It's not His house. It's the people's. If Mexico City
can keep the presidential palace open for tours during this recession, the
United States of America can keep the White House tours.
Re: UtahBlueDevilYou sure got one thing right about Obama
"speaches and talking to the public is his job".The trouble with
Obama is that it is the only thing he does as President. Speeches by the way
are nothing more than campaigning for policy, always have been and in Obamas
case he has not stopped campaigning. All speeches do is communicate something
in person to a small group of people. In todays world a President really does
not need to go anywhere to inform people. He has a massive media that will
carry his water. He would be a better President if he did not waste time
talking to small groups of people and spent more time talking to the people in
D.C. who can get things done.AND, if the next Republican President
finds himself with a 17 trillion dollar debt, I'd hope he too would save
money by limiting travel. A leader leads by setting an example.
Badger55 - oh, completely understood.... and it resulted in......m.g. scott - Perhaps the golf thing is true.... but the big difference on the
speeches, that is his job. And no, the security levels in the white house are
much different when it is open to the public, and when it is closed. And
again, on the cost thing.... tours is not the Presidents job.... speaches and
talking to the public... is his job. And if a Republican follows, it will be
their job too.Worf....because again, being head of state means
traveling to other countries... it is the their job to do that. How hard is
this to get. I can show you where head of state is detailed in the
constitution. I don't see where having an open house to the public is.
And I don't see where tours of the capital building is either. I like
them... but on the list of must do items as detailed by their job descriptions -
tour host isn't there.This is how petty the argument has
gotten. Fine - no travel. And no travel for the next republican president
too.... these Obama specific prohibitions just smell bad.
Let's tighten our belts, and sacrifice a little.Subtract one
vacation to India, and we have funds White House tours for decades.How hard is that.Use a search for "Obama vacation to
India", and check it out.
I do have to say that Obama should now not be going on golfing outings or be
traveling to different places on Air Force One just to give a 30 minute speech.
How would it look to do that and then say that there is no money for a White
House tour. I've been on one of those, and frankly the WH staff and a few
Secret Service agents who are all there anyway seemed to be running the show.
How much money could that really cost? Especially when compared to the tens of
thousands of dollars to fly AF1 and have all the usual staff and security along.
My first semester of college was filled with low grades. My parents were
furious, because they paid my tuition, and housing.I then took no
more money, and my future report cards were never discussed. I graduated totally
on my own without taking a dime from any one, and today I'm free from
loans, and debt. Freedom feels great.I wish our follow citizens
would do the same. We should depend on our own abilities to care for our
family, and welfare.Government should not be our parents, and budget
cuts would be a non-issue.Being a service, and not a
career,--government would rotate its personal every two years except for three
with the president.Oh, how simple it is.
That is funny. Obama on million dollar vacations while we can't afford
vaccinations for our children. In the end, I don't care that
much about his vacations but the government needs to cut more. Private
businesses have been doing it for several years, no reason the government
shouldn't be doing the same.
Let's see, the White House is open for tours for about 4 hours a day.
Roughly 30 Uniformed Secret Service agents run the tours. They make roughly 30
bucks an hour. So that means the Secret Service costs $3600.00 a day, which
translates into $18000.00 a week. Got this info from KSl this morning.I'm thinking that Obama's Florida golf junket cost way more than
that. Air Force one costs $179,750 per hour to operate according to USA Today.
Some peg the cost at $181,000.00 per hour.So a 3.5 hour trip to golf
with Tiger in Florida cost the taxpayers $629,123.00 while the plane is in the
air. That doesn't count the plane transporting the presidential limo or
Suburban, Security costs, etc.Seems like Obama ought to cut his
vacations, not White House tours.
Utah Blue devil,Abraham Lincoln was one of the most open presidents in
history. Often there would be tourists and "office seekers"(people
looking for employment) visiting the WH. Lincoln even held a state funeral
there for the first Officer to be killed in the Civil War.
It's not a true cut to the budget, when you increase the amount you're
going to borrow and spend and then cut back on that, but, still are spending
more than the year before. That's still an increase.I'll
dumb it down a bit. You hear of a great sale 50% off at a store. Before they
give a 50% off they raise the cost of the product 100%, and then take 50% off.
You're told that you're saving 50%, but, really you are paying 50%
more.Does that make sense?Maybe I'll put it in
terms obama supporters will understand. You are told that you're going to
get more food stamps and welfare each month. They increase it by 10% because
you're a human being and you're worth it. However, they tack on 25%
tax and limit what you can purchase. You now have less than what you had before.
They can tell you and the media backs them up that they increase your food
stamps by 10%. But, you're actually worse off than when you started.
In the private sector cuts are nothing new. The strategy is to cut out layers
of middle management, cut travel and manage the cost of equipment and supplies.
You double up the duties of staff to do their own filing and type their own
memos. And you watch to see when people go to lunch and return. In the private
sector you protect your core services from the cuts.But there is no
incentive in government. In fact, you want to prove to the taxpayers that you
need all that money you used to get.Obama himself has said we don't
have a spending problem. Until he recognizes that we do and starts acting
accordingly we will not fix our fiscal problems. Since Obama is the face of the
Executive Branch, he must direct the operational managers to cut out layers of
middle management, cut travel and manage costs. Try as he might to blame the
GOP, he's in charge of operations.
David... I appreciate your detailed response. I have not read that book, I will
have to look it up. But Lincoln also is an interesting person for the
congressman to have used. The world we live in is far different then the
Washington of the 1800'a. There was a lot of grand standing going on
between the two sides of the Potomac. Security around the White House was much
more lax then it is today, period. And in the end, the lack of security
resulted in Lincoln loosing his life.My main point is that every
crook and cranny should be looked at for savings. The White House tours cost
the American people millions. If that needs to go to save money - so be it.
