Why don't presidents pay for their own vacations?

[The Schmooze]

Not entirely sure why a lot of things aren't issues till they become one. Doesn't mean they weren't an issue before just not brought up. Sometimes it takes looking at things in a new light to realize we need a fundamental shift going forward. Why did no one really care about how much time off the president had till Bush. Why wasn't gerrymandering an issue on this forum till DB brought it up? Does that mean DB only is mad because republicans are doing it? Why didn't I ask this same question 12 years ago? Well I wasn't on PSD to ask, or it never dawned on me to ask the question. Just because I never asked the question previously doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked when you realize it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing your thread. I have heard about this off and on since 2009.

I guess what I mean is the people who bring it up and try to make it an issue, and the same ones who were silent under Bush, as I described. I'm not saying you, but rather members of Congress and especially individuals in the media. My criticism is more the talking heads on the news who try to make it an issue for political purposes. Obviously there is a discussion to be had about why we do pay for the president's vacations, but deep down the people who brought this into the mainstream are doing it with an agenda.

Hope I explained this right. I certainly don't want to derail the thread.

[behindmydesk]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing your thread. I have heard about this off and on since 2009.

I guess what I mean is the people who bring it up and try to make it an issue, and the same ones who were silent under Bush, as I described. I'm not saying you, but rather members of Congress and especially individuals in the media. My criticism is more the talking heads on the news who try to make it an issue for political purposes. Obviously there is a discussion to be had about why we do pay for the president's vacations, but deep down the people who brought this into the mainstream are doing it with an agenda.

Hope I explained this right. I certainly don't want to derail the thread.

That's a fair point, and so is pacer's. But when it comes to poltics, everything is painted with an agenda.

I will say I did support a Democratic Party president signing into law in 99 to raise the pay to 400k. And it was in September when we didn't know who would be president. I'm ok with that because it's a lump sum that we know.

When it's unfettered access it becomes a problem to me especially when we are trying to cut so much from past and current spending. If I remember correctly and i'm going off memory here, Clinton only approved the increase in wages for the president because he had balanced the budget. That there is ok to me. Even if it wasn't balanced i'm fine with 400k because of how stressful the job is, and to be honest I wouldn't do it for 400k myself. Not worth the hassle, and I don't make a fraction of that!

[dbroncos78087]

My guess is because the cost you listed well exceed the salary paid. Most of the cost is because of the job of president (security and whatnot) so it makes sense for the office to pay for that.

[AmsterNat]

The cost of empire.

'The Presidency', with all its accoutrements, has become more like an emperor's court than the office of a modern head of state. The logistics and security involved with every movement of the president from A to B, are humongous. No surprise that holidays cost big bucks too.

I can't judge what the OP's agenda was, or if he had one, but I agree with Stephkyle's comments that we didn't really get any of these niggling, carping, implied criticisms of the previous POTUS, whose 'crimes and misdemeanors' were far worse in every respect. My view is that the office of POTUS is seriously stressful, and any serving president should be entitled to a 'reasonable' amount of time off as part of the overall package of the office - in other words, at the public expense.

[flips333]

But shouldn't they incur some of the costs? Or a limit onto vacation spending? Obama has made headlines on the cost when we are simultaneously having arguments and what not over spending limits. Bush had the most vacations in history while racking up plenty of debt on his own.

I know this might sound to some that i'm only complaining because it's Obama but I promise you i'm not. What is to stop someone from being president and just being on vacation racking up the bill on the tax payers? Then when you factor kids like the last 3 presidents have had it goes even higher.

If you think they are wasting money on lavish things then sure. But I honestly think the vast bulk of that is spent to protect the president and to keep government working. Really you are hen pecking.

[corralski]

I can't believe that I'm about to defend Obama, but isn't the president technically on call even though he is on vacation?

Not sure why he bothered to come back on the cliff negotiations, I guess one could be upset about all the back and forth as extra unnecessary cost.....

[KnicksorBust]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55534169,d.cGE


We all(well the ones that work)....that was BEAUTIFUL BMD.
Now tell me how you didnt mean anything by that,how you were just trying to be specific, you know, in case someone didnt understand....

I have a better question.
why is it these issues only become crystalized in the minds of Rs when it is the other party?

Bush out vacationed Obama 3 to 1
Bush increased the debt more then any president in history and MOST of the debt incured under Obama were Bushes wars, Bushes tax cuts, and Bushes failed economic policies requiring stimulus to avert financial disaster.

Bush cut taxes under the premise that they "pay for themselves" and create jobs.Every R agreed and parrotted this talking point.
8 years latter there were no jobs and huge debt,
Now Every Republican is saying OBAMAS tax cuts are not paid for and are adding 4 trillion in debt , even as they were voting for it.


