us, but he's got kids going to private schools and enrolling in top tier colleges, he's carrying the family when he used to be he and his wife were very high earners and they live in high cost of living cities. A person shouldn't have to take a financial step back for their entire lives for having held that office. Michelle would be making more than that as a salaried lawyer, significantly more as a partner, and I'd think he'd be on a similar path.

 

I actually like your idea to put a restriction Presidents (or any Senate/Congressman) speaking for a paid fee for a certain number of years post holding office. I wish that the rules established (or at least spoken about) having lobbyists move between political positions and corporate positions or representing corporate interests. I know that's been talked about for a long time but nobody seems to hold anyone else accountable for monitoring it.

 

 

I really do not think a 200k pension with perks -- while nice -- is "don't need to make money ever again" territory.

 

I mean, if that were me, I wouldn't retire. And if I do go work, I wouldn't do it for free. I'd be a former POTUS, man. My time is valuable. Pay for it.

 

I do agree there's not much to regulate about political costs. It comes down to optics and I think it's quite fair to scrutinize the motives behind the arguments that are optics-based. There are some good ones, like why is he being so tone deaf. This one, though...I mean, I don't really understand not wanting him to ever do a speaking engagement with the financial sector. That's one among many intimately relevant groups for a guy who supervised national domestic and economic policy for a while. Where's the virtue in cold-shouldering them into perpetuity?

$200k/year guaranteed for the rest of his life with the additional perk of healthcare, doesn't meet basic needs? To put that in perspective, $200k/year is in the top 4% of income earners. That is exactly "don't need to make money ever again" territory. He could go out and make more money, but he and his family certainly don't need it.

 

Regardless, I'm not claiming he can't go out and make additional money. Obama could start a collectibles store, be a day trader with part of that retirement, go out on the pro bass fisherman circuit, etc., etc. And he could get paid for speeches that don't have direct connections to decisions he made in office. For example, I don't think he helped the donut industry while in office, so he could go get paid for speeches to them. This is more of a gray area, but I think we can distinguish between cases of possible influence or not.

 

I don't think it's too much to ask that people in government that acted in favor of some industry not be allowed to take money from that industry.

[knapplc]

If Obama's speaking fee is $50,000, are we having this conversation? Is the size of the fee the sticky wicket here?

[Moiraine]

$200k/year guaranteed is easily enough to not have to ever worry about money again, especially since you will keep getting it after retirement. I can't imagine why someone with 2 nearly-adult kids would need more than that when it's going to keep coming after they stop working. $200k income is different because when you retire it changes.

 

That said if I was offered my current annual income to do a 1 hour speech, I wouldn't turn it down because it's such easy money.

[zoogs]

Oh, I agree it meets basic needs. I don't begrudge anyone in the position to become wealthy instead to pursue that route.

 

Not that the speech has anything to do with that. His fee was what, 400k? He's getting 150 times that for his book deal and if I recall that's just the advance.

 

Would we really feel better if Obama were doing this and saying "Hey, banks, keep your money"? And is going to work in the financial industry itself -- as a day trader -- better? That seems worse. I don't understand the virtue argument here.

[84HuskerLaw]

All this debate over Obama getting 400k for giving one friggin speech in a topic of Dems rebuild? Rather odd tangent to me. The real question is why pray tell would anyone pay somebody $400,000 in this economy to give a speech? Seriously, the obvious answer is they are not paying for a speech, they are buying influence. Former President Obama is clearly the most influential Democrat in the country and with the Dems in political meltdown and continuing a decade long decline in favorability based on the loss of literally thousands of elective offices across federal, state and local government, there appears no leadership out there and a party running around like headless chickens. Far from rebuilding, the Dems are imploding and their radical socialist agenda no longer hidden from the public - indeed many are proudly proclaiming their true identity after decades of concealment and deception.

 

The answer is that organizations find the best way to defend themselves from the ravages of big government overreach into their businesses is to pay them off. The Clintons were the most corrupt politicians in history, parlaying 8 years as governor of Arkansas and 8 years in the Whitehouse and a senate term into $ in the BILLIONS tax free no less!

