The Joke Is On Us!

[Gatorade]

Looks like I was right and wrong. It was life and in 1997 changed to 10 years then in 2012 changed back to life.

From Wikipedia:

The original act provided for lifetime Secret Service for former presidents. In 1997, it was reduced to 10 years for presidents taking office after 1997. The 1997 amendment was reverted by the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-257).[2] All living former presidents and their spouses are now entitled to receive lifetime Secret Service protection.[3]

[Gatorade]

Honestly I don't have an issue with Presedential protection or pensions for life. I see it as respect for the office. Even if you don't respect the person who held it.

[guitargain]

I don't necessarily have a problem with protection for life, but I do have a problem with charging rent. These people are scumbags.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by guitargain

I don't necessarily have a problem with protection for life, but I do have a problem with charging rent. These people are scumbags.

Washington Post, Jan. 13, 2001: A Secret Service representative misspoke in the Reliable Source in the Jan. 12 Style section. The Clintons are entitled to collect rent from the agency for space at their Chappaqua, N.Y., home but have declined the payments of about $1,100 a month, said White House press secretary Jake Siewert.

[Shadow]

As Lloyd Grove reported in the Washington Post:

It is a standard arrangement that the Secret Service provide payment to homeowners for space used by the agency in such situations. The Clintons did not take it upon themselves to "charge the Secret Service rent."

The amount provided is based on a government formula, not set by the homeowner, and in the Clintons' case this amount is $1,100. (Note that this figure was not chosen by the Clintons, and it is well short of their monthly mortgage payment.)

Most important, although regulations call for the payment of this amount, the Clinton's have not in fact accepted any money from the Secret Service.

[Shadow]

Where is the outrage here ?? (last sentence, bolded)

The Secret Service is notorious for its reluctance to discuss even mundane aspects of how it carries out its duties, so authoritative information about the setup of the Clinton home in New York state is hard to come by. However, around the time of the Chappaqua purchase, the press estimated that a permanent, taxpayer-funded security system worth more than $1 million would have to be installed to adequately protect the President. Security measures of this level are not specific to the Clintons; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of former Presidents.

In each case the costs of installation and maintenance for the security systems comes from public funds, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. (In 1981, the Secret Service spent several months providing round-the-clock protection, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars per day, for an empty Pacific Palisades, California, home owned by Ronald and Nancy Reagan — even though the Reagans no longer lived in or used the house, and even though it was vacant and up for sale.)

[LittleGator]

MPDC, I feel your pain. I don't like the Clintons anymore than you do; but, the system is broken. It is not just them. Most elected officials from the President on down benefit from laws they pass to make them wealthy, comfortable and secure. They have pensions, perks, benefits, etc. that your average citizen can only dream about.

We do not have a monarchy, but we sure do have a political class which has evolved into something like the old monarchical systems. The Tudors, Savoys, Bourbons and Habsburgs have been replaced by the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, etc.; and, various and sundry others at the Congressional and local levels.