Right Wing Radio upset Obama passed a Law giving The Pres.Club and their wives lifetime Secret Service protection. Should we be outraged?

[MisterMajestic]

I was listening to Right-Wing Big mouth Rusty Humphries maybe Wed or Thurs night, I'm not sure....Anyways...He said that Obama signed a bill giving himself, Dubya, future Presidents and their wives lifetime Secret service. A President normally has the SS for 10yrs after he leaves office..A legislator from my home-state of South Carolina came up with the Bill. Rusty was pissed that we're gonna pay for this Life service for LIFE...

Am I the only one that thought former Presidents already had Secret Service for Life before this bill was signed?

So when did Bubba lose his Secret Service team, around the year 2010? Obama couldnt pull some strongs and give the perk to Billy'boy? What about Daddy Bush & Carter, shouldnt they get the same deal? I don't care if they've been without the service for decades..They are still alive....

I don't even think MSNBC touched on this subject this week....

What do you Guys think?

[rareboy]

I thought that past prez's always had SS protection unless they declined it.

[cityboy-stl]

Right wing radio thinks their job is to be upset, even about the most ridiculous things. Certainly former presidents should have lifetime Secret Service protection and I yes thought they did too. In this day and age they're going to be a target for the nut cases as long as they live. They and their wives (or husbands) should be protected since they do know vital national security secrets and after they served our country in the highest office. I have no problem with this whatsoever.

[rareboy]

I think the National security secrets thing is why I thought they were always afforded protection by the people of the US....

It used to be this way. Didn't Shirley McLaine appear in some movie about the SS protecting the widow of a president?

Guarding Tess?

[csb999]

http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml

"In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection. "

so the only people affected would be George Bush and Obama himself . Being kind only to Bush really in making it retroactive .

[csb999]

Obama is then just reversing a bill passed not very long ago by a Democratic Congress . And I think it fairly clear that if Obama might not need increased protection Bush sensibly would - one of the 9-11 planes was directed at the White House , the nearest thing to an asassination attempt in a while . So right-wing radio could reasonably call this a "save George Bush" bill because his coverage alone would expire fairly soon .

[rareboy]

^ Quoted for truth.

But let us see how the reactionaries here and on FOX spin this.

[White Eagle]

I, too, thought everyone got it for life. Good bill in my opinion. Not humble this time.

[csb999]

not retroactive , inclusive based on MisterMajestic's first thg

[Jack Springer]

I was listening to Right-Wing Big mouth Rusty Humphries maybe Wed or Thurs night, I'm not sure....Anyways...He said that Obama signed a bill giving himself, Dubya, future Presidents and their wives lifetime Secret service. A President normally has the SS for 10yrs after he leaves office..A legislator from my home-state of South Carolina came up with the Bill. Rusty was pissed that we're gonna pay for this Life service for LIFE...

Am I the only one that thought former Presidents already had Secret Service for Life before this bill was signed?

So when did Bubba lose his Secret Service team, around the year 2010? Obama couldnt pull some strongs and give the perk to Billy'boy? What about Daddy Bush & Carter, shouldnt they get the same deal? I don't care if they've been without the service for decades..They are still alive....

I don't even think MSNBC touched on this subject this week....

What do you Guys think?

Clinton signed a bill that removed the protection 10 years after the person left the presidency. However, it kept the protection for him.

Probably a good idea that Presidents have protection for life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act

Truman did not receive protection or a retirement. If you were to tour his former home in independence, MO you would get a feeling of the spartan life he and his wife lived after his presidency.

Meanwhile, Congress has created a plethora of benefits for themselves including 401k's, pensions, access to SS and special health care. A congressman from Kansas has submitted a bill to remove the special congressional pension plans.

[Benvolio]

For the record, Obama has not "passed a law" as the title states. Congress passes laws.

[kevin23]

I don't think the law was necessary, ten years should be enough protection. I can't remember an ex-president ever being harmed. Nixon and Carter declined protection. Nixon hired his own, Carter didn't think he needed it. Ex-presidents are multi millionaires, they could hire their own protection after ten years if they feel the need.
It is said that Ford used his SS men to carry his brief case, golf clubs, etc. , they became servants as well as protection.
At a time when we are in a budget crisis, I think it was very bad timing to pass this law when the American people are being asked for more. Sort of thumbing their nose at the rest of us, " I'll get mine and to heck with the peons".

The law passed with bipartisen support in the House and Senate, They do take care of each other despite their bickering.

Think about it, a President that has been out of office for ten years is pretty much a nobody. I pronounce this law as unnecessary and another drain on the American taxpayer.

[Rolyo85]

I think it's perfectly legit to have the SS protect presidents for life. For one, I can't imagine it's that big of an expense (it couldn't be anywhere near the level of protection given to sitting presidents). And then Obama and Bush are probably among the most hated people in America. I am all for this law.

