Posted on 06/23/2014 10:44:48 AM PDT by PoloSec
An April Congressional Research Service (CRS) report shows that the Government Services Administration (GSA), which is in charge of supporting federal disbursements, budgeted $950,000 for former president Bill Clinton in the 2014 budget.
Clinton will collect a $201,000 pension in 2014, a figure four times larger than the median family income in the United States. The Clintons have received a total of $15,938,000 in federal money since 2001.
Hillary Clinton recently described the poverty her family experienced upon exiting the White House while promoting her book. They were “dead broke,” Hillary said, adding that she and her husband “struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education, you know, it was not easy.”
Clinton’s pension is just a small portion of the costs the former president will incur over the next year. GSA budgeted $450,000 to pay for Clinton’s office space, the highest total of the four living presidents.
CRS noted that America has not always taken financial care of their former heads of state. Harry S. Truman, for example, died in poverty in his Missouri home after leaving the White House.
“Former U.S. Presidents have returned to varied financial circumstances after leaving office. Some former Presidents created or returned to wealthy lives after the presidency. Others struggled financially. Contemporary former Presidents—like William J. Clinton and George W. Bush—write memoirs, head foundations, and give public speeches,” the report states.
The wives of former presidents also pen memoirs and give high-priced talks.
Hillary Clinton received an $8 million advance in 2000 to pen her first memoir, a point in time during which the first family was “dead broke.” Clinton received $14 million to write her most recent memoir, Hard Choices. The book sold just 60,000 copies in its first week, less than half of her publisher’s initial hopes.
The former secretary of state reportedly earns $200,000 for giving one-hour speeches to the likes of Goldman Sachs and the Society of Human Resource Management; Bill pulls in $500,000 per speech.
CRS says the system must be working because “no current former President has claimed publicly to have significant financial concerns.”
Clinton walked back her pleas of poverty after a public backlash. However, she told the British newspaper, the Guardian, that her and Bill are not “truly well off.”
The former first family needed Virginia Governor and former DNC moneyman Terry McAuliffe to pay for their “$1.7 million, 11-room Dutch Colonial home in the wooded suburbs of Westchester County.”
Emails sent to the Clinton Foundation for comment were not returned.
Wow if she consider that broke I wonder how much would it be to call oneself a milliionaire?
WFB: Now forbidden to look at the Clinton Archives at the Univ of Arkansas.
Oh, it won’t matter.
THe Clintons have always capitalized on conservatives’ talking about their double standard. It never goes away.
This will be as phony a scandal after a few weeks as Clinton getting impeached.
A pension of 4 times the median salary doesn’t seem excessive to me.
But $450k for office space does. Does that include secret service protection, secretaries, interns, cigars and dress cleaning?
Jus’ po’ working folks like you and me with barely $100 million in the bank.
The Clintons are broke in the same manner Democrats think the Government is Broke, ie. they think it is not receiving enough money, not broke as in they have no damned idea how to budget their ample supply of money responsibly...
Their internal whining about money duplicates the whining about money that the Liberals do when it comes time for budget cuts...
When Clintoons were “struggling with money” after bill left office did they even consider “cutting back” and “budgeting their money” or did they lament that the ample rushing flow of money had receeded back to only a modestly generous flow?
A poor racketeer, barely kept his family fed.
No one believes that a well known & established book publisher would fork over (waste) $14 million bucks for a Hillary Clinton "memoir" that nobody would purchase. Ever since that phoney book deal of former Speaker of the House Jim Wright, Dem. - Texas came to light in which unions bought up all the unsold copies of his "memoirs", it has been realized that these book deals with leftist Dems politicians are nothing but money laundering operations.
Times are tough for the Clintons. They aren’t like... those Koch brothers. /S
Those consummate leeches even figured out a way to get their fancy NY digs paid for by the taxpayers as the rent the SS pays them for the use of the guest house more than covers the mortgage payments on the Chappaquiddick house. They have made public trough dining a fine art.
Is there a ceiling on the amount he can claim?
And why do taxpayers have to pay for a previous President's space? Secret Service I understand. But office space?
