magid: (Default)
[personal profile] magid
From this story in the Houston Chronicle: funding requests for former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, fiscal 2008.

Total
• Carter: $518,000
• Bush: $786,000
• Clinton: $1.16 million

Given the totals, it's not surprising how the Chronicle spins the story against Clinton. However, as always, the devil's in the details.


Pension
• Carter: $191,000
• Bush: $191,000
• Clinton: $201,000

Staff
• Carter: $98,000
• Bush: $160,000
• Clinton: $161,000

Travel
• Carter: $2,000
• Bush: $56,000
• Clinton: $50,000

Rent
• Carter: $102,000
• Bush: $175,000
• Clinton: $516,000

Telephone
• Carter: $10,000
• Bush: $17,000
• Clinton: $79,000

Postage
• Carter: $15,000
• Bush: $13,000
• Clinton: $15,000

Other services
• Carter: $83,000
• Bush: $76,000
• Clinton: $65,000

Printing
• Carter: $5,000
• Bush: $14,000
• Clinton: $14,000

Supplies
• Carter: $5,000
• Bush: $15,000
• Clinton: $26,000

Equipment
• Carter: $7,000
• Bush: $69,000
• Clinton: $35,000

Sources: Congressional Research Service, General Services Administration allowances for former presidents, fiscal 2008 request

Clinton's office is in NYC, which accounts for the majority of the difference (rent). He's also got significantly higher phone costs than the other two, which does surprise me. And the extra $10K for pension doesn't make any sense either. I think there definitely are questions that can be asked, but I don't believe that Clinton's duping the feds as the article implies.

Also, Carter? Continues to be the best investment in a former president. His expenses are the lowest (he's not in an expensive area, among other things), and he's doing all kinds of humanitarian works.

Date: 2007-05-29 05:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] coorr.livejournal.com

its a drop in the bucket either way.

I figure that the higher phone costs come from the fact that clinton is likely the most active of the three. I suspect that the most recent former president is often the most active especially when there has been a change in party power. Clinton is the most recent democratic president so he is going to be called upon more often than he would be if there was a democrat in office.

Why call up Bush Sr when you can call up the current president.

I suspect the same applies to travel expenses.

Date: 2007-05-29 06:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] magid.livejournal.com
Agreed. These figures are peanuts compared to lots of government spending. Which is why it was interesting to the the paper make a deal about it.

About the phone spending: I think Carter's also pretty active, but some of his costs are covered by the institutions he works with, while Clinton's playing the field (as it were :-). Also, Clinton's wife is campaigning (not sure how much campaigning he does for her, either) and/or off in DC, and presumably they talk sometimes...

Date: 2007-05-29 06:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] magid.livejournal.com
Er, "the the" s/b "see the".

Date: 2007-05-29 06:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] xuth.livejournal.com
I'm wondering if telephone doesn't also include network/internet for clinton's office. Depending on what you're doing with it it's fairly easy to spend a few thousand a month on network services. I wonder if it also might include managed hosting of Clinton's network presence. I'm guessing that the offices of the other two presidents don't have much invested in network / internet. Since there is no category that explicitly covers this I'm guessing it got dropped into telephone, since the telephone is probably broken out of the same physical connection and on the same bill.

Date: 2007-05-29 07:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] magid.livejournal.com
Ah, that makes sense.

Date: 2007-05-29 09:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bitty.livejournal.com
And the extra $10K for pension doesn't make any sense either.

He is both more recent than the other two, and the only one to serve a second term. I can see either being a factor.

Date: 2007-05-30 02:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] magid.livejournal.com
Second term, maybe. More recent, not so much; if anyone's pension is going to keep up with inflation, it ought to be the president's! (Why would more recent service be a reason to pay more? I don't understand your reasoning.)

Date: 2007-05-30 02:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bitty.livejournal.com
Pensions are typically based on original salary, and Clinton was a boom president. It may be that he made a bit more as a president and so is making a bit more in pension.

Date: 2007-05-30 05:35 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
significantly higher phone costs

I easily picture Clinton spending lots of time schmoozing on the phone in order to get things accomplished.

Date: 2007-05-30 06:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] magid.livejournal.com
Heh. Yeah.

Profile

magid: (Default)
magid

February 2026

S M T W T F S
12 3 4567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 10th, 2026 12:02 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios