Why should a president or congressman receive a life time pension that the taxpayers have to pay right? When you’re outside of office you should be done getting money from the tax payers. When we quit our jobs we don’t continue to get paid by our former employer.
Luckily, it seems that the end to that will come soon!
On Wednesday, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously approved a bill that would cut presidential pensions, saving the taxpayers millions. The update to the Former Presidents Act as the bill is called would cut the pensions of former presidents if they are raking it in as Obama did recently when he scored $400,000 for a single speech to Wall Street.
The bill, which was introduced by the sponsor of the Senate legislation, Sen. Joni Ernst, would cap the pensions at $200,000, with adjustments made for the increase in the cost of living each year.
In a statement, Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said: “Our national debt now exceeds $20 trillion; this bipartisan effort is another important step toward reining in Washington’s out-of-control spending.”
He added: “It is ridiculous to continue asking taxpayers to help foot the bill for former presidents’ perks at a time when they already rake in millions of dollars from book deals, speaking engagements, and more.”
I am most assuredly in favor of this bill and would very pleased to see that entitlement completely abolished as stated.
It is not a lifetime employment. It is an elected position. The same should hold true for congressmen. Lifetime pension for minimal service is WRONG. IT was never supposed to be that way. Public office was supposed to be a service to the country, not a career with lifetime benefits. After they change the pensions for past presidents, they should then focus on pensions for Congress.
Share this article on Facebook and let us know what do you think of this legislation?
Scroll down to comment below!
Natalie D. is an American conservative writer! Natalie has described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot,” and does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do,” drawing criticism from the left, and sometimes from the right. As a passionate journalist, she works relentlessly to uncover the corruption happening in Washington.She is a “constitutional conservative”.