Sequester Pain - why not the administration

[Agent11]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/22/travel-with-the-veep-is-magnifique/?iref=allsearch

Here is the source regarding the expenses of Biden's trip.

I see both sides too willing to play political games, too willing to refuse to take the simplest actions to seriously address real issues unless they feel the need to make a political statement, and then if action is taken it is guaranteed to be largely symbolic... And both parties supporters are too willing to give their own side a pass on too many issues.

I was not a fan of Bush, but he is not president now. It does not matter how many trips he took overseas, how many carriers he landed on or how many staffers he housed in motel rooms. I would imagine it is roughly similar to Obama's figures, no one is disputing that.

Regarding the economic situation now that information is irrelevant. The goal should not be to assign blame or excuse behavior but to encourage the administration to spend less where it is feasible to do so, being as every one has made it the issue to du jour... And being as we are hemorrhaging money while fighting a war.

 

[Craig234]

Still waiting for the graph.

 

[Agent11]

Make one yourself then.

 

[EagleKeeper]

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.

It is not that it is unique or not. It is that tbe administration has said that cuts have to be made per the sequestration. Is the extravaganza an example of having to cut?

It seems like every other ruling group. Let the people suffer, we should not have to.

Liberals complain about NK rulers living it up while people starve.

This is the same. Money wasted should have been used for the people. There is no concern over costs being spent for show and tell.

The administration and Congress both feel that they can be extravagant at the taxpayer expense.

800+ room nights at the best hotel on the area for a three day visit.

That is 200+ people. No double bunking allowed in those types of hotels.

Biden, security and staff, maybe 20 bodies total. Each agency needs 3-5 people at most, rest of staff is back home with the details at their fingertips.

This was a junket for 100+ people at the GS 15+ levels.

The people must suffer, not the royals and their enterage

 

[fskimospy]

It is not that it is unique or not. It is that tbe administration has said that cuts have to be made per the sequestration. Is the extravaganza an example of having to cut?

It seems like every other ruling group. Let the people suffer, we should not have to.

Liberals complain about NK rulers living it up while people starve.

This is the same. Money wasted should have been used for the people. There is no concern over costs being spent for show and tell.

The administration and Congress both feel that they can be extravagant at the taxpayer expense.

Oh give me a break. First, you can't actually show how any money was wasted on it because you still have literally no idea what was going on there. You have just made an unfounded assumption and run with it.

Secondly, the comparison between the US and North Korea is way out of line and hyperbolic. If you're genuinely interested in allocating more money for the poor, lets talk about that, as I'm for a massive increase. If your concern for spending money on poverty stricken individuals only extends as far as hotel rooms for a VP diplomatic trip, that's pretty weak.

 

[Craig234]

Make one yourself then.

OK. You supply the cost of White House travel. With all the complaining, you know it right?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Oh give me a break. First, you can't actually show how any money was wasted on it because you still have literally no idea what was going on there. You have just made an unfounded assumption and run with it.

Secondly, the comparison between the US and North Korea is way out of line and hyperbolic. If you're genuinely interested in allocating more money for the poor, lets talk about that, as I'm for a massive increase. If your concern for spending money on poverty stricken individuals only extends as far as hotel rooms for a VP diplomatic trip, that's pretty weak.

Any type of discussions involve a half dozen people; at most 20 potential discussions going on. Explain why /what 100+ staffers are doing standing around. Those extra staffers are not authorized to be policy makers or enter into any agreement. Any info that they can provide could have come from back on their offices.

What is wrong with the NK reference? Fully accurate. Rulers take what the want and do not concern themselves with the welfare if the people.

My concern is the attitude.

The administration wants the people to suffer yet refuses to have any accountability for costs/reductions of it's own.

The sequester was supposed to cut a certain percentage of expenses. Shifting cuts to make political points and then demonstrating that they do not need to tighten their belts is WRONG!!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

When Obama didn't go to Israel, the right complained that this showed he didn't support Israel.

Now Obama goes to Israel, and they complain that he's wasting money.

What do they expect him to do? Go by freight ship and stay in youth hostels?

Of course if he did that, they'd complain that he was "cheapening the presidency".

The bottom line is that the important thing for these people is whining about Obama. They start with that, and then try to find something to justify it. And since facts are entirely optional to this crowd, they always do find something to whine about.

 

[fskimospy]

Any type of discussions involve a half dozen people; at most 20 potential discussions going on. Explain why /what 100+ staffers are doing standing around. Those extra staffers are not authorized to be policy makers or enter into any agreement. Any info that they can provide could have come from back on their offices.

What is wrong with the NK reference? Fully accurate. Rulers take what the want and do not concern themselves with the welfare if the people.

My concern is the attitude.

The administration wants the people to suffer yet refuses to have any accountability for costs/reductions of it's own.

The sequester was supposed to cut a certain percentage of expenses. Shifting cuts to make political points and then demonstrating that they do not need to tighten their belts is WRONG!!

What are you basing any of these estimates of personnel requirements on? My guess is absolutely nothing.

 

[Agent11]

Obama going to Israel ≠ Biden going to France.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If Biden's trip to France was a boondoggle, then that should be criticized on its own merits. It has nothing to do with the sequester.

