Sequester Pain - why not the administration

[EagleKeeper]

As a spinoff from the thread where Obama has stated $55M to the Palestinians.

We are hearing via multiple media sources of items that the public see as face of the government being shuttered due to "lack of funds"

Yet this administration seems to feel that they have no accountability in reducing costs if it affects them.

One example is the WH tours. A rough estimate is that costs $4K in salaries and maybe another $1K in benefits per week.

This is a item that the public plans for; the public owns.
I am sure that there are plenty of other make work positions within the administration that do not involve interfacing with the public and are their for stand around purposes.

The Administration wasted how much extra money this week with the VP doing state visits in Europe with enterauge that accomplished nothing but a show of "force". WH blames State; yet State works for the WH.

How many staffers were actually needed and did work that the Embassy staffs could not have supported?

So my basic question is why is the administration considering itself to be exempt form any sequestering cuts.

Obama wants the people to suffer but not his royal party.

 

[Craig234]

Are we really going to have to put up with a thread for every item you disapprove of of thousands that are still spent, and noting one of thousands of cuts you disapprove of?

Yout tone doesn't help, the snarky hyperbole about 'royal party'. Do you care to post subtance that Obama REALLY makes his party royal, or admit you are just spouting?

Source for your estimate on WH costs? I've seen estimates ten times that on several news shows, including Up with Chris Hayes, citing Republicans who offered to pay it.

Can't Obama use less toilet paper? Can't they do yardwork less often at the Washington Memorial? Can't they make flags out of cheaper material?

That sort of whining about the cost of travel of the Vice President is useless, petty. We have a trillion dollar budget and can let our officials do their jobs.

Your post reminds me of a clip on Real Time with Bill Maher this week. Nancy Pelosi's daughter is a filmmaker and went to a very Republican, Obama-hating neighborhood and interviewed randome people about government spending. She asked person after person to get specific about cuts. Their position was spending should be cut that doesn't affect them.

She'd ask, cut social security? No. Cut Medicare? No. Cut the FBI? No. Cut the military? No. She went on and on and got a no to everything. Finally she'd ask 'what should we cut', and the only answer was 'we should cut the pay of the politicians in Washington'. That's the sort of uninformed rant you hear from a certain segment.

The salaries of Congress are a very, very tiny drop of spending, and cutting them is not only just spiteful, but harmful. Good people aren't going to serve for free - but those who would go there to serve others would. Like the former #2 leader among Republican Senators who oversaw banking legislation and just went to be a lobbyist for them. He'd happily serve for free iin the Senate - serving his future employers.

I notice you complain about $30 million for Palestinians, but not a word about $2 billion for Israelis. Shocking, shocking!

By the way, the administration does not 'consder itself to be exempt from any sequestration cuts. In fact, nearly all of the government is 'the administration'.

Another unsupported assertion. They choose where the cuts go. The scholarships for children of soldiers killed in war were just cut by a third, to make the Republicans' demanding sequestration happy. Does that make you happy to? The cuts are happening. They do not include the President, Vice President, Secretary of State doing their job visiting internationally.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Apparently you have a reading problem.

within this thread I am not complaining about the amount given to the Palestinians.

It is the hypocracy of the Obama administration making cuts to hurt people; making sure that those cuts are visible; yet having no issues on wasting much more money on show/tell trips carrying waste.

• Figure there are 6 staffers handling the tours
• I doubt that any were fired - if there is anywhere stated that these staffers were let go from government employment, produce it and I will be happy to rescind the insinution
• A staffer will make between 15-20 per hour - $800 per week
• That totals to $1000/wk with benefits

Now if Obama is stating that the WH will take the sequester hit by saving $24K per month, I question his sincerity in actually trying to help the country vs taking care of his royal administration.

How many people traveled with Biden and did not do anything that could not have been done back in the states? At what cost? Did anyone even think about questioning costs?
He is still playing partisan of he vs the people and punishing the people because he can, not because he must.

 

[Craig234]

Apparently you have a reading problem.

Don't make pathetic insults, instead make your argument if you think I made an error.

within this thread I am not complaining about the amount given to the Palestinians.

Mentioning Obama spending $30 (now $55) million on the Palestinians and immediately after complaining that Obama isn't restraining his spending because of the sequestration implies you are complaining about his spending on the Palestinians. You say that's not what you mean, and I'll accept your clarification, but that was a reasonable inference.

