Profiting from the presidency

The headline in the March 5, 1929, edition of the Chicago Tribune read, “Plain Citizen Coolidge Shuts Desk and Quietly Goes Home.” Calvin Coolidge would write a newspaper column from Northampton, Mass., for which he presumably was paid a pittance, but other than that he refused to exploit his notoriety or accomplishments as president for money.

When he left office in 1953, Harry S. Truman and his wife, Bess, repaired to Independence, Mo., where they lived in a house they had previously shared with her mother. Truman refused to serve on any corporate boards and rejected other financial opportunities that might have been his because he said he did not want to diminish the integrity of the presidency.

Richard Nixon departed from that standard, charging $1 million for an interview with David Frost. The selling of the presidency, to paraphrase the title of a 1968 book by Joe McGinniss, had begun.

Every president since Nixon has used the office as a stepping-stone to great wealth. Ronald Reagan was paid $2 million for two speeches in Japan. George W. Bush has made an estimated 200 speeches since leaving office, some to benefit wounded warriors and others to benefit himself. Bush once told The New York Times, “I don’t know how much my dad gets, but it’s more than 50, 75 thousand dollars a speech.” According to Politico, Bush 43 makes between $100,000 and $175,000 per appearance.

Then there are the Clintons, who took post-presidential moneymaking to new heights (or depths, depending on your perspective).

Now comes former President Obama, who is receiving $400,000 for a one-hour speech at a conference run by the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald. Michelle Obama also plans to make lucrative appearances on the lecture circuit. And there will be book deals to come for both Obamas and more millions paid to them.

The Truman maxim about not diminishing the integrity of the presidency is long gone.

During his eight years in the White House, President Obama received, in addition to his $400,000 salary, free travel aboard Air Force One, free housing and food, free utilities, and a host of other perks that would allow him to save and invest much of that money to take care of himself and his wife after leaving office.

With the debt approaching $20 trillion, taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for underwriting lifestyles of former presidents.

Since 1958, Congress has generously provided for our ex-presidents, including transition money for office and staff expenses, good for seven months after leaving office, as well as Secret Service protection. Jimmy Carter continues to receive transition payments, even though he transitioned in 1981.

As Time magazine noted, “Obama’s annual presidential pension is $205,700,” which is what the other living ex-presidents get.

As one who occasionally makes paid speeches for far more modest sums than our ex-presidents, I have no beef over how much anyone can earn from the private sector. My question is if ex-presidents are making millions because they were president, why should the taxpayers continue to pay them?

Congress should consider reducing payments in direct proportion to how much presidents make in “retirement.” With the debt approaching $20 trillion, taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for underwriting lifestyles of former presidents.

Like other recent ex-presidents, the Obamas are cashing in. That term was once considered a negative judgment of one’s character. In an era of little shame, it seems to have become a term of endearment.

Listen to Cal Thomas’ commentary on the May 2 edition of The World and Everything in It.