A Bad President Doesn't Deserve A Pension

[babylonsister]

I know, it'd never happen, but it should!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_ephraim_071115_a_bad_president_does.htm

A Bad President Doesn't Deserve A Pension

by Ephraim

The United States Government is supposed to be "Government of the people, by the people, for the people". When it is election time, several people, including liars and hypocrites, make promises to the American people, saying what they think we want to hear, so that they can get elected. Specifically, I'm mainly speaking of those that are elected to Congress, and to the White House.

Unfortunately, from time to time, liars and hypocrites get elected to the White House, and do such a poor job, and ignore the will of the people, that we wish that they were never allowed to take office. So, what recourse can the American people take? If the majority of the people would want the person immediately impeached from office, they would have to convey that to the members of the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate to persuade them to take such action.

But what other course of action can the people take? What can we do to make reasonably sure that the person(s) we elect to the White House (and Capital Hill) keep their campaign promises, and enact the will of the majority of the people? What about the forfeiture of their retirement pension and other benefits?

In 1958, Congress passed the Former Presidents Act, which gave retired Presidents a pension of $25,000 per year, an office, and a staff. Congress has increased the pension several times. Former Presidents now receive a pension that is based on the annual salary of a cabinet secretary, which is more than $160,000. Former Presidents have historically been given a generous allowance for office and staff. For example, former President Bill Clinton (who seems to have done a good enough job) was eligible to receive funds for an office and staff for over four years after he left office.

What should an undesirable former President receive? Suppose that they did such a poor job, and ignored the will of people after they took office? How about establishing on the November presidential ballot, what benefits the outgoing President should receive? If the President did such a poor job, what about forfeiture of all pensions, office staff, and Secret Service privileges? If the total votes cast are 200 million, and less than forty percent approve of what the former President did, why should they get the same benefits that a more popular President would get? They should get no benefits at all, meaning that the American people do not have to pay for their retirement, and no Secret Service benefits.

If the voting approval percentage is at least forty percent, but less than sixty percent, perhaps the former President should only receive the benefits of a pension and the Secret Service. If the voting approval percentage is more than sixty percent, then the outgoing President receives full benefits.

In the "real" world, when an employee does a poor job, they get bad reviews, no merit compensation, and are often told to "leave". Why not have the same in government? If we inform our members of Congress, that this is what we want, perhaps we will have less "undesirable" people in elected office, and maybe they will "do the will of the people". What do you think? If there is a waiting "penalty" for abuse of office, would that spare the American people (and the world) of such an ordeal?

Herman Cummings
(Herman Cummings is the author of the book "Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!")