It is the hypocracy of the Obama administration making cuts to hurt people; making sure that those cuts are visible; yet having no issues on wasting much more money on show/tell trips carrying waste.

Do you know wha the word hypocrisy means? You did not use it correctly.

So, what you say should be cut is not what Obama does. No big surprise. You're entitled to your opinion; too bad it doesn't include ending sequestration.

[*]Figure there are 6 staffers handling the tours

No, that's not useful evidence for your claim, especially when the actual costs are easily available with a search.

Now if Obama is stating that the WH will take the sequester hit by saving $24K per month, I question his sincerity in actually trying to help the country vs taking care of his royal administration.

More useless snarky partisan spouting about 'royal'.

You could but do not make a reasonable point that the WH tour cuts might be political, intended to make a point about sequestration.

But EMPORER holier than thou Bohner and ROYAL POO BAH MCCONNEL think that they are anointed by the Pope to have absolute power and refuse to end sequestration.

Hey, didn't all that hyperbole improve the discussion?

He is still playing partisan of he vs the people and punishing the people because he can, not because he must.

Or REPUBLICANS are punishing the people with sequestration with massive real cuts mainly hurting the poor and Obama is making it harder for the rest of the country to ignore that.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Don't make pathetic insults, instead make your argument if you think I made an error.



Mentioning Obama spending $30 (now $55) million on the Palestinians and immediately after complaining that Obama isn't restraining his spending because of the sequestration implies you are complaining about his spending on the Palestinians. You say that's not what you mean, and I'll accept your clarification, but that was a reasonable inference.

As a spinoff from the thread where Obama has stated $55M to the Palestinians.

first line in my OP.

I did not want to derail the original reference thread where I had made such a statement.

The # 30 was incorrect, I modified it to be the porper amount and also included the reasoning in the edit.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Obama has the discretion on where the cuts are going;

He wants to punish the american public by shuttering the symbols of this country, even though such is not saving money. It reduces income to the governement and hurts the small business that depend on visitors.

Now:
Taking up your challenge on the actual costs:
You are correct, my estimate was way off!

What is now even more ironic is that the tours are not guided by a staffer, but self guided.

In other words; NO government resources are being spent to provide the tours.

So where are the savings or sequester spending cuts that he blames this on?

OR

Is this just a vindictive response to the country by one that thinks they do not need to account for spending.

 

[fskimospy]

Apparently you have a reading problem.

within this thread I am not complaining about the amount given to the Palestinians.

It is the hypocracy of the Obama administration making cuts to hurt people; making sure that those cuts are visible; yet having no issues on wasting much more money on show/tell trips carrying waste.

• Figure there are 6 staffers handling the tours
• I doubt that any were fired - if there is anywhere stated that these staffers were let go from government employment, produce it and I will be happy to rescind the insinution
• A staffer will make between 15-20 per hour - $800 per week
• That totals to $1000/wk with benefits

Now if Obama is stating that the WH will take the sequester hit by saving $24K per month, I question his sincerity in actually trying to help the country vs taking care of his royal administration.

How many people traveled with Biden and did not do anything that could not have been done back in the states? At what cost? Did anyone even think about questioning costs?
He is still playing partisan of he vs the people and punishing the people because he can, not because he must.

I sincerely have no idea how you could possibly make a judgment on the necessity of personnel on Biden's trip. There is no roster that I am aware of and a great deal of the business that went on there is unlikely to be publicly available.

This is entirely speculation on your part, so it seems odd to make such a big deal out of something that you know so little about.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Near as I can tell, this entire thread is a red herring with no real foundation.

1. The US has given money to the UNRWA every year since, I believe 1950. That's 64 consecutive years of giving millions of dollars to this program.

2. The sequester cuts are based on percentages. All that matters is what amount of funds were scheduled to go to UNRWA this year, what amount is actually given, and whether the difference corresponds to the percentage that other programs have been cut. $55 million is far less than we gave them last year, so we can't tell anything from that number.

3. If we shouldn't be giving money to UNRWA, then that's a discussion that should be had regardless of the sequester.

4. If the government is being forced to cut back across the board, there is no reason why the White House shouldn't also cut back. And if they are, it should be non-essential activities, which tours of the White House most certainly are. (Especially since this isn't something casual tourists can take part in anyway.)

