Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 6506

Should the President Pay for Extra Security at His Private Properties?

Argument in favor

President-elect Donald Trump shouldn’t force taxpayers to pay for the extra security at his properties that is made necessary by his status when it costs half a million dollars per day.

Patrick 's Opinion
···
12/20/2016
The job requires the president to live in the White House. He knew that when he ran. Other than temporary measures for vacations, tax payers should not bear the additional burden for this president that was not required by anyone before him.
Like (121)
Follow
Share
Cordelia's Opinion
···
12/20/2016
Please don't bleed New York City tax payers for the sake of the president-elect's convenience. They should move to the Capitol or pay their own security while they're in town.
Like (79)
Follow
Share
Agerhard's Opinion
···
12/20/2016
It is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to shoulder the expenses for the president's private endeavors. It is ludicrous and frightening to start this slide down such a slippery slope.
Like (46)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Taxpayers can afford to spend money keeping the President of the United States secure, and no other president has been asked to cover part of the cost of safeguarding them and their families.

David's Opinion
···
12/20/2016
For a start on a baseline, let's use Obama's vacation and security expenditures for him, his family, his friends, and his family's friends.
Like (17)
Follow
Share
Karen's Opinion
···
12/20/2016
I think Obama has spent more on vacations which should be limited.
Like (16)
Follow
Share
Betsy's Opinion
···
12/20/2016
How many of Obama's expensive vacations were taxpayer funded? How many golf outings? He wrung out the taxpayers. I think we can handle a few private properties.
Like (13)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 6506?

This bill would require that the president assume responsibility for the financial cost of providing additional security at property owned directly or indirectly by the president. This includes any place of business or a property that generates revenue, royalties, interest or dividends. No appropriations could be used to pay for such security aside from what the president is paid as salary.

Impact

The President of the United States.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 6506

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) introduced this bill to ensure that federal tax dollars don’t go toward paying for extra security at the president’s properties:

“It’s bad enough that Donald Trump refuses to honor a long Presidential tradition of transparency by keeping his tax returns secret. But it’s even more grotesque that, as my friend Congressman (Jose) Serrano has pointed out, New York City taxpayers already are paying $500,000 a day in security costs for Trump properties there alone. It’s just a matter of time before President-elect Trump forces the taxpayers to pick up the tab for the added security costs at his personal and business properties around the world.”

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has called the task of securing Trump Tower “unprecedented” and “profoundly challenging” and at a rate of $500,000 per day, the bill from Election Day to Trump’s inauguration has been estimated at $35 million by the NYPD.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Bin im Garten / Creative Commons)

Official Title

To provide that the President shall be financially responsible for any additional security measures imposed on property in which the President holds an ownership interest, and for other purposes.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Oversight and Reform
    IntroducedDecember 8th, 2016
    The job requires the president to live in the White House. He knew that when he ran. Other than temporary measures for vacations, tax payers should not bear the additional burden for this president that was not required by anyone before him.
    Like (121)
    Follow
    Share
    For a start on a baseline, let's use Obama's vacation and security expenditures for him, his family, his friends, and his family's friends.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Please don't bleed New York City tax payers for the sake of the president-elect's convenience. They should move to the Capitol or pay their own security while they're in town.
    Like (79)
    Follow
    Share
    It is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to shoulder the expenses for the president's private endeavors. It is ludicrous and frightening to start this slide down such a slippery slope.
    Like (46)
    Follow
    Share
    We have the White House for a reason
    Like (34)
    Follow
    Share
    Don't use the people's money to line your own pocket.
    Like (24)
    Follow
    Share
    Lol this tax dodging puppet really wants us to pay for this? Not to mention his hundredth conflict of interest being his use of his own security team thugs. Gtfo.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    If he wants to live in New York, let him pay for it. He's rich, after all.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    Check out your facts when counting Obama's vacation time and golf outings. Most of you have no idea what you're talking about.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    ALL his properties? Worldwide? NO! Protect the president yes, but don't bleed taxpayers when a tenth of the expense could be him being at the Whitehouse
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    I think Obama has spent more on vacations which should be limited.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    Presidential personal choices should come from the pockets of the President. Private Presidential decisions should affect their beneficiary's bottom lines. Bills don't get passed into law unless they have funding, so why should funding go to unnecessary behaviors that have nothing to do with good government? Government traditions and institutions are in place to sufficiently protect the President. Any choices outside of these norms should be paid for by the person whose preference has selected them as an option, and not as a requirement of office. Should minimum wage earning taxpayers subsidize lavish, unnecessary extravagance at the whim of the President? No true conservative would say so, nor would any liberal! The United States of America is not a monarchy. We shouldn't have to pass this legislation. But when selfish, self-interested kleptocrats are in office, we unfortunately need this law in place to protect the American people and their hard earned tax dollars.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    How many of Obama's expensive vacations were taxpayer funded? How many golf outings? He wrung out the taxpayers. I think we can handle a few private properties.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    I don't think so, do Presidents have to pay out of pocket every time they travel with a security detail? No. During the beginning of President Obama's first term, Vice President Biden refused to live in the VP's address. He lived with his family in his own home for some time and even charged the Secret Service rent for the guest house they used on Biden's property.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    This wouldn't even be a question if Hillary would have been elected.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, the president should for his own private residents. We pay taxes for the president to live in the White House. If he/she chooses to continue using their private residence then that is their choice, not what the American People signed up for. It is disrespectful for the President to not use the White House and it is blatant waste/misuse of Taxpayer's money to pay for other private housing. The President is not a monarch.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    He has no right to live anywhere other than at the White House, because he's about to become a public servant. He asked for that privilege. He has no right to impose any additional costs on the taxpayers. His presence in NYC is only a hardship. He should reimburse the taxpayers for all security costs, or do without security altogether.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, the tax payers money should be used for something better than protecting a president who is asking for rent from the secret service who is putting their lives on the line for him. Furthermore, why should New York and New Yorkers be forced to pay for the least unfavorable president-elect's security when he has a 92% unfavorable rating here.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Not until past Presidents foot their own bill.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Nobody wants harm to our ex-Presidents. But let's get real. Having multiple home/abodes spread across the US will certainly increase Secret Service costs. So let's pick two homes for protection and allowing the ex-president provide for himself in his other homes. If you can afford multiple homes, surely you can provide security. The public teat is not limitless. Or, establish a budget on Secret Service protection.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE