Chaffetz' Proposed Changes to Former Presidential Benefits

Currently, our former Presidents are entitled to a pension of $199,700 plus an office, staff, and other perks established by the Former Presidents Act of1958.

At the root of the problem is the spending, as always.  In an article by Jonathan Karl this week,  the perks per president are now, at least in the two most recently retired presidents, above the $1M annually.  Politico chimed in with a chart showing the net worth of the ex-Presidents while both mentioned Clinton's and Bush's income in the $10M+ range.  It seems clear that our ex-Presidents do not need the people's money for their retirement, something I think George Washington and many others after would have countered.

History of the Presidential Pension

The idea of a presidential pension was floated in Congress after ex-President Truman "rejected several business proposals" offered him and seemed unable to maintain his lifestyle.  Thus in passing the 1958 act it was argued that “to maintain the dignity of that great office” Congress needed to use the people's money to prevent the ex-president from “in business or [an] occupation which would demean the office he has held or capitalize upon it in any way deemed improper.” (Congressional Research Service, 2008)

These arguments in favor of a presidential pension fall flat.  It seems to evoke two classes of labor: "dignified" and "demeaning."  I would really like for someone to put forth what constitutes "demeaning" labor for an ex-president who by law has no rights beyond what any citizen of the US possesses.  We fought a revolution against the aristocracy and kings and the entire concept of a presidential pension establishes a "King Noah" (Book of Mormon) dependent on the labors of others for his or her sustenance.  The 1958 act ought to be repealed.

Chaffetz proposed reform

Instead of repealing the measure outright, Chaffetz seeks to "modernize" the act with his Feb 2012 introduction of HR4093.  The bill gives the pension a $300 annual boost to $200K even and puts reasonable limits on these office expenses, capping them at $200K subject to income. (Jason Chaffetz Press Release).  These are quite reasonable accommodations and while again I think further progress is needed in eliminating the pension and allowance altogether, I have revealed my position by calling this "progress."  Indeed Rep. Chaffetz says this would save $3M annually.

 Where I really start to get a bit frustrated is that HR4093 quintuples the ex-presidential spouse survivor pension from $20K to $100K.  There has been no demonstrated need for this nor is there any foreseeable need.  We elect a president who is smart enough to lead a nation but can't prepare for their spouse's needs when they die?  Does the spouse of a deceased ex-president really need or deserve $100K of the people's money forced from the people under the threat of imprisonment?

In all, HR4093 as it currently stands is a disappointment from what it could be with some minor adjustments.  At least its six pages it is in keeping with the spirit of keeping bills short and readable.

Secondary Thoughts on the Primary

I feel like I'm in a bag of mixed nuts with yesterday's outcome of the Utah Senate race. Logically, I should be satisfied with the Mike Lee win in the GOP Senate race--after all I voted for the man and felt comfortable with my vote.

I had planned to have my thoughts all neat and organized weeks before election day but instead found myself thinking, vetting, reading, and pondering on this decision. At one point in the process I was just about fed up enough to go write Jason Chaffetz' name down on the ballot and walk away. Instead, I looked at what Chaffetz had done in the race: he had made it clear he wasn't endorsing. I respected that decision a lot and began thinking about my own blog endorsements (the keen reader will notice some changes). In the end I decided I couldn't endorse either Lee or Bridgewater and even wondered if I should even say whom I was planning on voting for.

One nice consequence of not endorsing is that my mind remained unclouded so as to see the good and bad in both candidates. I saw many great patriots seem to become blinded to the bad in their own candidate. If you praised their candidate, you were a patriot. If you expressed any concern about their candidate you were ridiculed. I saw both the Bridgewater and Lee camps containing great and small modern-day patriots. I saw the sacrifices people were making to get what they deemed a great candidate elected to the Senate.

And then the election happened and Lee won by 2 points; I was secretly hoping it would be close although admittedly I thought Bridgewater would win. Post-election now follows with more ridicule by some of ridding of "blog trolls" and mocking patriots on the other side.

And yet I remain concerned, perhaps scared even. How will Lee (39) be as the youngest current Senator? Will he stick to his promises? Will he connect with the folks or be arrogant? I could ask the same questions were Bridgewater to be elected or anyone. The pro-Lee folks will tell you that you just don't know Lee well enough; OK, but if that's the case only God knows Mike Lee well enough. We don't have enough second chances left to get back to our Constitution for us to inadvertently send back the wrong person.

