Actually no. I remember reading during the 1996 campaign-fundraising controversy that President Clinton was taken to an office building owned by the DNC to call high-rollers. He wasn’t allowed to make fundraising calls from the White House, IIRC.
Sorry, you’re right. Bad example. Telephone calls for raising funds is prohibited. Things like telephone calls to plot electoral strategy are allowed for the President and employees of the Executive Office of the President. Other government employees would be prohibited from, say, writing a speech to give at a political rally on a government computer, but not so for the President and some White House employees.
Bilked is probably too strong a word. But he did use the expense account extensively, and billed a lot of things that would be considerable questionable by modern standards.
And Kitman’s not a historian…he’s a tv critic.
Not being a historian may be to his advantage; he didn’t have to battle 200 years of “spin” by those who hold Washington in high regard. He just saw something that struck him as odd and followed it. And I’m not that sure bilked is too strong a word. I am working partly from memory here, having passed on my copy of the book ages ago, but with a quick web search I found this example:
“To cash paid for Sadlery, a Letter Case, Maps, Glasses, &c &c &c. for the use of my Command… $831.45”
Skipping how often Washington used “&c” as well as his other favorite entry (“ditto”), what he paid for various things was the 1770s version of a $200 hammer. About $81 of that entry was for the letter case, made of Russian leather. If you were to visit Fort Niagara over the 4th of July weekend, you could find a sutler to make you one like it (but of ordinary American cowhide) for about the same price.
The total was $449,261.51, in 1780 dollars. I don’t want to think what that would be in today’s terms.
Elendil’s Heir ---------- one review of the book I found quick on the web gives the following “One entry for $20,800 read, “the accounts were not only irregularly kept, but many of them were lost or mislaid, & some of them so defaced as not to be legible, that it is impossible for me to make out a statement of them.” Put simply, George lost the receipts. Or maybe he never had them. Did Congress blink? Of course not. Instead, they lauded for his exacting arithmetic, and gratefully signed over the requested amounts.”
I contend that the review is at least wrong in part; from what I have read in the standard references of Washington, my belief is that Congress did blink. And if you read many of the contemporary sources, you get hints here and there that his use of public funds was sometimes questioned. To a degree, the expenses may have been too obvious a weapon with too many “co-conspirators”. After all, Congress DID pay the amounts with some grumbling here and there so they could have been held equally guilty. And Washington was a power then as he is now. Remember, there were serious propositions that he make himself King. As it is hard today, sometimes, to questions the actions or intentions of a President, or to follow the money, imagine the 1780s when dueling was not unheard of and mobs could rule.
Some time in the spring, once I am a little more used to this board, let us consider having a “Washington thread”. It could be an interesting exchange of information.
This would be an impossible conflict of interest for a sitting first lady. Perhaps you’re thinking of former first ladies?
Sure. Here are two threads that might be of interest:
The determination is actually not as complicated as you’d think.
Basically, if he’s stumping for a candidate (or attending another purely party-related event, such as the Democratic Convention), it’s political.
If he’s stumping for a policy (such as the townhall meetings) it isn’t.
If he goes to Iraq to shake hands with veterans, it’s official. If he goes to Iraq to shake hands with veterans and tells them to vote (absentee) for him, it’s political.
Aside from the travel cost, this also determines whether or not White House staff can accompany him at the government’s expense.
Harry Truman was very careful, during the 1948 campaign, to mix in politics with official duties. He toured the Pacific Northwest, for instance, ceremonially opening Federal facilities and meeting with local officials, but also gave reelection speeches in other places. Since he was out there primarily on official business, there were few complaints that his trips were too politicized. His successors have taken a similar approach. Until the last days of a reelection campaign, most Presidents are careful not to travel outside of Washington solely for political reasons. Official travel is covered by Uncle Sam; it saves money for the reelection campaign and for the president’s national party.
This is not only incorrect factually, but the use of the word “earns” is misleading. While POTUS earns his salary, the rest are budgeted amounts in accounts from which he can draw down expenses. Money left over at the end of the year does not become his, nor is it his in the first place, so of course it isn’t taxed.