bluecherry Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/white-house-donald-trump_n_2866599.html So, you guys have heard by now that they decided to stop doing tours of the White House, citing budget cuts and such, right? Something not being funded with stolen money anymore is never bad news. I did wonder why they cut that program in particular now though given how minute the cost of that was compared to the overall costs incurred by the current government. Heck, why not even keep them open for a fee? It's not like shutting them down entirely lets anybody in that a fee would have kept out if somebody thinks it would look bad to let wealthier people into the White House rather than poorer people. The article cites expression by a speaker for the government that they find it sad that the staff members who are involved in the tours will be having that money cut from their income. So, it looks like a private citizen offered to voluntarily fund these tours of the White House. Sounds like good news, right? No theft, no loss of something that a lot of people liked, the person in question can clearly afford to do this. Win/win. A no brainer. But wait! Nope! The offer was shot down! A speaker on behalf of the administration claimed that they wouldn't accept the offer for a person to fund the tours voluntarily because "that's not how it works." Really? We don't want your money willingly, we only want it by force? Why on earth would the relevant government officials reject an offer to allow them to keep doing something they say they want to keep doing? Oh, wait . . . "What we have to do is deal with the sequester" "take additional furloughs to essentially pay for Congress’ inaction," "others were glossing over a larger point that the White House has long tried to make: that the consequences of sequestration are real." "It’s why we should have avoided the sequester to begin with." Shutting down tours of the White House is supposed to make people upset, get them mad about budget cuts taking away things they like. Who is responsible for budget cuts? Those evil fiscal conservatives. They just want to take away all these nice things from the general public, aka voters. Voluntary funding keeping the tours going gets in the way of an effort to make people look unfavorably upon Obama's political opponents. When it is a rich person and a republican to boot volunteering to fund these things, that would especially go against the message that greedy rich people are just trying to deny everybody else anything nice, that the only way to get and keep good things in life for everybody else is by forcing these other people. The speaker for the government claims that they don't want to shut down tours of the White House, but it isn't looking that way. People associated with the political left, like Obama is, generally seem to claim that they want to help people. They argue that their policies are the way to achieve that. Taking away something people like just to try to make your political opponents look bad speaks to a very different motive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 That's the thing about these types of budgets that even college kids know. You never admit you can do something without the money or you won't get it. You always threaten to cut the most important program when faced with budget cuts. If the government paid for everyone's food and was faced with a budget cut, the first thing they'd threaten to cut would be baby formula. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Yes, Thomas Sowell makes the same point here as highlighted by Don Watkins at Laissez Faire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.