|
“Do I think the trail of secret service personnel which today a U.S. president will have attached to him or her for the rest of their lives really is an unnecessary luxury?”
While the author of the blog above debates if former US presidents should or shouldn’t be granted an entourage of secret service men, I think the point is rather the integrity of politicians today.
My Comment:
“Interesting food for thought indeed. While I don’t know if we can get our current politics back to such times, its sad to think of the abuse that can occur in this day in age. A former U.S. President, buying a house, and then paying his mortgage based on the rent he charges to the secret service agents stationed there…??? That would be abuse of the privilege. I think the point of the letter was to state that making those individuals wealthy in government corrupts government. Many of today’s politicians have fallen prey to the wealth of their positions.
A woman that dresses provocatively to get the attention of men, will most likely attract the basest of men. Not likely the type she would long to marry and have protect and care for her. A government position laced with gold and a high throne will similarly attract the basest of men. These men are not the type that would protect and care for the nation or the welfare of the others.”
Related articles
- White House Music: Truman And Nixon Tickling The Ivories (dekerivers.wordpress.com)
- Perry, Obama, and Harry Truman… (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- The Unfunny Field (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
- Book Review: Give ‘Em Hell: The Tumultuous Years of Harry Truman’s Presidency, in His Own Words and Voice [Paperback with CD] (themoderatevoice.com)
Thank you for the ping-back. I take your point about not trusting someone who becomes president in order to become rich. In that sense, one does look back at Truman and wish for the days when big money was not part of the equation. But today it is. Is it possible to go back to those days?
One solution would be to elect someone who already has made a lot of money. (Interestingly, the Republicans don’t want to tax the rich but they seem to hold it against Mitt Romney that he only paid 13% tax on his mega-income last year.)
Another alternative is to elect someone for whom big money is not a value, but that scares me as well. I’m not sure I think there are very many people out there who have the political skill required of the presidency, and who don’t have a mission to impose their values on everybody else.
Mitt income tax is an interesting point. I think that the income tax of 13% is over simplified. I also heard that the guy donated 19% of his income to charities. It sounds like to me that he is a wise steward of his money, most like the same skills that have helped grow or maintain his wealth. I personally knew a financial investor that whose made a couple of million every year and often bragged about a 3% income tax.
Similar to your thoughts on who is better qualified to become president, he who is wealthy or he who is poor, their current summation into a wealthy or poor status is over simplification. What choices did the individual make to become wealthy or to become poor?
Big money in politics today can only be replaced by bigger crowds of active citizens. If we the people are to govern our own nation then we need to be present to do so.
Thanks for stopping by as well. You have made some excellent points and examples.
Yes, yes, yes: the only safe guard against the influence of big money in politics are greater number of active and well-informed citizens.
One of the things that worries me more than the money presidents can make when they leave office is the supreme court ruling giving corporations the same rights to fund politicians as individual citizens have. That’s the source of seriously big money and consequent influence that worries me – particularly because it is not transparent.