[mightbe]

^^The fuck? A former president is a nobody 10 years down the line? No, once the first citizen, always a first citizen. The title doesn't disappear after they leave. They are former presidents, not dead ones. They are still assets, and are technically quite dangerous. They once held the rains, and know everything that happened during that time. They could spill info accidentally at any time, like is they were kidnapped or taken hostage. That's why the SS is practical. Better safe than sorry.

Where is there room for Clinton in your perspective? Still very much a celebrity and very much a key player. Former presidents NEED to be safegaurded. Especially the most recent ones--they're invariably liked the least.

Budget crisis--maybe so, but SS protection for former heads of state is a drop in the bucket. It's not like balancing a house budget.

[Jack Springer]

I don't think the law was necessary, ten years should be enough protection. I can't remember an ex-president ever being harmed. Nixon and Carter declined protection. Nixon hired his own, Carter didn't think he needed it. Ex-presidents are multi millionaires, they could hire their own protection after ten years if they feel the need.
It is said that Ford used his SS men to carry his brief case, golf clubs, etc. , they became servants as well as protection.
At a time when we are in a budget crisis, I think it was very bad timing to pass this law when the American people are being asked for more. Sort of thumbing their nose at the rest of us, " I'll get mine and to heck with the peons".

The law passed with bipartisen support in the House and Senate, They do take care of each other despite their bickering.

Think about it, a President that has been out of office for ten years is pretty much a nobody. I pronounce this law as unnecessary and another drain on the American taxpayer.

Nixon decline his protection in 1985. I don't believe Carter has declines his protection or benefits.

[Stardreamer]

The right wing talk show hosts have no problem with the law itself, they largely think the 10 year limitation thing was stupid to begin with. They are making a deal over what they perceive as irony that Obama would sign a bill ensuring the he has guns surrounding himself for protection for life while he (as they perceive it) wants to take the right of ordinary citizens to have guns to protect themselves. It is an attempt at a lame point about gun control.

[xbuzzerx]

This is obvious. Presidents should have protection for life and Obama was merely signing a law that continued a previous law. Didn't Reagan have secret service protection until he died? Why are right wing radio hacks making a big deal about it now?

Because it's a Democrat.

You can be assured if a former President was killed and Obama hadn't signed this law, they'd be all over that for the next four years.

[Kulindahr]

http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml

"In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection. "

so the only people affected would be George Bush and Obama himself . Being kind only to Bush really in making it retroactive .

I remembered they'd messed with the law, but not the details -- thanks for the info.

Think about it, a President that has been out of office for ten years is pretty much a nobody. I pronounce this law as unnecessary and another drain on the American taxpayer.

Not any more -- past presidents often get consulted by sitting presidents (though they usually call their immediate predecessor less).

[Kulindahr]

They once held the rains, and know everything that happened during that time.

Excuse: reins, as on for guiding a horse.

[eastofeden]

I think SS should be mandatory. If a former President or First Lady were to be kidnapped it would cause a major International Incident and possibly a war as they are essentially permanent symbols and ambassadors of America that cannot be ignored.

I don't think they should be allowed to decline.

The right wing crazies have to come up with something everyday to keep their listeners amped up. It is a good day for the rest of us when this is the best they can do.

[DonQuixote]

EastofEden - This is still a Representational Republic, with vast personal freedoms.
The former Presidents are not Prisoners on parole.
We cannot force them to accept SS.

Given the long memory of our current crop of fanatics trying to kill all infidels, I have no problem with this resurrection of a past law.

Rush and his Wannabe's are famous for talking out of both sides of their mouths concurrently.

Don't try and confuse them, or the vox populi, with the FACTS, "They know better".

After all, Rush has "Talent on Loan from God". I find that statement so pompous and reprehensible that I can see him being one of a very select few actually finding his way to Hell when he passes this mortal coil.

[Rolyo85]

I can't fully agree with your statement about Presidents not being on parole. The presidency is not just any job, and it comes with VAST responsibilities, including the one to keep state secrets after your term is over. And that should - to my mind - include mandatory SS protection. One would still certainly be free to NOT run for president if that is a problem.

[DonQuixote]

I didn't say that I don't understand the concerns.
BUT, our Constitution is a pesky thing.

Inspired by the Magna Carta and all.

[Rolyo85]

All jobs have requirements and consequences that could be interpreted as violations of personal freedoms. That is why you sign a contract, stating that you are aware of those and accept them. Presidency is a job, and comes with its own set.

[maxpowr9]

The funniest part is that both the President and Vice President lose their driving privileges once they are in office. It is often joked that is the reason they take up golf so they can drive around a golf cart.

[eastofeden]

We have all had to give up things in the name of national security. At some point ...like when we board a plane...the collective welfare and safety of everyone requires we sometimes submit to body searches ...much like prisoners have to do. I guess we can avoid that by not flying.

There is much more at stake with the potential capture/torture/murder of a US President. The potential consequences and cost could be devastating and put the safety of our country and the rest of the world in danger. If it isn't already mandatory...it should be.