1) Clinton’s own words show his often expressed innate hostility to, and utter contempt for, the core principles of the American founding:
``If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.’’ -- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
``The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people’’ –- Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993
``We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…that we forget about reality.’’ -- President Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A, ``NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful’’’ by Debbie Howlett
“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly… that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare… However, now there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it.” – Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995
2) Clinton inevitably pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security. Here is just one of many possible examples:
It is well documented that Clinton and the Democrats took illegal campaign money from groups and individuals tied directly to the Chinese People’s Republican Army. It is therefore not surprising that In January 1998 Clinton went against the advice of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Pentagon experts by lifting long-standing restrictions against the export of American satellites to China for launch on Chinese rockets. Not only did he move control over such decisions from the more security-focused State Department to the Commerce Department, but he intervened in a Justice Department investigation of Loral Space & Communications, retroactively enabling Loral to sell critical missile technology to the Chinese. Interestingly enough, Clinton’s decision was made at the request of Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, whose earlier $1.3 million campaign donation made him the single biggest contributor to the Democratic election effort.
The result, as stated eloquently by syndicated columnist Linda Bowles, was that “the Democrats got money from satellite companies and from Chinese communists; China got supercomputors, advanced production equipment and missile technology; Loral got its satellites launched at bargain basement prices . . . and the transfer of sensitive missile technology gave China [for the first time] the capability of depositing bombs on American cities.” Incidentally, Loral ultimately failed to benefit from this permanent injury to America’s security interests: in July 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, and in order to raise cash was forced to sell its most profitable business – a fleet of communications satellites orbiting over North America.
3) On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:
• On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that day’s grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky. That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese “chemical weapons factory,” and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden. The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.
Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development." Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization. As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clinton’s action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.
Clinton’s pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinsky’s grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they weren’t a total loss.
•On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."
Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session – when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clinton’s chances of dodging impeachment.
The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.
Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : “We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure,” he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: “We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.”
Whether or not one buys Clinton’s assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harm’s way for purely political reasons.
4) Clinton’s reckless sexual behavior was a threat to American national security:
Clinton and his supporters have been very effective in persuading large numbers of Americans that the Lewinsky scandal was “only about sex.” But I see a bigger issue here, because Clinton is on record as saying that he would have done anything to keep knowledge of the Lewinsky affair from becoming public.
To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?
What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising America’s real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?
Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.
And don’t even get me started on the war crime in Kosovo.
WAR IN KOSOVO
During Bill Clinton’s 1999 NATO-led war in Kosovo – which according to some estimates cost as much as $75 billion – we bombed Belgrade for 78 days, killed almost 3,000 civilians, and shredded the civilian infrastructure (including every bridge across the Danube.)
We devastated the environment, bombed the Chinese embassy, came very close to engaging in armed combat against Russian forces, and in general, pursued a horrific and inhumane strategy to rain misery on the civilian population of Belgrade in order to pressure Milosevic into surrendering.
Why did we do all that? The US did not even have an arguable interest in the Balkans, and no one ever tried to claim that Serbia represented any kind of threat to our nation or our interests.
But for months the Clinton administration had told us that Milosevic was waging a vicious genocide against Albanian Muslims, and needed to be stopped. The New York Times called it a “humanitarian war.” In March 1999 – the same month that the bombing started – Clinton’s State Department publicly suggested that as many as 500,000 Albanian Kosovars had been murdered by Milosevic’s regime. In May of that year, as the bombing campaign was drawing to a close, Secretary of Defense William Cohen lowered that estimate 100,000.
Five years after the bombing, after all the forensic investigations had been completed, the prosecutors at Milosevic’s “War Crimes” trial in the Hague were barely been able to document a questionable figure of perhaps 5,000 “bodies and body parts.” During the war, the American people were told that Kosovo was full of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered Albanian Muslims. But none were ever found.
BILL CLINTON ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
During the election cycle of 1992, George H.W. Bush lost his job after Bill Clinton hammered him relentlessly for having caused the “worst economy of the last 50 years.”
In fact, as CNN’s Brooke Jackson has reported: “Three days before Christmas 1992, the National Bureau of Economic Research finally issued its official proclamation that the recession had ended 21 months earlier. What became the longest boom in U.S. history actually began nearly two years before Clinton took office.” See (See http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/31/jackson.recession.primer.otsc/).
By the same token, Clinton is generally perceived as having a stellar economic record during his own presidency, in spite of the fact that the economy was already starting to decline during the last year of his term after the stock market crashed in March 2000.
According to a report by MSNBC: “The longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product. Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP — the country’s total output of goods and services — shrank by 0.5 percent at an annual rate in the July-September quarter of 2000.” See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3676690/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/gdp-figures-revised-downward/.
Gads, I wish I was a poor as the clintons.
One of the "Robinisms" I have lived by is: "Poor is a state of mind, broke is a state of the pocket book. I have been broke more than once, I have never been poor."
The clintons are "white trash" who would be "poor" no matter what they had in the bank.
bkm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.