5. I have yet to see a single reasonable argument as to why it is any worse for "visible" programs to be cut than "invisible" ones. Near as I can tell, this issue is purely partisan bickering.

6. The sequester came about solely because of the Republicans' decision to hold the debt ceiling hostage two years ago. Obama did not want any spending cuts in the White House, nor anywhere else. The GOP loved the idea of the sequester, and they agreed to its terms. They are also supposed to like seeing the federal government cut programs, so I don't see what they have to complain about here.

 

[Craig234]

Obama has the discretion on where the cuts are going;

No, he doesn't.

He has limited discretion about where they go within specific areas - but he can't take a cut for the secret service buget (WH tours) and apply it to Joe Biden's visit to Europe.

He wants to punish the american public by shuttering the symbols of this country, even though such is not saving money. It reduces income to the governement and hurts the small business that depend on visitors.

Republicans want to 'punish the American public' by shifting their wealth to the most rich, but specifically in this case by cutting substantive needs for the poor, like food for children.

Obama doesn't 'want to shutter the symbols of this country', the Republicans do; get rid of sequestration, tours are back. Obama had to make cuts to the Secret Service spending; that's where he did it instead of furloughs on other service. If it involved haivng some of cuts that are so much on the poor to be felt by some others - good. Wow, they squeal about a tiny few people losing the tours, while they not only don't give a crap about cuts for the poor, they support them. Too bad.

On the one hand, I appreciate the symbolic value of the tours. On the other, it's good to see the symbolic pain slightly affecting some people who don't care about cuts for the poor.

Now:
Taking up your challenge on the actual costs:
You are correct, my estimate was way off!

What is now even more ironic is that the tours are not guided by a staffer, but self guided.

In other words; NO government resources are being spent to provide the tours.

So where are the savings or sequester spending cuts that he blames this on?

OR

Is this just a vindictive response to the country by one that thinks they do not need to account for spending.

First, how hard is it for you to google on the cost of the WH tours - the extra secret service assigned while they are operating? Apparently pretty difficult.

Let's give you one more try, and if you still can't do it, I'll help.

Second, what are you talking about account for spending? How does Obama "not need to account for spending"?

Maybe you mean Bush, who put his massive spending increases off the budget to not account for spending - wars off-budgets, Medicare drugs off-budget.

Cost of massive 100% borrowed tax cuts for the rich hidden by making them 'temporary'. You meant Bush's not needing to account for spending as he INCREASED the deficit while Obama has about cut it in half even while dealing with the huge economic crash Bush handed him?

 

[Abraxas]

We are hearing via multiple media sources of items that the public see as face of the government being shuttered due to "lack of funds"

While technically true, you miss the underlying reason why it is technically true. Yes, multiple media outlets reported the same story of an email that leaked out of that said the Obama administration had ordered them to make the cuts as public and as painful as possible. This email from a single mid level staffer was later repudiated by their boss and so while this has been a consistent talking point, there is no evidence it is actually what is going on.

Yet this administration seems to feel that they have no accountability in reducing costs if it affects them.

If you have a proposal I am willing to listen.

One example is the WH tours. A rough estimate is that costs $4K in salaries and maybe another $1K in benefits per week.

Where is your source for these numbers? Off the top of my head, I would expect a considerable Secret Service presence necessary to make sure nobody slips away from the tour group or leaves behind anything that doesn't belong there. Likewise security systems like metal detectors and the people to operate them and are also likely to add up.

A brief search to confirm I wasn't talking out of my butt confirms your numbers are flat wrong.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...nceled-white-house-tours-save-74k-a-week?lite

As opposed to 5k a week, the number the Secret Service came up with is 74k a week.

This is a item that the public plans for; the public owns.
I am sure that there are plenty of other make work positions within the administration that do not involve interfacing with the public and are their for stand around purposes.

Last I checked, the public nominally owns everything about the government. Why is interfacing with the public more valuable than other duties of the executive? How are tours interfacing with the public anyways as nobody in a White House tour is going to meet nor speak with the President or anyone else who matters? What other programs?

I see a lot of vague, nonspecific insinuation here but very little concrete. Do you have anything to back this up?