Bridgewater made the decision to vote for Lee easy for me by not responding to my email. I pretty much decided that when one candidate (Lee) would answer (yes, it took some prodding) and the other wouldn't or didn't, I wasn't interested in voting for a candidate who ignored me. I also became concerned that Bridgewater was more moderate in some of his views of wanting to do good government programs (Ex-Im Bank) rather than abolish them and cut wherever possible to downsize government and balance the government.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't this sleeper Lee guy all along as I'm sure I'll be accused now that I've announced my vote. Lee ducked more than one debate, donated to Bennett's campaign, and particularly in the beginning came off arrogant. While I thought the "Lee Lobbying Lenses" (as I like to title it in my mind) for 1-800 Contacts without registering was interesting, it didn't seem to make me want to bail when he had talked with the guy in charge beforehand. Finally, now that Lee is the probable winner come November, I don't want to see his brother Tom be on the State Supreme Court. Too many Lees for me. Let's not tie up all that power in one family when there are others out there.

Bridgewater wasn't my guy this time around. He may or may not be my guy another time around depending on my choices. But I wouldn't dare send anyone to Washington these days without keeping the strictest of watch over them. So congratulations Bridgewater and Lee you should both be proud of your great campaigns and desires to restore honor back to our country. I think highly of both of you. But Mr. Lee I have a special caution for you now: don't expect me to be letting you off the hook just because I voted for you. I'm ready to throw you under the bus at the first sign of you throwing my Constitution under the bus as has been done too many times before by predecessors. You will serve me and my fellow citizens of the state of Utah and we will hold you fully accountable before God in a judgement day even when God allows justice not to prevail for a time on earth. Should you come home in 6 or 12 years having kept your promises of repealing Obamacare, raising the Social Security retirement age, balancing the budget, and restoring honor to our Constitution, then will you have earned more than my vote: you will earned have my praise for a job well done.

With Bennett's Defeat, The Teaparty Movement Eyes Hatch

With the GOP Senate primary race between Bridgewater and Lee in its infancy, the movement to get rid of Orrin has already well, hatched shall we say.

Never mind KNRS conservative talk show host Bob Lonsberry previously and repeatedly calling for the removal of Hatch this year, it seems like for conservative Utahns Hatch's exit can't come quick enough. And if Bennett was too old and too long in D.C. for Utahns this year, in 2012 Hatch will up Bennett's election-year age by a year with enough tenure in the Senate to lap Bennett twice and start worrying from pugatory his good friend Ted Kennedy about catching up.
SimpleUtahMormonPolitics commented in their post-Bennett defeat wrapup:

"Orrin, Thy Days are Numbered. You may also be aware that I don't care much
for Orrin Hatch as a Senator, for essentially the same reasons that I haven't
approved of Bennett's performance. A few of us spoke together after the
convention wondering whether it might be more healthy for Senator Hatch to
announce his retirement, rather than to risk suffering in two years the same
ignominy as Senator Bennett."

Voice of Deseret chimed in today with their article You're Next, Orrin: Cherilyn Eagar Has Not Yet Endorsed Either Tim Bridgewater Or Mike Lee, May Run Against Six-Term Senator Orrin Hatch In 2012 concluding:

"Orrin Hatch would be smart to decide right now that this current term will be
his last term, and walk out as an honored elder statesman. Thirty-six years will
be more than enough; it's time to turn the seat over to the next generation."

Sensing the anti-Hatch sentiment, Daily Herald political guru Joe Pyrah opined an article in which Eagar is quoted as "definitely" looking into running two years from now against Sen. Orrin Hatch. Even Jen Gulbrandsen, Eagar's daughter, tweeted a humorous reference at the closure of Saturday's convention to a possible "Eagar in 2012" run noting the musical capabilities of both:

"Eagar and Hatch should go head to head in a couple of years. They could
even have a sing off!"

With a fairly remarkable result from a complete grassroots effort in her first bid ever for public office, Cherilyn Eagar has made some friends along the way by proving true to principle and supporting the cause against Bennett. She picked up further accolades from the delegates by not avoiding endorsing Lee or Bridgewater. Here's what private commenter had to say:

"The unsung heroes for the conservative movement at the convention were Cherilyn
Eagar and her amazing supporters. Cherilyn was eliminated in the first round
and her patriotic supporters...and spread their votes to Lee and Bridgewater. They
have principle and they made history today."

Lady Logician pointed out in her blog today the anti-Bennett energy Eagar brought to the race:

"While some of the anti-Bennett energy can and should be credited to the Tea
Party movement the real Tea Party candidate was Cherilyn Eagar..."

Lady Logican is correct of course. Eagar was the only candidate to attend every major tea party in Utah including the original one on snowy day, April 15, 2009. Somewhere along the way she rallied the troops at the state capitol with the following anti-Hatch castigation:

"Senator Hatch said: 'We don’t need rookies in Congress right now. We need leaders
such as himself'…who voted to confirm two of the most liberal Supreme Court
justices [Ginsburg and Breyer]? Senator Hatch are you listening: with that kind of leadership we don’t need seniority."

Add to that list Hatch's (and Bennett's) confirmation vote just last year of radical Cass Sunstein, being 2 of only 6 GOP Senators to vote "aye" and you begin to see why Utahns want to give Hatch the hatchet on convention day 2012. (Warning to Progressives: this is a crafty play on Hatch's surname using a figure of speech: Nacilbupera strongly repudiates any intimation of actual physical violence.)

