Ok, so again something prompted by a revelation in Polish media that Polish ex-President, Kwasniewski, is on the pay roll of one of the richest people in Poland, acting as a business consultant. There has also been a situation few years ago where the former chancellor of Germany was acting as a business consultant for Gazprom.
So the question to you today is - by your country's standards - are there any (legal) jobs that a former head of state/head of government should not be doing once out of the office or is it a free for all situation and he is permitted to leverage his position to land some sweet consultancy?
For the record, ex-Presidents in Poland get a life time state pension.
They should be ritually murdered when their successor takes office.
That's a good question. My first reaction is that former presidents will have built up an immense network of contacts, clients, or others beholden to them during their time in office (and largely by virtue of holding public office). Thus it seems rather unethical to allow them to leverage that into private financial gain after holding office. Also, it opens the door to corrupt practices while leader in exchange for sweet jobs after stepping down.
However, I have no data on the subject and am willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Also, I wonder how much money Gorbachev made debasing himself with Pizza Hut ads?
Personally I think it's unseemly for a former President to take advantage of his previous career to make money with the exception of writing memoirs and perhaps other academic positions. I know two Presidents fell into poverty after office. Grant and Truman. Grant died soon after of throat cancer, but his posthumous memoirs were a big hit and let his wife live comfortably. Truman was something of a fuck-up his whole life and never made any money. When he left office he didn't get his Senate pension for some reason, and Congress created a Presidential pension just for him so he would be indignant. Taft is a special case. He left the Presidency and became Supreme Court Justice, a job he really liked. That seems okay.
Presidents nowadays seem to run charities and organize their libraries. They also function as elder statesman and advise the current President in an unofficial capacity. Curiously many former Presidents have become friends. George W. and Bill Clinton seem to get along fairly well, which is kinda nice. I think Ford got along with Carter, but now that Ford is dead nobody hangs around Carter on account he has gone crazy.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 04:52:07 AM
When he left office he didn't get his Senate pension for some reason, and Congress created a Presidential pension just for him so he would be indignant.
:lol:
They should follow John Quincy Adams' example.
I have seen various estimates, so Clinton may have a net worth of $25 million - $100 million.
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2013, 07:04:57 AM
They should follow John Quincy Adams' example.
Be portrayed by Sir Anthony Hopkins?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2013, 06:46:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 04:52:07 AM
When he left office he didn't get his Senate pension for some reason, and Congress created a Presidential pension just for him so he would be indignant.
:lol:
Indigent. Sorry.
He's indigenous.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2013, 06:46:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 04:52:07 AM
When he left office he didn't get his Senate pension for some reason, and Congress created a Presidential pension just for him so he would be indignant.
:lol:
Are you talking about Truman or Carter here? :sleep:
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2013, 07:04:57 AM
They should follow John Quincy Adams' example.
I agree 100%
They should stay as far away from money making as possible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2013, 08:19:53 AM
They should stay as far away from money making as possible.
What should they do when they're making mad bank before they run for office?
Mart's consultant hate has been noted and logged.
In Norway "retired" senior politicians which are not yet of retirement age usually become directors of state owned corporations or serve as governor of one of norways counties (governor here means executive agent for the central government, being ceo of government operations in that region, usually this means showing up for gallery openings and handing out diplomas unless the shit hits the fan).
Sometimes the Norwegian government lobbies for "International Jobs" in the UN and other international systems, e.g. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a denitist by education and prime minister by achievement was made head of the WHO.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2013, 08:33:39 AM
What should they do when they're making mad bank before they run for office?
Spend it like a rap star? :unsure:
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2013, 08:47:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2013, 08:33:39 AM
What should they do when they're making mad bank before they run for office?
Spend it like a rap star? :unsure:
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
You said:
QuoteThey should stay as far away from money making as possible.
I asked:
QuoteWhat should they do when they're making mad bank before they run for office?
I'm glad we cleared that up. :mellow:
It's a simply fucking question, Yi. What are you, a fucking lawyer?
You don't run for the Presidency without being independently wealthy anymore. The Senate's median net worth is $2.63 million. 249 members of the last House of Representative are millionaires.
If you say they should stay away from making money after office, what should they do when they're already wealthy?
Fuck already.
What are you, fucking illiterate?
Marty's question was about ex-presidents and ex-PMs. Your question was post-modern punk-lit gibberish.
Fine, let's leave it to Presidents, then: instead of profiting off their office, how do they avoid it and what are the alternatives when they've already made wealth beforehand? Can you at least answer that?
You can certainly dish out the Yicratic Method all fucking day long like a Canadian lawyer, but you can't fucking take it, can you?
I am going to answer it in place of Yi.
Bank roll somebody else.
I can take the Yicratic method all week long and a double shift on Saturday. What I can't take is poseur wannabes that don't have the slightest idea what it is.
Fucking half a page to ask you to elaborate on your statement, and you're still not doing it.
You're worse than if grumbler were a 15 year old girl. Never fucking mind. Don't elaborate.
Passive aggressive death bolt. 2d+4! Shazaam!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2013, 09:23:49 AM
I can take the Yicratic method all week long and a double shift on Saturday. What I can't take is poseur wannabes that don't have the slightest idea what it is.
FFS, Yi, just answer the question. This isn't amusing, it's childish.
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2013, 09:33:05 AM
FFS, Yi, just answer the question. This isn't amusing, it's childish.