There are a lot of other parts of Washington to see and do. If congress
doesn't want to put the cost of tours on the table as things to look at,
that is just an indication of where their priorities are. If to
balance the budget we had to open the Smithsonian at noon rather than 10am....
it should be considered. But it doesn't seem to be about the money to me.
You could tell business didn't think sequestration was a bad idea when the
DOW hit an all-time high AFTER the sequestration deadline.
BlueDevil,Lincoln didn't have "tourists" going through
the White House during the Civil War, but if you have read Team of Rivals you
will read that citizens visited Lincoln. Initially there were very few limits
upon when a citizen could pay President Lincoln a visit. Lincoln eventually
began restricting these types of visits to specific days and times so he could
focus more of his attention on the war effort and other presidential duties.The point is that the White House does not need to turn away these tours
even under the sequestration. Obama is simply exaggerating for the cameras. He
is still in campaign mode trying to earn himself points and weaken the
opposition, rather than doing the people's business. Obama
should be focused on solving the nation's spending problem, deficit, debt,
massive entitlement obligations, pending social security insolvency, revamping
the tax code, and unifying the country. Instead, he golfs, he blames, and he
campaigns.We got what we voted for and are the poorer for it.
Rather, I got what others voted for and we are all the poorer for it.
@canyontreker - I never said it was only one-sided. I was only explaining what
Harris was saying and what the article was stating. He wasn't accusing
Obama of cutting too much as Cowboy Dude was saying. It was that he was saying
half the cut would cause a problem but the full cut wouldn't. That is what
Harris was getting at. It didn't make sense.I agree all parties
are at fault and driving us to more problems. I wish those we elected (both
sides) would quit campaigning and blaming and work on compromise. That is what
they are supposed to do.
I remember when Prop 13 in California was proposed that local officials put up
signs on fire stations stating that if it passed, that particular station would
be closed. Well, it passed and the stations remained open. The
public may be guilible in some instances (voting for Obama for a 2nd term) but
Abraham Lincoln had it right when he said: "You can fool some of the people
all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool
all of the people all of the time." Obama specializes in
oratory, deception and never taking responsibility for a poor decision. Just
look at how many times the White House it at odds with the Congress, the people,
or common sense. Of course the media always gives him a pass.
" Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, also criticized Obama, saying that if Abraham
Lincoln could keep the White House open during the Civil War, Americans are
entitled to answers as to why Obama can't do the same during
sequestration.""Disappointed tourists could take solace in
the fact that, as House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, promised shortly after the
White House announcement, tours at the U.S. Capitol will continue."Surely this is a joke....that tourist visits is a high priority? And no, Lincoln didn't have tour groups going through the White House
during the war! He didn't have tourist groups going through, period. The
first tours offered were during Calvin Coolidge's term as President - which
was between 1923 and 1926.If this claim is so baseless, how in the
world is anyone supposed to trust any of the other "research" done in
this editorial. Besides that, don't just cut and paste from Politico. I
can read that site for myself. Put a little more effort in here, check the
facts, and then write something. And if a senator makes a quote that fits the
given narrative sounds just too good... it probably is.Politics gone
@sammysd - Same point on the other end. Harris is part of the group scaring us
to believe Obama is spend spend, yet some of his cuts are higher than what the
Republicans are demanding. It goes on and on.
@Cowbuy Dude - You are missing the point. Harris was not mad that Obama
proposed cutting twice as much money in his budget than the sequester cut. It
was that with Obama cutting twice the amount of money in his budget they were
still able to keep vaccinating all the children in Maryland. However Obama wants
everyone to believe that the sequester would require kids to lose their
vaccinations. If Obama's budget can be implemented with the cuts and not
affect vaccinations how can the sequester cut at half the dollar amount brought
impact the vaccinations negatively? Harris was using this to show the scare
tactics being used by the administration to force the House's hand and the
inconsistencies in Obama's statements.
Obama didn't tell the truth? How can that be. Like the sequester was not
his idea or so he said Oct.24, 2012. He blamed it on the Congress. Since then
Bob Woodward has said it was Obama's idea. Sen. Nelson D. said it was
Obama's idea. Three White House Officials have said Obama fibbed as it was
Obama's idea. Isn't that a sweet little way to say the President is a
(dare I say it) LIAR. But we never knew it until now. Hah Hah.
It's almost unbelievable to see the extent the current administration
(Obama) will go to to keep from spending less money! It's extremely
sad that individual agencies are being prohibited by the administration from
making the mandatory cuts in their areas where it will lessen the negative
impact. Obama purposely wants these budget cuts to negatively effect as many
people as possible, in order to try to loudly blame the GOP for all of it, to
consequently gain demo seats in the House of Representatives in 2014. He
obviously does not want any further checks and balances over his extremely
liberal agenda wish-list during his last few years in office.This is sadly
being turned into a political power-play. It's playing politics at the
expense of the American people. Hopefully, the voters will see right thru this
and it will backfire on president Obama. After all, it was Obama who
signed this sequester option into law in February of 2011. And now he refuses to
compromise his desire to raise taxes (again) in being able to work with Congress
to end the sequester. Tax and spend. Tax and spend. Will it ever end?
"So actually, the president cut twice as much in his budget. Can I assume
that the president's proposed cut would've reduced funding to 4,100
children in Maryland?" Harris asked.I don't usually defend
Obama, but this is what is wrong with Washington. Now, the President proposed to
cut too much? It's all a blame game that nobody can win.