Eagar is the antithesis of a quitter at defeat. We expect she will play some roll in 2012, though nearly the entire GOP is ready to anoint Jason Chaffetz as Senator should he decide to run. And after this race, even those who didn't support Eagar realize the importance she plays in moving opinion against incumbents by holding them accountable for their voting records. Her efforts more than anyone merit her being Utah's Senator.

2009 Election Endorsements

There are a handful of elections being held a week from today, and being looked upon to see the relative strength and impact of the growing conservative, tea party, and 9/12er movements across the country. We are focused on these races.

Here are the candidates we endorse. Our endorsement is our way of recommending to you that you urgently examine these candidates and if you agree with our endorsement after examining them yourself, to vote for them if you live in one of these areas and if not to support one or more of these candidates with a financial contribution and a social media plug (twitter/blog/in person etc). If one were going to give a financial contribution, it should be done NOW as early voting is already underway.

***LOCAL***

Provo Mayor: John Curtis (np) Curtis, a conservative businessman against an attack-dog opponent (Clark) in non-partisan race. Curtis easily won the debate with Clark attacking Curtis for not owning a dog (trust me pet ownership is the #1 issue in Provo—LOL—Curtis owns 2 dogs for the record). Curtis is strong on safety and anti-gang which among our city’s top issues. No known polling but general expectation is a nail biter with edge to Curtis.

Provo City Council citywide: no endorsement; although we have a candidate in mind, we don’t feel strongly enough to endorse.

***NATIONAL (in order of need for help)***

California 10th District: David Harmer (R) Could we summarize where he stands on all the issues with “anti-Pelosi”? He’s a lawyer (smart), a family man (principled), and a Boy Scout merit badge counselor (down to earth). Running in a strong (+13) Democratic district and endorsed by our local Congressman and hero Jason Chaffetz. Victory is possible if Republicans turn out in force in this election. See: An Upset in California? (Wall Street Journal) and The Hill: Republican in CA Special Election Competitive

New York 23rd District: Doug Hoffman (C) Hoffman, a Conservative in this fusion-voting state, pitted against a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican. Race is drawing national attention with latest polls showing Hoffman surging to a lead. Nail biter.

New Jersey Governor: Chris Christie (R) Pro-life tax cutter; his election will rescue the NJ economic disaster under Corzine’s reign. Maybe not as strong 2nd amendment as we are but no RINO either. Nail biter in 3-way race.

Virginia Governor: Bob McDonnell (R) Believes in marriage, life, guns, cutting taxes; expected to win again in rematch against opponent.

We believe a win in 3 out of 4 of these races will send a strong message that our movement is snowballing and will have Democratic strategists reeling. Should God bless us to win all four, the blue dogs in Congress will have ample ground to justify any opposition to nationized healthcare.

Jason Chaffetz Townhall

Maybe a thousand or so attendees overpacked an alternative venue with more space than the previous in tonight's Townhall Meeting with our freshman Representative Jason Chaffetz.

Nacilbupera was extremely impressed with Chaffetz in his demeanor, respect to his constituents  questioning, and especially in his ideas for America. This was our first opportunity to shake hands with Rep. Chaffetz and with the true patriot he is.

To set the stage appropriately, the reader should keep in mind that this is the likely the most conservative metropolitan area in the nation--Provo/Orem, Utah--full of people labeled by the left as "right wing activists" who want a smaller, less intrusive federal bureaucracy in order to pursue their rights to bear arms, preserve families, protect the unborn, and worship how they may. Here in this auditorium packed with fellow patriots (along with a few vocal dissenters) with most concerned about the government takeover of healthcare was found not a single individual touting swastikas or akin symbols (sorry Nancy Pelosi--maybe the swastikas you're seeing are in San Francisco).

Chaffetz talked out at length on the healthcare plan before the House which he avowed to vote against. Healthcare reform should address:

• Tort Reform (current bill does nothing about this)
• Transparency
• Portability of insurance across state lines
• Pre-existing conditions
• Competition (good to keep costs low)
• Opt-out provision for states

While there are a number of alternative bills being discussed Chaffetz did not specifically endorse any one of them as they do not address adequately the issues above.

Chaffetz also mentioned his support of an ACORN investigation and cited the 88-page report by Rep Darrell Issa (Nacilbupera thinks he would make a great CA governor), Chair of the Republican Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.

Chaffetz also highlighted HR3167, cosponsored with Stephen Lynch D-MA to have the postal service instead of ACORN conduct the census by declaring a postal holiday on census day (also saves government money).  This is a brilliant idea, and receives a full Nacilbupera endorsement.

Here is the bottom line with Chaffetz:  he is EXACTLY the kind of statesman we need running our government and Nacilbupera wholeheartedly applauds his efforts!