I don't necessarily have strong feelings about the amount of funding appropriated for former presidents, but I find the timing of this legislation, and the stated reason for introducing it, to be suspect.
Several Republican senators, including presidential candidate Marco Rubio (R-FL), have introduced a bill to place a cap on funding.
Republican Sens. Joni Ernst (Iowa), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.) have introduced legislation that would limit a former president's annual pension and allowance each to $200,000. [...]
Ernst suggested that her push to limit money given to former commanders in chief is part of a larger push to rein in government spending.
I don't think it's a coincidence that this has never been an issue before now as we enter the tail end of the Obama administration and approach a whole new era of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. But even if you don't question their motives, it's difficult to take them seriously considering the relatively small amount of money we're talking about.
As far as federal government spending is concerned, the amount we spend on former presidents is virtually meaningless, accounting for 0.0001 percent of the budget. And while I did just pull that percentage out of my ass, you get the idea.
Our former presidents spent approximately $2.4 million on "travel, office space and communications" over the past fiscal year. And that may sound like a lot to you, but that is significantly less money than Congressional Republicans have wasted while continuously investigating Benghazi.
(See also: every other fake scandal that has been beaten to death)
If we're going to rein in wasteful government spending, we could start by halting the endless cycle of politically motivated scandal-mongering.
“This is an issue of restoring taxpayer trust by looking at reforms in the allowances and perks given to these former presidents who generate significant incomes after leaving office,” [Ernst] said.
Are we punishing success now?