Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And guess who gets to pay for it? The American taxpayers!
I know the Secret Service exists to protect our highest level elected officials. But, I'm quite certain they do not exist for the official receiving taxpayer funded protection to financially profit from it.
Since April, Mr. Biden has collected more than $13,000 from the agency charged with protecting him and his family for use of a rental cottage adjacent to the waterfront home he owns in a Wilmington, Del., suburb.
Mr. Biden, listed not as vice president in federal purchasing documents but as a “vendor,” is eligible for up to $66,000 by the time the government contract expires in the fall of 2013, the records show.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 08-01-2011 at 12:50 PM..
Reason: typo
And guess who gets to pay for it? The American taxpayers!
I know the Sectret Service exists to protect our highest level elected officials. But, I'm quite certain they do not exist for the official receiving taxpayer funded protection to financially profit from it.
He should be providing free rent and board for them instead of charging them, lol. I mean - no one is charging Biden for the services the SS provides to him and his family . . .but I would suspect it is all legal.
Milking the taxpayer to enrich themselves is a national pastime. It probably knows no political boundaries and while this is apparently not illegal, nevertheless, it crosses an ethical line.
So, whenever the Secret Service has to guard an official, they rent a property nearby that person for their "command center" so to speak. Prior to 2010, they rented a home a few miles away from Biden and paid rent to whoever owned THAT property.
Biden's mother passed away and the property adjacent to him became vacant. He informed the Secret Service that it was vacant and available. They declined. He moved another tenant in for a year and charged that tenant $2,200 per month rent. That tenant vacated and the Secret Service approached Biden about renting his place. It was agreed, the Secret Service was charged market value for the rent, as anyone else would do if they were renting it out.
So, I'm wondering what the hullabaloo is about. Is it the fact that the Secret Service should just be renting someone else's place so they can have a command center not owned by the VP, even though it's probably a heck of a lot more convenient?
He should be providing free rent and board for them instead of charging them, lol. I mean - no one is charging Biden for the services the SS provides to him and his family . . .but I would suspect it is all legal.
Frankly, perhaps we should be charging these official a percentage of their salary for just that. Let them make the choice of how much security they wish to fund out of pocket. It would immediately cut the luxury trips Michelle takes the girls and a dozen of her close friends on (Paris, Spain, S. Africa....)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineVA
This is a sticky one isn't it?
So, whenever the Secret Service has to guard an official, they rent a property nearby that person for their "command center" so to speak. Prior to 2010, they rented a home a few miles away from Biden and paid rent to whoever owned THAT property.
Biden's mother passed away and the property adjacent to him became vacant. He informed the Secret Service that it was vacant and available. They declined. He moved another tenant in for a year and charged that tenant $2,200 per month rent. That tenant vacated and the Secret Service approached Biden about renting his place. It was agreed, the Secret Service was charged market value for the rent, as anyone else would do if they were renting it out.
So, I'm wondering what the hullabaloo is about. Is it the fact that the Secret Service should just be renting someone else's place so they can have a command center not owned by the VP, even though it's probably a heck of a lot more convenient?
You do not see the conflict of interest in a member of the Executive Branch personally profiting from a taxpayer funded service to protect their sorry backside? Really?
Frankly, perhaps we should be charging these official a percentage of their salary for just that. Let them make the choice of how much security they wish to fund out of pocket. It would immediately cut the luxury trips Michelle takes the girls and a dozen of her close friends on (Paris, Spain, S. Africa....)
Just get this little law changed and, yep, we can do that:
Quote:
Protection for the President and Vice President of the United States is mandatory. All other individuals entitled to Secret Service protection may decline security if they choose.
So, whenever the Secret Service has to guard an official, they rent a property nearby that person for their "command center" so to speak. Prior to 2010, they rented a home a few miles away from Biden and paid rent to whoever owned THAT property.
Biden's mother passed away and the property adjacent to him became vacant. He informed the Secret Service that it was vacant and available. They declined. He moved another tenant in for a year and charged that tenant $2,200 per month rent. That tenant vacated and the Secret Service approached Biden about renting his place. It was agreed, the Secret Service was charged market value for the rent, as anyone else would do if they were renting it out.
So, I'm wondering what the hullabaloo is about. Is it the fact that the Secret Service should just be renting someone else's place so they can have a command center not owned by the VP, even though it's probably a heck of a lot more convenient?
Totally understand what you are saying but it just looks bad, since Biden is not paying for the SS services, but instead is getting revenue b/c the nature of the job requires SS to be in close proximity.
Folks would probably not have said anything if he had been willing to sacrifice the rent and just charge the SS for utilities or whatever the taxes are on that property. Just looks greedy on his part - to accept "free" services and then charge rent so that agents can perform their duty.
The thread topic is not challenging the validity of providing Secret Service. It is challenging the validity of the individual being protected financially profiting from that service. Get it yet?
Frankly, perhaps we should be charging these official a percentage of their salary for just that. Let them make the choice of how much security they wish to fund out of pocket. It would immediately cut the luxury trips Michelle takes the girls and a dozen of her close friends on (Paris, Spain, S. Africa....)
You do not see the conflict of interest in a member of the Executive Branch personally profiting from a taxpayer funded service to protect their sorry backside? Really?
I am betting John Adams would **** a cow over the crap that goes on with America's Government Aristocracy.
What a double wide with bunk beds cant be a command center?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
