Daily Caller Scoop: Why Are We Paying Literally Hundreds Of Dollars For Bill Clinton's Soft-Core Porn?

We have rather mixed feelings about this Daily Caller story here. On the one hand, it's actually doing some interesting journamalism stuff, using a Freedom of Information Act request to examine how former presidents spend some of the money that goes to former Presidents of the United States -- a total of $3.7 million in 2011 for the four living former Presidents (not including the cost of Secret Service protection). It's a creative use of FOIA, and could have been maybe sort of interesting, but instead veers off into inane nitpicking over the details of programming options on the satellite TV services in Bill Clinton's office suite, informing us that Clinton used some of his ex-president bennies

to wire at least 10 televisions in his offices to a premium suite of content from DirecTV, according to a February 2011 statement. That year, taxpayers spent $184.26 a month for Clinton’s DVR service, 145 “Office Choice” channels and 32 high-definition “Entertainment Unlimited” channels.

They even include a picture of that monthly DirecTV bill. And do you know what's included in that package? All the premium movie channels, like HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax. Yes, Cinemax. The Daily Caller soberly reminds us that

Late at night, the premium channel earns its “Skinemax” nickname with a turn toward adult programming, offering shows titles like “Busty Coeds Vs. Lusty Cheerleaders,” “Sex Games Cancun 01: Last Temptation of Hank” and “Hotel Erotica Feature 05: Bedroom Fantasies 2.”

Why are hardworking American taxpayers of US America paying for Bill Clinton to subscribe to a channel that shows softcore porns long after everyone has left the building for the day???? Ladies and gentlemen, this is SRS BUSNS! 

The Daily Caller also is very, very sad that Bill Clinton did not return their calls asking him to "explain why taxpayers should cover movie channels for him at work." Because why are we covering that whopping expense of $2211.12 per year? If Clinton dropped the premium channels, that would save the hardworking American taxpayers of US America $515.88 a year! Why, that's almost enough to buy one third of an AR-15 (at today's post-Sandy Hook inflated price) for a school security guard, or almost a full year's worth of John Boehner's hankies. Why can't Bill Clinton be more like the thrifty Jimmy Carter, whose DishTV connection with two receivers only soaked the taxpayers for "$646.57 worth of programming in 2011 — no Cinemax in that package."

But while Carter scrimps on TV, he blew $415.58 on a subscription to the paper edition of the New York Times, that monster, while "Clinton dropped $322.40 on a digital subscription."

Thankfully, the Daily Caller reports that someone is finally going to do something about all this madness. They note that the appropriations for former presidents are covered by "the Former President’s Act ... [which was passed] in 1958, spurred on by Harry Truman’s exceptionally destitute post-presidency." But since modern ex-presidents are often pretty darn rich,

Jason Chaffetz, a Republican congressman from Utah, is pushing legislation — called the “Presidential Allowance Modernization Act” — that would eliminate a dollar of taxpayer funding for every dollar an ex-president earns over $400,000 a year.

“Nobody wants our former presidents living the remainder of their lives destitute,” Chaffetz said in February, announcing the bill. “But the fact is none of our former presidents are poor.”

By cutting back on former presidents' outrageous expenditures like these, we can definitely expect a balanced budget within 672 years.

[ Daily Caller ]