Debate: Should U.S. taxpayers pay for former presidents?

A friend of mine forwarded me the 2013 General Services Administration report. The document shows that U.S. taxpayers are paying $3.4 million per year to look after Presidents George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush - presently taxpayers have had to pay $1.4 billion on the current occupants in the White House. With all of this debt and deficits inflicting the U.S., it got me thinking: why should taxpayers pay for the extravagant life of former presidents? They served in office for four to eight years and earned a hefty salary and everything was paid for by the taxpayer. This became mandated following the decline of President Harry Truman, who suffered financial disarray. Years later, it doesn't seem like the Bush family, the Clintons or now the Obamas will go through any economic turmoil. What do you think? Should former presidents be subsidized?