Thomas Jefferson, 1848/1879. Artist George Peter Alexander Healy.
Heritage Images | Hulton Fine Art Collection | Getty Images
Before becoming president, ‘they are just like us’
Annie Nova: How much do presidents actually manage their own money? I imagine they outsource much of that strategizing and effort.
Megan Gorman: Well, up until most of them become president, they are just like us. They are managing their budgets and trying to grow assets. But what was striking in looking at their finances across different eras is that a lot of the same issues that we struggle with today, are ones that Americans have always struggled with.
The difference is that in many ways it is much harder today to achieve the American Dream.
After all, Richard Nixon was able to go to college in 1930 for $230 a year. That’s around $8,000 in today’s dollars. And, in 1886, Grover Cleveland could buy a home on 26 and ¼ acres about three miles north of the White House for $21,500, the equivalent of $700,000 today.
‘Money caused and causes anxiety for everyone’
AN: Who was the most frugal president?
MG: Calvin Coolidge was incredibly frugal. He would have told you he was “thrifty.” Part of this comes from advice he received from his father growing up: that it was important to save and allow money to compound. Even when he was in the White House, the head housekeeper complained that he was always poking his head in to check on the cost of food being purchased.
The one that surprises most people was that John F. Kennedy was pretty frugal as well. Just because he came from money didn’t mean he wasn’t keeping an eye on the bottom line. Throughout his life, friends noted that he was “tight with a buck” and monitored costs.
AN: Was there a president who overspent?
MG: The biggest spender of them all was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had very nice taste, and that taste was enhanced from his time in France. If there was ever a dinner party you wanted to attend, it was Jefferson’s. Even up to the time he passed away, he was still trying to buy wine on credit.
Interestingly enough, given the debt he had when he was dying — more than $2 million in today’s numbers, he was clever in that he made sure in his estate plan that assets passed to his daughter and son-in-law could not be attached by creditors.
Megan Gorman, author of All The Presidents’ Money.
Photo: Marc Cartwright
AN: For whom did money cause the most anxiety?
MG: Money caused and causes anxiety for everyone. That being said, some handled it better than others.
For instance, Ronald Reagan used budgeting as a mechanism to manage emotion when it came to money. This is no surprise given that he grew up in a financially unstable household with an alcoholic father. The Reagans would at times have to leave town in the middle of the night to get away from their landlord as they didn’t have the money to pay rent. As Reagan got older, he found that having a budget and sticking to it allowed him to manage his financial anxiety.
Early experiences informed money habits
AN: Who had the most financial struggles before becoming president?
MG: Harry Truman is one that easily comes to mind. Truman spent the first four decades of his life going through a lot of financial volatility. From his father losing all their money so he couldn’t go to college, to Truman having a series of unsuccessful business ventures including a zinc mine, an oil well and the famous haberdashery, he really struggled.
But it wasn’t until he was in the presidency that he was able to save his salary along with a special stipend he received for two years that was tax-free. At the time of his death, he was worth $750,000, or $8 million today.
AN: How did a president’s childhood experiences impact their financial behavior?
MG: The best example would have to be Herbert Hoover.
Hoover’s story could have gone completely wrong for him. He lost both of his parents by the age of 9. He and his siblings are split up among different family members but they share the same financial guardian. So from an early age, Hoover is required to budget and submit his expenses to this guardian.
As he becomes a teenager, he takes on bookkeeping for his uncle’s business and really learns to be a “financial apprentice.” The budgeting and bookkeeping have such an impact on his financial skills that he becomes the treasurer of his class at Stanford.
He just keeps building on his skill set again and again. That skill set would grow him great wealth — and allow him to do a lot of charitable work over his lifetime.
Money opps in post-presidential life
AN: Did presidents change their financial habits after their time in the White House?
MG: Before Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, previous presidents went back to practicing law, wrote a book or died. But Ford changed that.
He built a substantial speaking career and served on corporate boards. At the time he did this, it was seen as a big risk. In fact, Carter made it clear when he left the presidency, he wasn’t going to take the same path as Ford.
Today post-presidential life has continued to evolve. Bill Clinton is still an in-demand speaker and the Obamas are building a media brand.
Some states have stopped disbursing funds to consumers via Biden-era rebate programs tied to home energy efficiency, due to a Trump administration freeze on federal funding enacted in January.
The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, had earmarked $8.8 billion of federal funds for consumers through two home energy rebate programs, to be administered by states, territories and the District of Columbia.
Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and Rhode Island — which are in various phases of rollout — have paused or delayed their fledgling programs, citing Trump administration policy.
The White House on Jan. 27 put a freeze on the disbursement of federal funds that conflict with President Trump’s agenda — including initiatives related to green energy and climate change — as a reason for halting the disbursement of rebate funds to consumers.
That fate of that freeze is still up in the air. A federal judge issued an order Tuesday that continued to block the policy, for example. However, it appears agencies had been withholding funding in some cases in defiance of earlier court rulings, according to ProPublica reporting.
In any event, the freeze — or the threat of it — appears to be impacting state rebate programs.
“Coloradans who would receive the Home Energy Rebate savings are still locked out by the Trump administration in the dead of winter,” Ari Rosenblum, a spokesperson for the Colorado Energy Office, said in an e-mailed statement.
The U.S. Department of Energy and the White House didn’t return a request for comment from CNBC on the funding freeze.
