Because Shut-Up Is Why!


Jay Carney Did Not Like ABC Reporter’s Question About Cost of Obama’s Golf Outings: ‘You’re Trivializing an Impact Here’

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Wednesday refused to entertain a question from ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl regarding the cost of one of President Barack Obama’s common golf outings.

Several reporters were questioning Carney over the Obama administration’s decision to cancel White House tours in order to avoid Secret Service furloughs and cutbacks due to sequestration cuts.

“The Secret Service told us that the tours cost $74,000 a week. How much is it going to cost for the President to travel later this week to Illinois?” Karl asked.

“Well, the president is the President of the United States,” Carney replied bluntly. “And he is elected to represent all of the people. And he travels around the country, appropriately. I don’t have a figure on the cost of presidential travel. It is obviously something, as every President deals with because of security and staff, a significant undertaking. But the President has to travel around the country. He has to travel around the world. That is part of his job.”

“How much does it cost for him to go and play golf?” Karl followed up.

“Jon, again, you’re trivializing an impact here. People will lose their jobs. Three-quarters of a million people will lose their job,” Carney said.

“This is about choices. You have a certain amount of–” Karl began before being interrupted.

“Right. The law stipulates what the costs will be for each agency. Those jobs will be lost, okay? And you can report on White House tours, or you can find out what the impacts are out in the real world, additional impacts are. This is a real-world impact here, and it is unfortunate. And it is an unhappy choice,” Carney added.

Carney went on to say “Congress made this choice” in regards to sequestration. Carney never did respond to Karl’s question about the cost of Obama’s golf trips.


So a few people living off the public teat will lose their jobs? A bunch more will take a pay cut? Boo-fucking-hoo. Welcome to the party, pal. That’s what the rest of us in the private sphere have had to deal with all our lives. Every one of us has had to figure out how to stretch a dollar to cover a budget.

The issue of how the Obama administration chooses to prioritize a very mild reduction in the size of the budgets they anticipated is very much a valid area for questions. And some of those questions concern how much we are spending on various things. Like travel and recreation costs for the president and his family.

Exit question: How many of Obama’s official trips are really necessary?


About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Sequester. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Because Shut-Up Is Why!

  1. myiq2xu says:

    I’m not sure what the average pay for government employees is but it’s quite a bit more than similar employment in the private sector.

    But let’s just use $50,000 a year as typical. If they all take a 10% cut in hours (which they won’t) That means a pay cut of $5000 per year or a little over $400 a month. But they’ll still be making $3,750 a month/$45,000 per year.

    And we’ll be paying it.

    • Mary says:

      Every time I think of a $45,000-$50,000 government employee, I think of the obscenely frivolous “conferences” they attend, at our expense, in Hawaii and other locations—all expenses paid by the taxpayer.

      Not feeling very generous about their little bitty loss in some pay this morning.

      Aren’t these the same people who are exempt from Obamacare?

    • Somebody says:

      The problems are NOT with the rank and file federal employee. Many of those employees perform vital jobs that keep all of you safe in many ways. They are not parasites at the public teat.

      Are there some that should be shown the door, yep. Are there some that are promoted when they shouldn’t be, you betcha. But the vast majority are just out there doing their job, a job for which they are thankful.

      I don’t know any rank and file federal employees that go to luxury conferences. I know about some managers that do. Ah federal managers, now there is an area where some fat could be trimmed. The feds have a lot of middle managers, far more than private industry. Same goes for the executive level.

      Leave the worker bees alone, damn. I don’t know about other agencies, but in the FAA there are vacancies that never get filled in the worker bee ranks…….they only fill a few when the ranks get too low. However, the manager ranks are always full and sometimes they have more than they’re supposed to, but they just shuffle paperwork to “take care of it”.

      We’re not happy about the paycut, who would be, but let me tell you something. My husband hasn’t really mentioned the paycut as far as the impact of sequestration, you know what he does talk about??? He talks about his concern on air traffic operations, he thinks about ways to utilize new technology to help mitigate delays. He talks about the safety of the flying public…….he hasn’t brought up the pay cut.

      BTW, Bush cut all the controllers pay for years, the younger ones had their pay cut in half……you didn’t know that did you? We’re quite accustomed to being a political whipping post.

      As far the WH tours, if any of you believe that one single secret service agent assigned to the WH is being furloughed I’ve got some nice swamp land I’d like to discuss with you. The WH tour is run by volunteers, the closing of the tours is purely political.

