Updates
June 15, 2013: President O'Bama's African trip this month will cost $100 million. If they could cut $4 million from the African trip, they could fund one year of White House tours at $75,000/week.
March 28, 2013: Three percent of the $500 million being given to the Palestinians leaders this week would fund 5 years of White House tours. All $500 million would fund 150 years of tours. This $880,000 grant by the US government to study snail sex would fund almost five months of White House tours. And if lucky, one might even see some snail sex in the Lincoln bedroom.
March 17, 2013: folks are starting to catch on. Presidential golf outings around the world continue, but White House tours are too expensive to continue. Now, nailing it, The (London) Telegraph is reporting: if you are rich, not only can you still "tour" the White House, you will get a VIP tour guide. But, if your are an elementary school student or poor, heaven, forbid, you are out of luck: the White House is closed to visitors.
Since last weekend, Mr and Mrs Regular Citizen have been denied the access people used to be granted to tour the White House, purportedly because of the clampdown on federal spending since the "sequester" that imposed cuts across the board.
These tours, most recently guided by volunteers though monitored by paid Secret Service staff, have been an American tradition since John and Abigail Adams, the first White House residents, personally hosted receptions for the public.
And their cancellation is an austerity measure that saves a pittance, while more frivolous taxpayer funding for items like the White House dog walker continues.
Later, 3:42: already we're starting to see the White House realize that it blundered. The White House says that "limited tours" will likely be considered -- school tours, etc., -- but "general tours" are still canceled. And, so it goes. Decisions are arbitrary and capricious.
Later, 3:04: the story that the president tried to spin (see below) did not ring true, which was the point of the original post. Indeed, it turns out, the story was not true. President Obama said the decision did not get up to the White House. Does one really think that this decision would have been made without Michelle's input? In fact, his press secretary says that the decision was indeed a White House decision.
Of course, this whole thing is a Hitchcockian MacGuffin, but it's not the sort of MacGuffin the president would like to see in his movie. The longer this MacGuffin plays out, the more this story will take on a life of its own. It will get more importance than it deserves (as in "none") and will become seen as the action of an angry, capricious, and arbitrary president. Don't let this influence your vote. Regardless of how one sees the canceled White House tours, the question remains: will the tours be back on by the end of summer?
From wiki:
The MacGuffin technique is common in films, especially thrillers. Usually the MacGuffin is the central focus of the film in the first act, and then declines in importance as the struggles and motivations of characters play out.
Original Post
First, the results of the old poll, looking at the value of Chesapeake's acreage in southwestern North Dakota:
1) < $2,500/acre -- 33%Now, the new poll. This is has absolutely nothing to do with the Bakken.
2) $2,500/acre -- 12%
3) $5,000/acre -- 19%
4) > $5,000/acre -- 30%
5) Other -- 6%
Something does not ring true here. I would assume protecting the president is pretty high on the list of federal priorities. But the 2% federal spending cut -- due to the sequester -- means that the Secret Service had to furlough some folks. And by furloughing those folks, they had to cancel White House tours.
That alone is pretty incredible: cutting Secret Service. Note: the military was exempt from cutting active duty personnel. The exemptions are pretty extensive, by the way.
This, too, does not ring true: the president of the most powerful nation in the world does not have the "power" or authority, to do any of the following: a) exempt the Secret Service; b) direct Homeland Security to find other places to make the spending cuts; or, c) direct that White House tours will continue, though perhaps limiting them to five days/week rather than six.
Something does not ring true here. The Weekly Standard is reporting:
President Obama says he's not the one who canceled the White House tours. He made the comments in an interview with ABC News.
"[O]ne more question about the spending cuts," said the interviewer from ABC News. "You’ve been takin’ a lotta heat for this cancellation of the White House tours. They get– the Secret Service says it’s costs about $74,000 a week. Was canceling them really necessary?"
"You know, I have to say this was not– a decision that went up to the White House. But th– what the Secret Service explained to us was that they’re gonna have to furlough some folks. What furloughs mean is– is that people lose a day of work and a day of pay," Obama said, in response.
"And, you know, the question for them is, you know, how deeply do they have to furlough their staff and is it worth it to make sure that we’ve got White House tours that means that you got a whole bunch of families who are depending on a paycheck who suddenly are seein’––a 5% or 10%– reduction in their pay. Well, what I’m asking them is are there ways, for example, for us to accommodate school groups– you know, who may have traveled here with some bake sales. Can we make sure that– kids, potentially, can– can still come to tour?"Wanna bet the tours are back on by the end of summer?
So, the poll is simple this time:
Will the White House tours be up and running again, by the end of summer? It is my understanding the spending cuts are for the rest of the year.