[DonQuixote]

They are too important - I read that President Obama got to drive a pretty nice car a month or so ago - a friend was visiting the White House, and he got to drive the friend's uber coach on WH grounds. It was quite a treat for him.

[xbuzzerx]

I think SS should be mandatory. If a former President or First Lady were to be kidnapped it would cause a major International Incident and possibly a war as they are essentially permanent symbols and ambassadors of America that cannot be ignored.

I don't think they should be allowed to decline.

The right wing crazies have to come up with something everyday to keep their listeners amped up. It is a good day for the rest of us when this is the best they can do.

I agree with this to a certain extent, but I think the degree to which having SS protection deeply intrudes on privacy and personal life is the reason why it's optional.

[eastofeden]

I agree with this to a certain extent, but I think the degree to which having SS protection deeply intrudes on privacy and personal life is the reason why it's optional.

I think if they want privacy they could negotiate a plan for the SS to hang back as much as possilbe for them to still be effective.

[csb999]

"I don't think they should be allowed to decline." Well one instance I can think of that could complicate this would be Jackie Kennedy Onassis who I think lived more than fourty years as an ex first lady and remarried .

[Just_Believe18]

I think it's a good thing. With all the crazies killing just regular people these days, it's good for our former presidents to be protected by a Secret Service agent.

[scream4ever]

Nixon decline his protection in 1985. I don't believe Carter has declines his protection or benefits.

I believe the Clintons paid for their Secret Service themselves and not through taxpayer money.

[chrisrobin]

.
1. Right wing radio
2. Upset
3. Obama

Often seen together in the same sentence.

[Jack Springer]

I believe the Clintons paid for their Secret Service themselves and not through taxpayer money.

I really doubt that is true. Bill Clinton charges the taxpayers for his DirecTV satellite bill -- I doubt he would pay for his own security.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/la...n-your-office/

Former Presidents and former first lady Nancy Reagan got $3.7 million from the taxpayers last year.

[CowboyBob]

This bill was a gift to disgraced war criminal former President George W Bush. In 6 short years he would have been on his own and still relatively young.

Since he's one of the most hated Presidents because of his 2 unfunded wars which killed thousands if his own people and hundreds of thousands more, his destruction of the economy, his doubling of the debt, rampant torture, spying on his own citizens, wiping his ass with he Constitution and handing over the country's wealth to the richest 1%, it was necessary. There's a lot of people who don't like the man for the above mentioned.

Now the taxpayers of the United States have to pay for his protection.

Mission Accomplished...?

[Rolyo85]

They've earned it.

[Kulindahr]

Maybe the amount of protection they get should be linked to their approval ratings.

[DonQuixote]

Kuli,
Would the protection be in INVERSE Proportion to their approval rating, since the more fucked up their performance, the more they would NEED the protection?

[chrisrobin]

One saying I can refer right wing radio and Fox News: Sour fucking grapes. Lol They sure are feeling like bitter losers after that whipping they had at the polls.

When you see the Boner and McChinless strutting around like a couple of roosters,
you'd think Romney had won!

[cocksucker4use]

SS protection is a huge project. It is more than a couple of agents tagging along to the mall. There is risk assessment, constant planning for travel routes, contingencies, like escape routes, hospitals, etc. Security as the protectees travel together and individually -- Prez in Europe, spouse in New York, kids at school, and getting wherevever and back. The physical set up and safeguarding of residences (think if Mitt was PREZ.... travel among 7 houses and trips to visit his money in the Caymans!). Mrs. Clinton has the SS domestically, and the State Dept. Service when she travels. I read once that prior to her death, Mamie Eisenhower had 17 SS agents assigned to her. Sounds like a lot, but thinking about FTEs, and 24 hour / 365 day coverage with allowances for days off, sick time, vacations and holidays. It all adds up. It is money very well spent, and is non-partisan. The US is bound by the Vienna Convention to protect foreign diplomats in US territory, whether visiting or in mission. The Inman Report (1985) is interesting reading in this area.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/inman/part09.htm

[Kulindahr]

Kuli,
Would the protection be in INVERSE Proportion to their approval rating, since the more fucked up their performance, the more they would NEED the protection?

No -- quite the opposite. The idea is to encourage them to actually get things done.

[JayHawk]

The right wing talk show hosts have no problem with the law itself, they largely think the 10 year limitation thing was stupid to begin with. They are making a deal over what they perceive as irony that Obama would sign a bill ensuring the he has guns surrounding himself for protection for life while he (as they perceive it) wants to take the right of ordinary citizens to have guns to protect themselves. It is an attempt at a lame point about gun control.

Obama is a kind man. I imagine there are thousands around the world that would happily harm GWB. Obama was merely placing the protection necessary for an ex-president who would be most likely to draw an assassin.

[Kulindahr]

It's probably cheaper to provide protection than run a manhunt for an assassin.

[xbuzzerx]

It's probably cheaper to provide protection than run a manhunt for an assassin.

Or a war over an international incident involving the murder or kidnapping of a former President or his family, yeah.