Maybe those are better ideas to chew on, rather then trying to galvanize yet another pointless critique on this Administration.

Way to derail a non-partisan thread.

My guess is because the cost you listed well exceed the salary paid. Most of the cost is because of the job of president (security and whatnot) so it makes sense for the office to pay for that.

This was the best and simplest answer. I personally have no problem with it. Especially considering how many people in the country actually have a better salary than the President. Free vacations is just a step at balancing the scale. It also serves a far more valuable purpose as well.

[C-ross12]

The fact that 75% of PSD posters are in college or younger.

And of course you reiterate the point that I already said about Bush and his all time high vacationing, and somehow then turn it somehow I think it's ok that Bush did it, even though I by no means am blaming this on only Obama.


But hey you go ahead and miss what i'm talking about and think I'm bashing Obama, figured you would because you do that in every thread. And thanks for the link saying Bush had the most vacations in history, since you know I already said that.

Lol, hard to even make a point on here without everyone politicing on you.

Let me guess. you posed the question "Why don't Presidents pay for their own vacations?" And every democrat / Liberal jumped on saying Bush took more vacation days and you're just "hating" on Obama? Figures..

[stephkyle7]

^ to clarify my stance, there is a tactic in public speaking that is basically an inference by denial.

That witch senator from back east used it to slander her opponent by repeatedly claiming over and over that she DIDNOT,at any point EVERY suggest her opponent was gay.
By doing this over and over it created the rumor that maybe...dude was Gay!

So when Identifying the issue of presidential spending, and then using an example that supports a political ideology rather then the best example(which was Bush) you are stirring the pot wether it was your intent or not.

there is a difference in this, then when Ds ignore Obamas spending compared to Bushs(just as an example).
1) our spending NOW is directly linked to the problems we inherited from the previous admin.So It is unfair to ignore the causal connection between the two.
2) expense account spending or vacas have no transitional link, so your point would have been better made excluding Obama.
To directly answer you question, I think that ,that kind of spending is as good a place to start as any.
If the president needs time off, Camp David is a lot closer then Hawaii. jaunting off to Mauii 7-12 times a year isnt what I want a president doing.
But dont stop there.
All congressional memebers enjoy expense accounts...why?
If Mcdonalds is good enough for my son, its good enough for them.If they want a 80 dollar champagne brunch, I can tell you ,I certainly dont want to pay for it.

[GasMan]

This has been a issue for years. Remember M. Moore criticizing W. for taking all that vacation time (sweaty George playing golf while Holiday Road played in the background) while pointing out how much harder Clinton worked?

Those $$ figures are misleading because they assume that a President in D.C. is free. I'm sure a week at the White House is plenty expensive.

[subroc]

They don't pay for their own vacations because we don't want them to. We want our presidents safe. We want the secret service to keep them that way. We want all the planning necessary to keep the leader of the free world safe to be complete and thorough. This is a small price to pay.

In this, I am not a hypocrite.

I believe this when the republican is in office as well as the democrat.

[dbroncos78087]

They don't pay for their own vacations because we don't want them to. We want our presidents safe. We want the secret service to keep them that way. We want all the planning necessary to keep the leader of the free world safe to be complete and thorough. This is a small price to pay.

In this, I am not a hypocrite.

I believe this when the republican is in office as well as the democrat.

We agree on something...gasp.

The reason they don't pay it is because so much of the cost is associated with being president not with the travel. There are people all over the place who would love to take out the president and so we must protect the president.

[subroc]

We agree on something...gasp.

The reason they don't pay it is because so much of the cost is associated with being president not with the travel. There are people all over the place who would love to take out the president and so we must protect the president.

Well, if a republican is elected in 4 years, we will see where you stand on such things.

[dbroncos78087]

Well, if a republican is elected in 4 years, we will see where you stand on such things.

As long as that Republican doesn't go there with a dog strapped to the top of his car (joke), I won't have a problem with it.

I view the president as more than just his party. He does represent his party no doubt, but he also represents the country and I would view it as a failure of this country if we allow something terrible to happen to the president. So if Chris Christie gets elected and he goes on travel and it costs $5M to protect him then that is a cost as a taxpayer I'm willing to contribute to.

[cabernetluver]

They don't pay for their own vacations because we don't want them to. We want our presidents safe. We want the secret service to keep them that way. We want all the planning necessary to keep the leader of the free world safe to be complete and thorough. This is a small price to pay.

In this, I am not a hypocrite.

I believe this when the republican is in office as well as the democrat.

It must be the end of days, because I am in complete agreement with you. I have never made the cost of vacations an issue. I have made frequency, but that is an entirely different question.