HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Obama signs bill, gets Se...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:32 PM

Obama signs bill, gets Secret Service protection for life

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) – With the stroke of a pen Thursday, President Barack Obama gave himself and his wife Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives.

The new law, which passed the House and Senate in December, designates that all former U.S. presidents who served after January 1, 1997, along with their spouses, receive protection from the Secret Service for their entire lifetimes – meaning former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura are also covered. The law also stipulates that children of presidents receive protection until the age of 16.

Lifetime government-provided security for former presidents was the law of the land until 1997, when Congress passed legislation limiting Secret Service protection to ten years after leaving office.

The 1997 law said any president serving before January 1, 1997 would still receive the lifelong protection. That means with the law signed Thursday, every former president – Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush – along with Obama will continue to receive Secret Service details for the rest of their lives.


Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/10/obama-signs-bill-gets-secret-service-protection-for-life/comment-page-1/




Obama signs law giving himself, Bush lifetime Secret Service guard

-snip-

President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced.

The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.

At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms (as Richard Nixon did after he decided to forgo Secret Service protection in 1985).

The bill had sailed through Congress with bipartisan support—it cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote in early December, and then it zipped through the Senate unopposed. The law also provides protection for former presidents’ kids until age 16. But “protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.”

-snip-

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-signs-law-giving-himself-bush-lifetime-secret-184305122--politics.html


31 replies, 5055 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama signs bill, gets Secret Service protection for life (Original post)
Tx4obama Jan 2013 OP
KoKo Jan 2013 #1
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #2
Cosmocat Jan 2013 #4
politicaljunkie41910 Jan 2013 #23
KoKo Jan 2013 #27
KoKo Jan 2013 #28
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #3
Justitia Jan 2013 #13
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #26
truthisfreedom Jan 2013 #5
redstatebluegirl Jan 2013 #6
Demeter Jan 2013 #7
LeftyMom Jan 2013 #15
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #20
ancianita Jan 2013 #8
arcane1 Jan 2013 #9
alp227 Jan 2013 #10
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #11
Skyline Jan 2013 #12
blueclown Jan 2013 #14
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #16
Beacool Jan 2013 #22
RudynJack Jan 2013 #24
Beacool Jan 2013 #31
davidpdx Jan 2013 #17
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #18
skeewee08 Jan 2013 #19
Beacool Jan 2013 #21
bullwinkle428 Jan 2013 #25
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #29
Larrymoe Curlyshemp Jan 2013 #30

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:36 PM

1. Bizarre Key Paragraphs:

"The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.

At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms (as Richard Nixon did after he decided to forgo Secret Service protection in 1985).

The bill had sailed through Congress with bipartisan support—it cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote in early December, and then it zipped through the Senate unopposed. The law also provides protection for former presidents’ kids until age 16. But “protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.”



I have NO IDEA what to make of this? Anyone else find it strang?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:42 PM

2. I'm not sure what is confusing there. A GOPer wrote the 'new' bill.


After Clinton there was no more lifetime SS protection - only 10 years for Bush and future presidents.

Now it reverts back to lifetime protection for ALL presidents.

I think the only reason the bill passed was because Bush's SS protection was limited to only ten years and the GOPers wanted to fix that problem.
If Bush wasn't affected and it was only Obama then the bill probably would have been harder to pass.


Edited to add...

I believe the 2nd paragraph in your comment is in regards to the 1990s bill - and the 3rd paragraph is in regards to the 'new' bill.
They should have written the article a bit more clearly.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:43 PM

4. No

I was uncomfortable with any ex-president not having SS protection through the course of his or her life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 10:37 AM

23. Once again the lame stream media creates a non-issue issue.

As noted in the Yahoo link above, this bill was introduced by a republican and received bipartisian support, but instead of focusing on this issue, most of the reported articles lead as CNN does with the implication that President Obama is providing lifetime support for himself and his family, so all the rightwingnuts are having a field day attacking the President with this.

The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.

At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms (as Richard Nixon did after he decided to forgo Secret Service protection in 1985).

The bill had sailed through Congress with bipartisan support—it cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote in early December, and then it zipped through the Senate unopposed. The law also provides protection for former presidents’ kids until age 16. But “protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.”


Also, my brother-in-law was a cop when Reagan was in office and he was a part of a Los Angeles based detail which provided security for Reagan's family. Reagan's daughter Maureen (a grown a$$ woman many times over) used the detail as if they were her personal servants including walking her dog. My B-i-L said that on the last day of her protective services, when Reagan left office, her detail was only too happy to kick her and her mutt to the curb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicaljunkie41910 (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 08:26 PM

27. Your argument makes some sense about why SC's Trey Gowdy

would be involved. Which was my original question about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 08:32 PM

28. RE: "Trey Gowdy"..."Hoping for a Senate Seat, the Friendliest of Rivals" (SC Newspaper)

Hoping for a Senate Seat, the Friendliest of Rivals

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Representatives Trey Gowdy, left, and Tim Scott, Republican freshmen, each say the other is the better choice for appointment to replace Senator Jim DeMint.
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

WASHINGTON — Representatives Trey Gowdy and Tim Scott, first-term Republicans from South Carolina, are both in the running to replace Senator Jim DeMint when the conservative leaves office next month. But they say they know the best man for the job: the other guy.

“If you were to select the best senator to represent a state with a history as rich but provocative as ours,” Mr. Gowdy said, “you would construct Tim Scott.”

Mr. Scott begs to differ. “I honestly feel that Trey would be an amazing senator,” he said. When you are being considered for such a seat, “most people who call you want you to get the job so they can have yours,” he said. “The two exceptions were my mom and Trey.”

