Redstate

Oz, there is a difference.

Hypocrisy.

You don't see conservative business people or republicans going after oil companies for WINDFALL profit taxes.

I think we need an ex president WINDFALL income tax to the tune of about 80% rate or so.

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

I would support taking the perks away from all ex-presidents. The point is that the Clintons haven't stepped away from politics like Bush Sr. or gone on to charitable work like Carter. They are political to the core. And yet the pretend that Bill is some kind of global ambassador for charity.

Bill milked his speaking fees like no other president only to spend more tax money then any other president. Both Clintons received exorbitant book contracts just because they were in the White House.

I am not arguing that they did something illegal or even wrong. It is the attitude that is illustrative. They can't separate politics out; they never have. They also wouldn't know a conflict of interest if it smacked them in the face.

IMHO, they have an attitude of entitlement not gratitude.

----------------
Kevin Holtsberry
Managing Editor
www.StopHerNow.com

I wonder how many public expenses were directly related to the administration of Bills personal moneymaking speeches compared to the public paid expenses of charitable work.

It really disgusts me when liberals want to spend everyone elses money but take every tax advantage they can. Why don't they lead by example and write a little extra check to the Treasury?

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

The problem with this is they are soaking up every available public dollar of funding for his post-presidency, without any consideration being given to what expenditures pertain to his commercial infrastructure. I believe the proper approach to this is to have a cap on the expenditures for offices, phones and staff that will recognize that some, if not all, are driven by any ex presidents commercial and political agenda. For example, Hillary Clinton has used him extensively on the campaign trail. At what expense to her campaign vs. the taxpayer? Whose paying for the travel, hotels and meals (ex Secret Service protection) while Clinton is on the campaign trail? I know the Bush's and Carters have similar activities, but there should be a way to keep them all in line and not having the taxpayer get stiffed for it all.

but the post includes Reagan and Bush. So the answer to your question seems to be "yes".

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

It seems to me that this is not even in the same ballpark. Tax writeoffs allow taxpayers to keep some part of their own money, or get a greater percentage of their own money back from the government. I fail to see how that is the same as a taxpayer funded retirement which includes such ridiculousness as phone bills in excess of a quarter million.

Ex presidents, more than most are allowed some great opportunites to make more than enough to retire, and should not require this money at all. If they need to fund their retirement, then they need to write a book or go make a few speeches, or find another way to make their own money.

Furthermore, it seems to me that someone worthy of the highest office ought to know enough about finances to save for their OWN retirement without needing taxpayer money to do it.

vampire--you want him to stay down. The MSM has finally decided to go after the Clintons--better late than never. Saw on the news this morning that NBC is doing a segment on where all the Clinton money has come from in the past 7 years. Yeah, I know that she's of use in terms of Obama, but as long as the Clintons are allowed to be on the public stage, they need a complete outing of who they really are. Now's as good a time as any. If Hillary is not the Dem nominee, then she will still be a U.S. senator--why not have this opportunity to REALLY get the goods on the Clintons out there for her own electorate to see? It warms the cockles of my cold, conservative heart, it does.

----------------
Kevin Holtsberry
Managing Editor
www.StopHerNow.com

and if it happened to rise again to, then we should be thrilled, if she managed to take the nomination it would be after a really hard campaign - Obama would have been forced to go nagative and we should win. There's likely a very good reason the media picked now to beat up on the Clintons and its not to help Republicans. Destroying Clinton is not in our interest. What is in our interest is to try and reach out to Clinton supporters.

being even sneakier about it than Hillary. I know the MSM is not doing what they are doing to help our side--does that mean I can't enjoy it anyway? We are not the ones "destroying Clinton", she's quite capable, with Bill's help, of doing that herself. As to reaching out to Clinton supporters, polls are already saying that up to one third of them will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I think having McCain as our nominee is about all the sacrifice I am prepared to make in reaching out.

But if we actually did have influence then I don't think tearing Clinton down at this point would be worth it. It would be good to wait till January. I'm guessing McCain probably well do this, and that matters more than what any of us would do.

huge retirement funds for themselves (Congress) without offering similarly handsome retirements for the President. SO, the best answer would be bureaucrats who write their own retirement plans using unlimited public funds.