The Administration wasted how much extra money this week with the VP doing state visits in Europe with enterauge that accomplished nothing but a show of "force". WH blames State; yet State works for the WH.

For what? You tell me how much money, you said it was wasted. State visits are generally used to build relations with other countries which is generally considered an important function. Are you saying we shouldn't send our leaders overseas to meet with foreign leaders and if not what are you saying?

How many staffers were actually needed and did work that the Embassy staffs could not have supported?

I don't know, do you?

So my basic question is why is the administration considering itself to be exempt form any sequestering cuts.

You've provided no evidence they do. Show me what programs they are running that they should be cutting and aren't.

Obama wants the people to suffer but not his royal party.

Please provide evidence Obama wants people to suffer.

So far I see a lot of hyperbole, unsupported assumptions, partisan jabs, and misinformation but precious little in the way of facts, evidence, or logical argument,

 

[Agent11]

Every time the president or the vp spend a night abroad it costs upwards of half a million dollars, for security and other expenses.

In this age of telecommunication is there any excuse for this, especially when we have a deficit?

 

[Craig234]

Every time the president or the vp spend a night abroad it costs upwards of half a million dollars, for security and other expenses.

In this age of telecommunication is there any excuse for this, especially when we have a deficit?

Please draw me a graph showing how large a part of our spending White House travel is.

 

[Agent11]

That isn't the point, anyone who has to balance a budget knows that unnecessary expenses add up.

If they are serious about balancing the budget why not teleconference instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a one day trip?

It is simply a very visible example. Our government is wasteful.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You can't teleconference diplomacy.

 

[Whiskey16]

One example is the WH tours. A rough estimate is that costs $4K in salaries and maybe another $1K in benefits per week.

This is a item that the public plans for; the public owns.
I am sure that there are plenty of other make work positions within the administration that do not involve interfacing with the public and are their for stand around purposes.

Tours are for you -- the public -- it's a museum.

Or am I out to lunch and you are not considering White House tours?

 

[Agent11]

You can't teleconference diplomacy.

I find it hard to believe that.

 

[Craig234]

I find it hard to believe that.

I'm still waiting for the graph. You refuse to make it?

You're right. Obama's trip to the Middle East would be no different with a phone call.

You do understand they also make calls, right?

That Obama was able in person to get Netenyahu to conference call Turkey with him where Netenyahu apologized for their actions a few years ago?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Can an administration supporter explain why the need for so many staffers for the trips abroad. And the need to have the high-end rooms for all those staffers. What is Biden doing that is so critical that requires more than 100 people to support him.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, I can. Will I? No. It's a non-issue. I don't like wasting time on nothing little nit-picking. Get back to me after we save hundreds of billions negotiating drug prices.

 

[Agent11]

That would require legislation.

 

[Craig234]

That would require legislation.

So did the sequestration and all spending.

 

[Bowfinger]

Can an administration supporter explain why the need for so many staffers for the trips abroad. And the need to have the high-end rooms for all those staffers. What is Biden doing that is so critical that requires more than 100 people to support him.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is in any way unique to this administration? If not, asking for an "administration supporter" to justify this is empty partisanship. If you are sincerely interested in understanding more about such government trips, you might check the White House web site to see if they offer an agenda. My guess is that in addition to Biden, his security, and a small support staff, there are probably delegations from multiple agencies meeting with their counterparts and interested parties for many different reasons. I suspect you may also find with a bit of research that this sort of group travel has been standard practice for decades.

 

[Agent11]

Doesn't matter if it's unique. I don't care how many staffers Clinton had, he had a surplus.

Reality beckons. It's time to stop with the petty squabbling and fix shit.

 

[Craig234]

Darn it Obama stop using so much toilet paper. We have to pay for that!

And that White House Christmas Tree - get an artificial one, save money!

 

[Bowfinger]

Doesn't matter if it's unique. I don't care how many staffers Clinton had, he had a surplus.

Perhaps. What is the basis for your opinion? Do you have experience in such trips, or can you cite someone who does? Is there any factual basis for it at all, or given that you single out Democrats, can we assume your motivation is partisan? Did the Bush administration have fewer such trips, with smaller groups?

Reality beckons. It's time to stop with the petty squabbling and fix shit.

Please clarify. It's not clear if you're referring to Biden's trip, cancelling White House tours, or something else. What, specifically, are you proposing to fix, and how?