 

On a smaller scale (Nebraska level), Ben Nelson did incredibly well with 8 years as Gov and a couple senate terms, going from a lowly insurance agent in McCook with a couple hundred thousand in net worth to $100 million. You don't save that much from your salary and benefits in either of those offices. Graft, pay for play, kickbacks, "speeking fees", big profits from selling lands where the government decides to put exits off of I-80 in Lincoln and Omaha, etc. It is all a form of corruption and certainly not ethical, whether or not it is strictly legal.

 

Even so, what does this have to do with the Dems 'rebuilding' unless we are talking about individuals 'rebuilding' their personal finances by peddling influence and abusing their political official powers. ?

[zoogs]

Certifiably loco, man.

[NM11046]

 

 

I think the perspective that he doesn't "need" to earn any additional money is a personal opinion Red. 200k sounds like a lot to many of us, but he's got kids going to private schools and enrolling in top tier colleges, he's carrying the family when he used to be he and his wife were very high earners and they live in high cost of living cities. A person shouldn't have to take a financial step back for their entire lives for having held that office. Michelle would be making more than that as a salaried lawyer, significantly more as a partner, and I'd think he'd be on a similar path.

 

I actually like your idea to put a restriction Presidents (or any Senate/Congressman) speaking for a paid fee for a certain number of years post holding office. I wish that the rules established (or at least spoken about) having lobbyists move between political positions and corporate positions or representing corporate interests. I know that's been talked about for a long time but nobody seems to hold anyone else accountable for monitoring it.

I really do not think a 200k pension with perks -- while nice -- is "don't need to make money ever again" territory.

 

I mean, if that were me, I wouldn't retire. And if I do go work, I wouldn't do it for free. I'd be a former POTUS, man. My time is valuable. Pay for it.

 

I do agree there's not much to regulate about political costs. It comes down to optics and I think it's quite fair to scrutinize the motives behind the arguments that are optics-based. There are some good ones, like why is he being so tone deaf. This one, though...I mean, I don't really understand not wanting him to ever do a speaking engagement with the financial sector. That's one among many intimately relevant groups for a guy who supervised national domestic and economic policy for a while. Where's the virtue in cold-shouldering them into perpetuity?

$200k/year guaranteed for the rest of his life with the additional perk of healthcare, doesn't meet basic needs? To put that in perspective, $200k/year is in the top 4% of income earners. That is exactly "don't need to make money ever again" territory. He could go out and make more money, but he and his family certainly don't need it.

 

Regardless, I'm not claiming he can't go out and make additional money. Obama could start a collectibles store, be a day trader with part of that retirement, go out on the pro bass fisherman circuit, etc., etc. And he could get paid for speeches that don't have direct connections to decisions he made in office. For example, I don't think he helped the donut industry while in office, so he could go get paid for speeches to them. This is more of a gray area, but I think we can distinguish between cases of possible influence or not.

 

I don't think it's too much to ask that people in government that acted in favor of some industry not be allowed to take money from that industry.

Going to have to agree to disagree on the $200k a year. One shouldnt have to earn less because he/she was president. Its already hard to get good people to consider this position. He took a pay cut for 8 years - shouldn't have to continue that once he and his family are out of office.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with your comments on being more aware of where that money is coming from, but one man's 200 is another 's 50k.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

I think the perspective that he doesn't "need" to earn any additional money is a personal opinion Red. 200k sounds like a lot to many of us, but he's got kids going to private schools and enrolling in top tier colleges, he's carrying the family when he used to be he and his wife were very high earners and they live in high cost of living cities. A person shouldn't have to take a financial step back for their entire lives for having held that office. Michelle would be making more than that as a salaried lawyer, significantly more as a partner, and I'd think he'd be on a similar path.

 

I actually like your idea to put a restriction Presidents (or any Senate/Congressman) speaking for a paid fee for a certain number of years post holding office. I wish that the rules established (or at least spoken about) having lobbyists move between political positions and corporate positions or representing corporate interests. I know that's been talked about for a long time but nobody seems to hold anyone else accountable for monitoring it.

I really do not think a 200k pension with perks -- while nice -- is "don't need to make money ever again" territory.

 

I mean, if that were me, I wouldn't retire. And if I do go work, I wouldn't do it for free. I'd be a former POTUS, man. My time is valuable. Pay for it.