      • myiq2xu says:

        I’m not blaming government employees per se. The vast majority of them are good people filling necessary jobs. But govt. employees aren’t subject to the same market pressures as private sector employees are. That results in bloated payrolls.

        But the worst fat is not in the rank and file, it’s in supervisor and administrative levels. There are way too many overpaid chiefs for the number of Indians.

        • myiq2xu says:

          There is a natural tendency for administrators to protect their own jobs and to believe they are more valuable than other employees.

          When a business payroll becomes too bloated and they have to cut fat or go broke. But if they lay off the workforce and keep the managers they still go out of business.

          In government THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE to be efficient and productive. In fact, if your department comes in under budget for this year they cut your budget for next year. If you come in over budget they increase your budget for next year.

        • Somebody says:

          OK we are in agreement then. Yes the government has far too many chiefs and not enough Indians, I said basically the same thing.

          Also, absolutely true if a department doesn’t spend all of their budget it will be cut the following year…….so they spend it all and get an increase, it’s madness.

          There are so many things that need to be changed and if properly protected the rank and file employees could do a pretty good job of pointing out a lot of waste.

  2. HELENK says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/barack-obama-travel-costs_n_1457083.html

    do not usually go to huff but this article about backtrack’s travel and now the republicans getting some guts and asking about it, was worth the time

  3. lyn5 says:

    Obama is the president of golf clubs, courses and balls.

  4. swanspirit says:

    OT Happy Pi DAY!

    • HELENK says:

      the day after I decide to go on a wheat free diet, they declare a day that makes me think of pie. that is just so unfair

  5. DeniseVB says:

    In my perfect world, all federal “non-essential” travel that we pay for (vacays and luxury conference destinations) will be charged as taxable income. Call it the Oprah Rule, Win a Free Car, but ya still have to pay the tax 😀

  6. wmcb says:

    Yeah, cause it’s really difficult for both to be true. Pick one.

    https://twitter.com/RileyRebel129/status/312241055980478465

  7. votermom says:

    lol OT

  8. SHV says:

    “President Obama told a group of House Republicans at a closed-door meeting on Wednesday that the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline won’t profit anyone but Canada.”

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-only-canada-would-profit-from-keystone-xl/article/2524294
    ********
    The myiq rule: Follow the money and see who benefits

    The northern portion of the Keystone pipeline will get built but who benefits from the delay? There is little or no bottleneck of oil flow from Canada at the border, the back up is at Cushing OK and the admin. is expediting the southern Keystone pipeline from Cushing to the Gulf Coast.

    Canadian oil is being transported via railroad to the upper Mid-West refineries. The two biggest interests in rail transport are the BNSF railroad and General Electric which has the largest fleet of tanker cars for lease. BNSF is owned by Barry’s bestest BFF billionaire Warren Buffet and GE’s CEO is another BFF Jeff Immelt, former Jobs Czar.

    Nothing to see, just more Chicago crony capitalism.

    • myiq2xu says:

      IIRC, our government wasn’t being asked to pay for it, just allow it to be built. The Canukistanis want to sell us their oil. If they don’t sell it to us, they’ll sell it to China.

      We may not profit from the pipeline, but we will benefit.

      • myiq2xu says:

        BTW – It would not surprise me if Buffet and Immelt realize that the pipeline will eventually be built, they are just trying to delay it a few years so they can squeeze a little more juice out of the lemon. 2-3 extra years could be worth millions to them.

      • SHV says:

        That is just the point, there is no problem with oil transport across the border. Oil by rail is just somewhat more expensive and more likely to have a “spill’. I suspect that the pipeline delay is also being used to influence the Canadian public. The oil companies and Canadian govt are loosing about $100 billion a year because the Alberta oil is “land locked” and sell for a significant discount when it get to the US. The Canadian govt would like to build another pipeline to Vancouver and a pipeline to the Canadian East Coast however there is considerable environmentalist resistance.

        Once the new pipelines from Cushing, OK to the Gulf Coast are functioning, the Canadian Oil will no longer be “land locked” and will sell at international prices. The end result will be higher fuel prices in the US and especially in the Upper Mid West which will affect farmers, etc., etc.