Seedy's attack poodle, 1d-6! ACORNACORNACORN
First, I have no fucking clue what the question is.
Second, if I did understand the question, pairing it up with an insult would not be the way to get me to respond.
Well presumably a person making bucks before the presidency shouldn't be expected to adopt poverty afterwards.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2013, 09:42:30 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2013, 09:33:05 AM
FFS, Yi, just answer the question. This isn't amusing, it's childish.
Seedy's attack poodle, 1d-6! ACORNACORNACORN
First, I have no fucking clue what the question is.
Second, if I did understand the question, pairing it up with an insult would not be the way to get me to respond.
Cast "blueberries" then "dirty Slav". Counterattack!
The typical route in Canada is that former Prime Ministers get hired on by major law firms (even if they are not, in fact, lawyers). They can then milk all their political connections for clients without being directly employed by those clients.
This is actually a bit of an issue over here as well, as the presence of former presidents and ministers in the boards of private companies after their time in politics is over is becoming controversial. Aznar is on Murdoch's payroll, and Felipe González on Slim's.
Currently in Spain I believe that the rules are that once they leave their position they must remain out of sight for a couple of years, but after that they're free to do whatever they want, on top of collecting their state pensions. Also, our ex-presidents tend to still be quite young when they leave their positions, so you can't really expect them to just chill at home. Zapatero and Aznar were 51 when they left office, González was 54.
I don't think there is any easy answer there. Obviously it is disturbing to see quasi corrupt bargains going on but what can you do? It is the same deal the campaign contributions thing.
I think the acceptability of corporate board jobs depend on what exactly they do there. If they're just doing regular look-out-for-the-shareholder board stuff it's OK. Sure they got the job because of what they used to do, but that's true of every board member everywhere. And I don't think most board jobs pay the really, really big dollars.
It gets smellier if they're leveraging the prestige of the office to clean up a company's reputation. It gets a lot smellier if their board job is a de facto lobbying job.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2013, 10:56:53 AM
I think the acceptability of corporate board jobs depend on what exactly they do there. If they're just doing regular look-out-for-the-shareholder board stuff it's OK. Sure they got the job because of what they used to do, but that's true of every board member everywhere. And I don't think most board jobs pay the really, really big dollars.
IIRC Al Gore has tens of millions of dollars of Apple stock as a result of sitting on their board.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2013, 10:56:53 AM
I think the acceptability of corporate board jobs depend on what exactly they do there.
Or rather if they did anything for them when they were in office. 'Hey take of us and you got a sweet job waiting for you when your term expires'.
Quote from: Barrister on January 14, 2013, 11:02:11 AM
IIRC Al Gore has tens of millions of dollars of Apple stock as a result of sitting on their board.
Sure, but how much of that is due to Apple's phenomenal appreciation?
I'm no great fan of Internet Al and would be very happy to catch him in an underhanded activity, but I think he passes the sniff test. Plus the rules are different for ex-veeps.
From a lot of responses here it seems like the issue is them getting rich. Isn't it the peddling of influence?
I don't generally have a problem with it. I can't think of any meaningful limits that could be placed on it. But then I don't mind sitting politicians having roles as, say, non-executive directors or consultants.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2013, 02:34:24 PM
Isn't it the peddling of influence?
Yep. I have a problem with it but there really is nothing to be done, it is the sort of soft corruption that is endemic in our system. You just have to hope the personal honor and discretion of the politicians and organizations involved will prevail and keep any quid pro quos type situations as limited as possible.
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2013, 03:44:33 AM
Ok, so again something prompted by a revelation in Polish media that Polish ex-President, Kwasniewski, is on the pay roll of one of the richest people in Poland, acting as a business consultant. There has also been a situation few years ago where the former chancellor of Germany was acting as a business consultant for Gazprom.
So the question to you today is - by your country's standards - are there any (legal) jobs that a former head of state/head of government should not be doing once out of the office or is it a free for all situation and he is permitted to leverage his position to land some sweet consultancy?
For the record, ex-Presidents in Poland get a life time state pension.
I don't have a problem with ex-PMs working, which they often do as business consultants. Nor does Sweden.
Quote from: Barrister on January 14, 2013, 11:02:11 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2013, 10:56:53 AM
I think the acceptability of corporate board jobs depend on what exactly they do there. If they're just doing regular look-out-for-the-shareholder board stuff it's OK. Sure they got the job because of what they used to do, but that's true of every board member everywhere. And I don't think most board jobs pay the really, really big dollars.
IIRC Al Gore has tens of millions of dollars of Apple stock as a result of sitting on their board.
Though it's worth a lot less than it was a few months ago.
They should have the right of doing whatever they want after a minimum of cooldown time, as long as it is legal and ethical (hence why I agree with mandatory cooldown periods). Networking comes with the territory of associating yourself with power.
It's not like they are getting out of jail after a felony sentence and a criminal record. They (presumably) served their office honestly, and should reap the benefits of doing so without hindrance, or even distrust. Former politicians cannot be punished because they "may" have networked with powerful groups while in office, just because people whine about it not being fair.
If the promise of lucrative gigs - within acceptable limits, of course - after leaving government helps keep them on the straight and narrow while they're in office, then this is a good thing. Offices of state tend to have relatively modest salaries; e.g., the UK PM earns only a shade over £100k. That peanuts compared to what one could get as head of even a modestly sized company.
The alternative is that heads of government seek to build their wealth while in power, and then you have turned into Africa.