 

I do agree there's not much to regulate about political costs. It comes down to optics and I think it's quite fair to scrutinize the motives behind the arguments that are optics-based. There are some good ones, like why is he being so tone deaf. This one, though...I mean, I don't really understand not wanting him to ever do a speaking engagement with the financial sector. That's one among many intimately relevant groups for a guy who supervised national domestic and economic policy for a while. Where's the virtue in cold-shouldering them into perpetuity?

$200k/year guaranteed for the rest of his life with the additional perk of healthcare, doesn't meet basic needs? To put that in perspective, $200k/year is in the top 4% of income earners. That is exactly "don't need to make money ever again" territory. He could go out and make more money, but he and his family certainly don't need it.

 

Regardless, I'm not claiming he can't go out and make additional money. Obama could start a collectibles store, be a day trader with part of that retirement, go out on the pro bass fisherman circuit, etc., etc. And he could get paid for speeches that don't have direct connections to decisions he made in office. For example, I don't think he helped the donut industry while in office, so he could go get paid for speeches to them. This is more of a gray area, but I think we can distinguish between cases of possible influence or not.

 

I don't think it's too much to ask that people in government that acted in favor of some industry not be allowed to take money from that industry.

Going to have to agree to disagree on the $200k a year. One shouldnt have to earn less because he/she was president. Its already hard to get good people to consider this position. He took a pay cut for 8 years - shouldn't have to continue that once he and his family are out of office.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with your comments on being more aware of where that money is coming from, but one man's 200 is another 's 50k.

Sorry NM but give or take a couple thousand $, one man's 200k is another man's 200k. There are outliers like having a serious medical condition or having 12 kids (which is a choice). For almost all other scenarios the reason one man can live on 50k and another has to have 200k is because the latter has a more extravagent lifestyle that they don't actually need.

 

Before anyone reads into my post, I'm not saying presidents shouldn't get paid more or not try to make more $.

 

I just think this talk about a guaranteed $200k/year (including a guarantee after retirement) not being enough to set you up comfortably for life is absolute insanity.

[NM11046]

Different parts of the country have different costs of living - Moraine you are a smart gal, if I lived in Nebraska perhaps I'd be happy w/$200k a year and feel like I could relax - whereas in my part of the country that is simply not the case. I can perhaps get a 800 sq ft apartment for $500k. Car insurance is higher, groceries are higher, parking costs money, schools cost money, gas is higher per gallon, taxes are higher. So no, it's not. My "extravagance" includes living within an hour of an international airport. So before you launch into "you choose to live there" it's for work - as many of us have had to move in order to pursue a career. So while I may be able to live comfortably on $200k, it won't necessarily allow me to save for early retirement, it won't necessarily allow me to make myself more comfortable in a larger living space, to drive a car that has seats that don't make my back hurt, live closer to the city - and I'm a single person with no children. That amount is significantly more challenging for those supporting more than 1.

 

I (and I'm sure most including the past POTUS's) try to save for the "what ifs". What if I can't do any work due to disability in 2 years? What if I'm forced to retire? What if I have major health or financial crisis that makes me dig into savings prior to being ready to do so? What if my company closes? What if I need to go back to school to learn new skills to start a new career late in life? What happens when I need to start supporting my parents? What if I have to go into assisted living? What if property values drop?

 

So no, its not insanity. It's location, cost of living, goals (current & for retirement) and preparation. We shouldn't' fault those who try to do better for themselves and their families. We shouldn't fault those who are ambitious in trying to maintain or improve their lot - isn't that the american way after all?

 

I don't want to sound greedy or imply that $200k is a small amount of money. We should all be so lucky as to have $200k per year for life. (what I don't know - what if a president dies? Does his spouse or children get that stipend for their remaining life? If not - isn't that reason enough for him to try and earn more money while he can to support his family?) If we aren't all trying to maximize on our earnings while we can, we'd be pretty stupid. If his marketability is higher in the 6 months post presidency vs 6 years post presidency, he should be out there speaking. Just like I'll bust my ass while I'm healthy, and travel like crazy for work - put in the hours while I can so that I can establish a cushion for the day that I have to step back and earn less.

 

I only want to challenge those here who have said "he doesn't need to do this". $50k in NYC or San Francisco is not the same as $50k in Dubuque or Sioux Falls. $200k doesn't go as far in Florida as it does in Texas. To imply extravagance, insanity and etc is just condescending and a bit ignorant.