    • DandyTiger says:

      I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

  9. votermom says:

    Ben Shapiro rant
    http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ben-shapiro/michelle-antoinettes-big-b-day-bash

    This week the Obama administration announced that due to the awful, terrible, nasty, horrible sequestration, they would have to shut down the White House tours for the public. The same week, a White House source told the Daily Mail that Michelle Obama was planning a birthday blowout for her 50th. In attendance: Adele and Beyonce.

    The White House did say that the Obamas would pay for the party. But that’s highly unlikely – it’s supposed to take place at the White House, which requires Secret Service protection, high-class dining, and all the fringe benefits.

    The White House website currently carries a populist quote from Michelle Obama: “It’s the ‘People’s House.’ It’s a place that is steeped in history, but it’s also a place where everyone should feel welcome. And that’s why my husband and I have made it our mission to open up the house to as many people as we can.”

    Unless those people don’t earn several million dollars per year for singing. Then they can stick it.

  10. HELENK says:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/03/mr_obama_takes_his_perpetual_campaign_to_israel.html

    read this and cringe. backtrack will try to embarrass Netanyu when he goes to Israel by going around him to talk to the people

  11. myiq2xu says:

  12. Excuse me, did Carney just admit that government jobs are *not* real jobs????

    “Right. The law stipulates what the costs will be for each agency. Those jobs will be lost, okay? And you can report on White House tours, or you can find out what the impacts are out in the real world, additional impacts are.

  13. wmcb says:

    Original quote stolen from votermom and brought up from below.

    f you do not see the ridiculous, laughable irony in the following bit of reporting from the Telegraph UK, you may be part of the problem:

    “Benedict angered the Muslim world with a speech in 2006 in which he appeared to endorse the view that Islam is inherently violent, sparking deadly protests in several countries as well as attacks on Christians.”

    ProTip: If you would like to change the perception that your religion is More-Chock-Full-O-Violent-Nutbags-Than-Yer-Average-Faith, you’re doing it wrong. Maybe you should focus your outcries a lot more on condemning and driving out the real creators of that perception, and a little less on shutting up those who make note of the violence.

    A good example would be the segregationist south. The correct response to the world reacting with horror to your oppressions and lynchings was to make sure that shit got stopped, and helping with an aggressive and full-throated fight to condemn it.

    You know what is *not* a correct response to that type of communal condemnation? Running around whining that not all southerners were like that, and demanding that every statement of condemnation be soft-pedaled and *carefully qualified* so as to exclude “the good ones.” The incorrect response is making your *primary concern* the protection of the non-racist, innocent southerners (and yes, they existed, even then.) The wrong response is fighting hard against the awful, terrible stereotypes of poor peaceful southerners that speaking out about segregation was wrongly engendering.

    You know what you call it when a group focuses on that stuff, instead of removing the cancer from their midst? Excuse-making and justification. It is perfectly appropriate for civilized society to insist that you first CLEAN YOUR FUCKING HOUSE before whining that it’s only the living room that is filthy, and it’s no fair to the bathroom to call the house dirty.

    Once progress is demonstrably made (it need not be perfection), and a majority have worked hard to make it so, then it’s appropriate to have some concern about old, unfair stereotypes. But while the lynchings/riots/Jim Crow/stonings for adultery/KKK rallies/violent reactions to blasphemers are still going on in large numbers, DO NOT whine to me about your group being “unfairly stereotyped” and call me the bigot. The fact that it’s a religion does not give you a free pass on civilized behavior.

  14. myiq2xu says:

    NOTICE:

    If you have been unfriended by me on Facebook (or had a friend request denied) don’t take it personal. I made the decision to remove everyone who was not related to me.

  15. HELENK says:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/14/senate-dem-budget-hikes-spending-62

    increase spending by 62%. large tax hike

    that debt that the country is in, really does not count, it is just your imagination.

    you can’t come to the wihite house, but we can spend, spend spend

  16. HELENK says:

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/world/africa/benghazi-attack-suspect/index.html

    Benghazi attacker in Libyan prison. will we get a chance to talk to him?

    • HELENK says:

      How many jobs could have been created in the last four years with the amount of money spent on the Obama family?

      It’s been estimated that it costs taxpayers $1.4 billion each year to fund the Obama family budget. If the estimation is accurate, the total cost to the American taxpayers over the last four years is 5,600,000,000. If you divide this number by the average salary of the American worker ($43,000), you get about 130,230. The money spent on the Obama’s is equivalent to 130,230 American jobs.

Comments are closed.