House to consider bill limiting pensions for former presidents

The House is slated to vote on legislation next week to scale back the federal benefits provided to former presidents.

Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.), the author of the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act, says that modern-day presidents don’t need financial assistance from the government given the likelihood they can make millions from lucrative book deals and speaking engagements.

“The Presidential Allowance Modernization Act presents a fair way to reduce taxpayer support to those former presidents who simply do not need such assistance, while modernizing outdated measures,” Hice said in a statement after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee advanced his bill in September.

{mosads}

Under current law established in 1958, former presidents can receive a pension of $205,700 per year, as well as funds for staff salaries, office space and other expenses.

The benefits cost $2.84 million in fiscal year 2017, according to Hice’s office.

The GOP lawmaker’s measure would reduce the pension for presidents to $200,000 annually and limit the amount of money available for each president’s office and staff expenses to $500,000 per year.

The budget for presidential office expenses would be reduced for every dollar a former president makes more than $400,000. But Hice’s bill also seeks to lower the allowance in phases, to $350,000 in six years and eventually $250,000 in 10 years.

However, funding for security to protect former presidents and their families would remain unchanged.

Congress passed similar legislation in 2016 with bipartisan support. But then-President Obama vetoed the bill out of concern that it would have “unintended consequences” in terminating current presidential office staffers with no transition period and potentially impacting government operations to protect former presidents.

But Obama otherwise expressed support for the bill, saying in a message to lawmakers explaining his veto that he would sign it into law if Congress “returns the bill having appropriately addressed these concerns.”