My guess is that it wasn't strictly necessary. My further guess is that all presidential administrations spend millions of dollars on travel that isn't strictly necessary, and that a lot of people only care about that when it is the other party that is in power.

Given the utter lack of factual basis to it, this whole thread is IMO transparently partisan nonsense.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is a worthwhile read for anyone who actually cares about the truth with regard to presidential travel expenditures.

 

[Agent11]

I think people are getting hung up on whether it is the status quo to spend so much on what are essentially PR events when the real issue is whether the same work could be done without the expense, and limit expensive foreign visits to only the most necessary events.

Being as the president cancelled White House tours and released detained illegal aliens recently for budgetary grandstanding purposes I think it is fair to question the Administrations use of funds.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's always fair to question the administration's use of funds.

But the information I have seen suggests that the entire point of the sequester is that all departments are inflexibly cut by a percentage. Is there any basis for believing that Obama has the ability to cut more in one area and less in another?

 

[Fern]

It's always fair to question the administration's use of funds.

But the information I have seen suggests that the entire point of the sequester is that all departments are inflexibly cut by a percentage. Is there any basis for believing that Obama has the ability to cut more in one area and less in another?

Uh, yeah. Boehner rearranged the House budget to keep the Capital tours open.

I didn't the sequestration cuts detailed cuts as much as you make out. And I think Obama's decision to cut WH tours itself demonstrate the flexibility he has for departs under his admin.

By my calc, keeping the WH tours open all year would cost approx $3.8 million ($74K per week). That's a piddly amount by Washington standards and could easily be found.

BTW: I've been curious exactly what those in the SS who are no longer working on WH tours are now doing?

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Uh, yeah. Boehner rearranged the House budget to keep the Capital tours open.

So does Obama cutting tours mean he's grandstanding, or does Boehner "rearranging the budget" to not cut tours mean he is? All depends on how you look at it.

By my calc, keeping the WH tours open all year would cost approx $3.8 million ($74K per week). That's a piddly amount by Washington standards and could easily be found.

And I see them as wholly unnecessary and ridiculously expensive; and thus, not only something that very well should be among the first programs curtailed during budget cuts, but that I'd like to see axed permanently.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
BTW: I've been curious exactly what those in the SS who are no longer working on WH tours are now doing?

Fern

I read that they've been reassigned to other areas to reduce overtime expenses and mitigate the impact of furloughs.

 

[Craig234]

Uh, yeah. Boehner rearranged the House budget to keep the Capital tours open.

I didn't the sequestration cuts detailed cuts as much as you make out. And I think Obama's decision to cut WH tours itself demonstrate the flexibility he has for departs under his admin.

By my calc, keeping the WH tours open all year would cost approx $3.8 million ($74K per week). That's a piddly amount by Washington standards and could easily be found.

BTW: I've been curious exactly what those in the SS who are no longer working on WH tours are now doing?

Fern

Well, if you followed any of the sequestration news, you would know that the SS had to make cuts because of the sequester, and they were looking at having to furlough agents on essential duties one day a week, and by cutting the WH tours they were able to reduce those furloughs. They can't just 'find the money', again if you followed news, the cuts can't just be shuffled around everywhere.

Ironically, Republicans decided they wanted to give Obama that power, but for political reasons to that every cut they could say 'Obama chose to cut that'.

Obama said he's against that move.

That's what Republicans are trying to do on WH tours, unsurprisingly you're helping them.

 

[Craig234]

Uh, yeah. Boehner rearranged the House budget to keep the Capital tours open.

Yes, priorities for Republicans - keeping the perk they get of handing out White House tours is more important to them than furlouging Secret Service on other duties - nevermind food for children, in the sequestration they caused, they're happy to have the poor take the hits - but not their perks. And a chance to attack Obama, can't pass up that.

 

[Craig234]

OK. You supply the cost of White House travel. With all the complaining, you know it right?

Still waiting, agent11.

With all the complaining about the issue of WH travel, you do have the amount, right?

 

[Agent11]

What are you on about? Try scrolling up.

 

[Craig234]

What are you on about? Try scrolling up.

You scroll up. Post 31.

 

[Agent11]

Well, if you followed any of the sequestration news, you would know that the SS had to make cuts because of the sequester, and they were looking at having to furlough agents on essential duties one day a week, and by cutting the WH tours they were able to reduce those furloughs. They can't just 'find the money', again if you followed news, the cuts can't just be shuffled around everywhere.

Ironically, Republicans decided they wanted to give Obama that power, but for political reasons to that every cut they could say 'Obama chose to cut that'.

Obama said he's against that move.

That's what Republicans are trying to do on WH tours, unsurprisingly you're helping them.

That is why I am upset with him. Obama is in his second term and he is still playing stupid political games.

 

[Craig234]

That is why I am upset with him. Obama is in his second term and he is still playing stupid political games.

Perhaps you didn't read it correctly - I primarily pointed out that *Republicans* 'played a political game' trying to make Obama look bad for every cut made.

You might say that Obama is 'playing a political game' by shutting down White House tours over other cuts to the Secret Service - you might be wrong - or by the fact he doesn't want to play their game and make all the cuts 'less painful' as if they're ok, wanting to keep the pressure on a repeal - but the primary 'game players' are clearly the Republicans.

 

[Agent11]

It is Obama's second term. He should be concerned with getting shit done, not what the mean Republicans will say about him.