In some states, rebates are ‘currently unavailable’
Consumers are eligible for up to $8,000 of Home Efficiency Rebates and up to $14,000 of Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates, per federal law.
The rebates defray the cost of retrofitting homes and upgrading appliances to be more energy efficient. Such tweaks aim to cut consumers’ utility bills while also reducing planet-warming carbon emissions.
California, the District of Columbia, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina and Wisconsin had also launched phases of their rebate programs in recent months, according to data on an archived federal website.
All states and territories (except for South Dakota) had applied for the federal rebate funding and the U.S. Department of Energy had approved funding for each of them.
The Arizona Governor’s Office of Resiliency said its Home Energy Rebates programs would be paused until federal funds are freed up.
“Due to the current federal Executive Orders, memorandums from the White House Office of Management and Budget, and communications from the U.S. Department of Energy, funding for all Efficiency Arizona programs is currently unavailable,” it said in an announcement Friday.
Rhode Island paused new applications as of Jan. 27 due to “current uncertainty” with Inflation Reduction Act funding and executive orders, according to its Office of Energy Resources.
The Georgia Environmental Finance Authority launched a pilot program for the rebates in fall 2024. That program is ongoing, a spokesperson confirmed Monday.
However, the timeline for a full program launch initially planned for 2025 “is delayed until we receive more information from the U.S. Department of Energy,” the Georgia spokesperson explained in an e-mail.
However, not all states have pressed the pause button: It appears Maine is still moving forward, for example.
“The program remains open to those who are eligible,” Afton Vigue, a spokesperson for the Maine Governor’s Energy Office, said in an e-mail.
The status of rebates in the eight other states and districts to have launched their programs is unclear. Their respective energy departments or governor’s offices didn’t return requests for comment.
‘Signs of an interest’
While the Trump administration on Jan. 29 rescinded its memo ordering a freeze on federal grants and loans — two days after its initial release — the White House said the freeze nonetheless remained in full force.
Democratic attorneys general in 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming the freeze is unlawful. The White House has claimed it is necessary to ensure spending aligns with Trump’s presidential agenda.
David Terry, president of the National Association of State Energy Officials, said he is optimistic the rebate funding will be released to states soon.
“For these two particular programs, I do not think [the freeze] will stymie the programs,” Terry said. “I see signs of an interest in moving them forward and working with the states to implement them.”
In a new update released on Tuesday, the SSA said it will begin issuing retroactive payments in February. Most people will receive the one-time payment by the end of March, according to the agency.
The SSA plans to process the increase to monthly benefits starting in April.
The new timeline “supports President Trump’s priority to implement the Social Security Fairness Act as quickly as possible,” Social Security acting commissioner Lee Dudek said in a statement.
“The agency’s original estimate of taking a year or more now will only apply to complex cases that cannot be processed by automation,” Dudek said. “The American people deserve to get their due benefits as quickly as possible.”
Among those affected include some teachers, firefighters and police officers in certain states; federal employees who are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System and people who worked under foreign social security systems, according to the Social Security Administration.
What affected beneficiaries should know
Retroactive payments, which most people should receive by the end of March, will be deposited directly into bank accounts on file with the Social Security Administration.
All affected beneficiaries should receive a notice by mail from the Social Security Administration with details about their retroactive payment and new benefit amount. Those notices should come two to three weeks after the retroactive payments, according to the agency.
If your direct deposit information or current mailing address are up to date with the agency, no action is needed, according to the agency. If you want to double check the information the agency has on file, you may sign into your personal online account or call the agency.
If you want to ask about the status of your retroactive payment, the Social Security Administration urges you to hold off until April.
Beneficiaries should also wait until after they have received their April monthly check before contacting the agency to ask about their new benefit amount.
The average tax refund is 10.4% lower than last year according to the latest Internal Revenue Service data, and inflation is taking more of those dollars.
Bill Oxford | E+ | Getty Images
The average tax refund this year is down 32.4% compared to last year, according to early filing data from the IRS.
Tax season opened on Jan. 27, and the average refund amount was $2,169 as of Feb. 14, down from $3,207 about one year prior, the IRS reported on Friday. That figure reflects current-year refunds only.
However, the Feb. 14 filing data doesn’t include refunds receiving the earned income tax credit or additional child tax credit, which aren’t issued before mid-February, the IRS noted. The previous year’s filing data included tax returns claiming these credits. The value of these tax breaks can be substantial, even resulting in five-figure refunds, in some cases.
Typically, you can expect a refund when you overpay taxes throughout the year via paycheck withholdings or quarterly estimated payments. By comparison, there’s generally a tax bill when you haven’t paid enough.
Filing season numbers will ‘even out’
Although the average refund is currently smaller, “historically, filing season numbers even out as more tax returns come in,” according to the agency.
As of Feb. 14, the IRS received roughly 33 million individual tax returns of the more than 140 million it expects before the April 15 deadline.
As of Dec. 27, 2024, the average tax refund for the 2024 season was $3,138, compared to $3,167 in late December 2023.
It’s unclear exactly how the staffing reduction could impact future taxpayer service. But experts recommend double-checking returns for accuracy to avoid extra touch points with the agency.
“Don’t call the IRS looking for your refund,” said Tom O’Saben, an enrolled agent and director of tax content and government relations at the National Association of Tax Professionals.
Typically, the agency issues refunds within 21 days of a return’s receipt. But some returns require “additional review,” which can extend the timeline, according to the IRS.