Mr. DeMint’s surprise retirement announcement last week — he will become the head of the conservative Heritage Foundation in January — has left Gov. Nikki Haley in the delicious spot of choosing a replacement who would fill out the next two years of his term and then presumably run to defend the seat in 2014.

Mr. Gowdy and Mr. Scott are on the short list of contenders, which also includes Jenny Sanford, the ex-wife of former Gov. Mark Sanford, who infamously disappeared for almost a week in 2009 to visit his mistress in Argentina; Catherine Templeton, a lawyer who runs the state’s Department of Health and Environmental Control; and Henry McMaster, a former state attorney general.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/us/politics/trey-gowdy-and-tim-scott-senate-aspirants-and-friendliest-of-rivals.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:42 PM

3. I think this is the right move.

Even a former president is a extremely high-value target and there's really no way they can avoid that for the rest of their lives, whether it's someone as hated/controversial as Bush or someone like Jimmy Carter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 03:10 AM

13. me too - ALL our presidents should be covered for life.

When they did away with it, it unnerved me. No former president should be left exposed to physical threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:44 AM

26. Agreed as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:46 PM

5. After taking out OBL Obama definitely needs lifetime protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:46 PM

6. I think President Obama will need it ...

I hate that idea but I think there will always be people who hate Black folks and believe what they hear on Fox who want to kill him...and his family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:11 PM

7. Well, that's more than the Roman Emperors ever got

The following Roman Emperors were murdered by their guards (the Praetorians)
while still in office:


Aurelian
Balbinus
Caligula
Caracalla
Carus
Commodus
Elagabalus
Galba
Gordian III
Numerian
Pertinax
Marcus Aurelius Probus
Pupienus
Pupienus and Balbinus (co-emperors)

I don't think any Emperor got to "retire".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demeter (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 03:23 AM

15. Diocletian did. He stayed retired when the Empire went to shit too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demeter (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 08:27 AM

20. Depends on how you define retire. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:15 PM

8. He'll need it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:15 PM

9. Correction: Obama *restored* Secret Service protection.

You're welcome, headline writer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:29 PM

10. yep, typical sensationalist corporate media,

of course eliciting ignorant reactions among the freepers/other low-info voters who don't read articles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:09 PM

11. A list of the bill's co/sponsors - from The House website



H.R.6620
Latest Title: Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012
Sponsor: Rep Gowdy, Trey (SC-4) (introduced 11/30/2012) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 1/1/2013 Presented to President. COSPONSORS(3), ALPHABETICAL

Rep Conyers, John, Jr. (MI-14) - 11/30/2012
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" (VA-3) - 11/30/2012
Rep Smith, Lamar (TX-21) - 11/30/2012

--------

Also, over on The House website it says: the bill Agreed to by voice vote
So, there is no roll call vote list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 02:35 AM

12. This is a good thing

 

Think about it, even an ex president has valuable knowledge about our country. They or their family could easily be targeted to find out what they know. It was something that is needed imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 03:16 AM

14. The cost to the taxpayer?

Have them hire own private security detail. They certainly make enough money to do so, each and every one of then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 03:41 AM

16. Presidents have had 'life-time' protection since 1965

The only thing the new bill does is restore the law to how it was before it was changed in the 1990s,
it should never have been changed back then.
And there is no way a young ex-president (as Obama will be after another four years) could afford security for the rest of his life.
Obama, and Michelle, could live another 40 years.
Do have a clue how much that would cost?
There's no way he could afford to pay for security on his own for all of those years.



-snip-

The Secret Service started protecting presidents in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. In 1965, Congress passed a law authorizing the agency, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, to protect former presidents for life.

-snip-

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-signs-law-giving-himself-bush-lifetime-secret-184305122--politics.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 10:05 AM

22. Yes, it seems that these laws are passed when tragedy strikes.

SS protection was established after McKinley's assassination. Lifetime protection passed after Kennedy was assassinated and this law is due to 9/11/01.

It's sad that we live in a world where former presidents will always be a target. As for the Obamas, if they had to, they could have afforded it. They are already worth millions and they'll make a lot more after they leave office, like all former presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:02 AM

24. I don't think it's about affording it.

It's about having the intelligence and clout that the SS has.

A private security firm will not have knowledge of all the threats and dangers that the SS has. And I image if the SS asks a locality for assistance, it's more likely to be granted than if Bob from Bob's Security Inc. asks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:59 PM

31. Oh, I agree.

I thought that it was a bad idea when they changed the law in the 90s. Former presidents will always be a target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 07:30 AM

17. It's a damn shame they didn't exempt GW

I guess hell will have to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 07:36 AM

18. On the other hand, as someone else mentioned,

it's better than him hiring his own personal security that would be accountable only to him. The SS is accountable to the elected government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 08:22 AM

19. President Obama gets Secret Service protection for life

this is good especially with all the looney rethugs out there..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:58 AM

21. The 90s law was a bad idea in the first place.

Former presidents will always be a target because they represent the country. The Republicans pushed this law in the 90s when they took control of Congress. Bill and Hillary would have been the last first couple to have had SS protection for life. The law would have affected Bush Jr., Obama and any subsequent president.

9/11/01 changed everything and since then there had been talk of reverting to the pre-90s law. I'm glad that they did so. Regardless of party, it would be a tragedy for the country if a former president were to be assassinated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:32 AM

25. "Drinkie McDumbass? This is THE President. You're welcome!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:12 PM

29. Well, if there is one President who really really REALLY needs it, it's this one.

Re: James Yeager and his sympathizers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:21 PM

30. I have NO problem with this!

 

Rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread