Obama visit criticised for 'over-the-top' spending

witness23 · Nov 4, 2010

This is insane.

Washington:The costs of US President Barack Obama's upcoming trip to India has been criticised by a Republican leader as "over-the-top" spending but the White House said the figures cited by the lawmaker have "no basis" in reality."

When asked whether she would support cuts to Social Security and Medicare, Representative Michele Bachmann, a Republican from Minnesota fresh off a victory in her closely watched re-election bid, slammed the White House for the "massive overspending" for Obama's maiden visit to India.

She however refused to identify specific cuts to the federal budget when asked by CNN. Obama's three-day trip starts from Mumbai where he will arrive on Saturday before proceeding to New Delhi the next day.

A top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit has reckoned that a whopping $ 200 million (Rs 900 crore approx) per day would be spent by various teams coming from the US in connection with Obama's two-day stay in the city.

"A huge amount of around $ 200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," the official said in Mumbai.

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already in Mumbai for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.

Unprecedented security has been put in place both in Mumbai and New delhi.

"We have never seen this sort of an entourage going with the president before. And I think this is an example the massive overspending that we've seen - not only just in the last 2 years, really in the last four," Bachmann said.

Asked for comment about Bachmann's criticism of the trip, the White House said in a written statement that the figures cited by the Republican lawmaker "have no basis in reality."

"Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated," White House spokesperson Amy Brundage said.

Bachmann s comments come on the same day she formally announced her bid to join the House Republican leadership and become the chair of the House Republican Conference in the next Congress. She already has at least one rival for job.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, is also seeking the number four spot in the GOP's House leadership. Hensarling has already been endorsed by two powerful House Republican leaders.

witness23 · Nov 4, 2010

As you guys know, I listen to Beck and Limbaugh and watch Fox. I heard Beck and Limbaugh talk about this yesterday but just could believe it was true. Then Michelle Bachman confirmed it and found it on Drudge. Unreal, just unreal.

davekc · Nov 4, 2010

Look at the bright side. It is cheaper for Americans that he is in India rather than here.

layoutshooter · Nov 5, 2010

Maybe he will forget to come back.

Poorboy · Nov 5, 2010

layoutshooter said:
Maybe he will forget to come back.

Or maybe get his sorry butt lost and end up back in Kenya!
What a waste of tax payer money that we don't have!
The money that he is wasting could be put to better use right here in the U.S. But I guess he just doesn't care and would rather waste the money so he could see some Light show. What a piece of Excrement he is!

I think they said yesterday that the total Bill (To the tax payers ofcourse) is around 2 Billion dollars for his trip..And why 34 War ships?

Turtle · Nov 5, 2010

Everybody who keeps confirming the $200 million per day figure are all, every one of them, unable to break it down to show how it's actually being spent. If you can't show where it's being spent, then it's just a number yanked outta yer аss. The number came from an Indian news agency who quoted an unnamed source in Mumbai, who was just guessing himself, as he has no idea what it costs to move the president. If he were a "top official" in the Obama administration, instead of a "top official" in one of India's state governments, they he might have some credence, but this source isn't even with the US government and thus his information is at best second hand, if that.

Michele Bachmann the claim Nov. 3 on CNN’s "Anderson Cooper 360" attacking Obama for his "over-the-top spending." When Cooper noted that "no one really knows the cost, because for security reasons they don’t disclose the cost,"

Bachmann responded, “Well these are the numbers that have been coming out in the press."

So she didn't even bother to have them confirmed, either. I expect this kind of incompetence out of someone like Rush, but not out of a member of Congress.

Clinton's visit to Asia in 2000 cost taxpayers an estimated $63 million. For the entire trip. President Bush's visit to five African countries in 2008 was closer to $150 million. For the entire trip. Even with the unprecedented security (he and everyone else are staying at the same Mumbai hotel where terrorists attacked in in 2008, where they have booked every single room in the place, and probably got a good deal, but even the full rate is only $175,000 a day for the entire hotel), there is no way that a trip to India will cost $200 million per day. The only way you can get even remotely close to the $200 million figure is if you start adding in the costs of all the military ships (38 of them) that has been reported that the Navy will send to the area in support of the president's visit. Do you know how many ships the Navy is actually deploying in support of the president's visit?

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell - "I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy — some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier — in support of the president’s trip to Asia. … That’s just comical. Nothing close to that is being done. We have some ships already in the area and they are available if they are needed, but they nor any other ships are being used in support of the president's visit."

This story has spread rapidly among the president’s critics, 'cause if true it's a juicy one, and the juicier they are the easily they are believed, especially when you put intelligence and common sense aside to do it. There is simply no evidence to support it. Common sense should lead anyone to doubt it. For example, the entire U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, including everything everything, costs less than that, about $5.7 billion per month according to the Congressional Research Service, or roughly $190 million per day. Do you really think a peaceful state visit would cost more than a war?

Let's see, I've got this $200 million here burning a hole in my pocket. What should I use it for? Hhhmmm... I could take a day trip to India, or I could buy the Cincinnati Reds. Tough call. If you extrapolate that ridiculous number over the course of the 10-day trip, you could buy the New York Yankees instead, and still have enough left over to buy both the Cincinnati Reds and the Chicago Blackhawks. Or, you could throw a 10 day war.

Get a grip, people.

witness23 · Nov 5, 2010

Turtle said:
Everybody who keeps confirming the $200 million per day figure are all, every one of them, unable to break it down to show how it's actually being spent. If you can't show where it's being spent, then it's just a number yanked outta yer аss. The number came from an Indian news agency who quoted an unnamed source in Mumbai, who was just guessing himself, as he has no idea what it costs to move the president. If he were a "top official" in the Obama administration, instead of a "top official" in one of India's state governments, they he might have some credence, but this source isn't even with the US government and thus his information is at best second hand, if that.

Michele Bachmann the claim Nov. 3 on CNN’s "Anderson Cooper 360" attacking Obama for his "over-the-top spending." When Cooper noted that "no one really knows the cost, because for security reasons they don’t disclose the cost,"

Bachmann responded, “Well these are the numbers that have been coming out in the press."

So she didn't even bother to have them confirmed, either. I expect this kind of incompetence out of someone like Rush, but not out of a member of Congress.

Clinton's visit to Asia in 2000 cost taxpayers an estimated $63 million. For the entire trip. President Bush's visit to five African countries in 2008 was closer to $150 million. For the entire trip. Even with the unprecedented security (he and everyone else are staying at the same Mumbai hotel where terrorists attacked in in 2008, where they have booked every single room in the place, and probably got a good deal, but even the full rate is only $175,000 a day for the entire hotel), there is no way that a trip to India will cost $200 million per day. The only way you can get even remotely close to the $200 million figure is if you start adding in the costs of all the military ships (38 of them) that has been reported that the Navy will send to the area in support of the president's visit. Do you know how many ships the Navy is actually deploying in support of the president's visit?

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell - "I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy — some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier — in support of the president’s trip to Asia. … That’s just comical. Nothing close to that is being done. We have some ships already in the area and they are available if they are needed, but they nor any other ships are being used in support of the president's visit."

This story has spread rapidly among the president’s critics, 'cause if true it's a juicy one, and the juicier they are the easily they are believed, especially when you put intelligence and common sense aside to do it. There is simply no evidence to support it. Common sense should lead anyone to doubt it. For example, the entire U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, including everything everything, costs less than that, about $5.7 billion per month according to the Congressional Research Service, or roughly $190 million per day. Do you really think a peaceful state visit would cost more than a war?

Let's see, I've got this $200 million here burning a hole in my pocket. What should I use it for? Hhhmmm... I could take a day trip to India, or I could buy the Cincinnati Reds. Tough call. If you extrapolate that ridiculous number over the course of the 10-day trip, you could buy the New York Yankees instead, and still have enough left over to buy both the Cincinnati Reds and the Chicago Blackhawks. Or, you could throw a 10 day war.

Get a grip, people.

Yeah, well, they still haven't came out and said what it will cost US, the American taxpayer! Do you really think WE should be paying for an overseas trip when we have no money? Oh wait, we do have the money, the Fed just printed $600B. And after an election where we saw a Republican wave take over Congress? Don't you think he should be here, in his office, working on getting America back on track?

chefdennis · Nov 5, 2010

Gibbs said yesterday that the 1st story on this was from india and that they are not spending that much, but that he would say how much....and the Pentagon also said that they are not taking 34 ships either...but again no number was given...

then there is the story that the army is building some kind of special bomb proof tunnel that barry will use to visit the Gandhi museum.....

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_tunnel-for-obama-near-mani-bhavan_1461946

witness23 · Nov 5, 2010

Yeah know? This is pretty outrageous when you think about it. Even if this trip cost only $2000, its still too much considering we have people here out of work. I have a friend who's been out of work for 2 years, luckily his wife has a good job, but they are having a tough time. This trip is offensive to those that are just scraping by. I am starting to see why so many are upset and the Tea Partiers message about over-spending. This is just another example of over-spending, vacation overkill, all the while preaching to our citizens about how we must tighten our belts and learn to cutback. I really hoped that this President would be different, but he is just like the rest of them, but worse because of shenanigans like this.

chefdennis · Nov 5, 2010

Presidents have to travel to other countries, but to take 3000 people!?!? That seems a bit over the top.....from what i have heard this trip is about re-opening some restricted trade agreements that india closed off sometime ago as well as currency issues...now the trade issue i can see, but who do we think we are to get involved in another countries moneitary issues...our dollar is garbage and we need others to keep us afloat, yet we think we can dictiate to other countries how they should value their monetary system and markets....

greg334 · Nov 5, 2010

I have to ask myself why does a president have to travel to India to work on trade agreements when they export to us and they do take our imports when we can provide them.

The 200 or so CEOs should be able to do some of this by themselves with a little nudge from the WH.

I think we are seeing an overkill with our "leaders" going overseas to act as missionaries and begging for work. My great and soon to be out of office governor is in Korea trying to get business for our state, but her last twelve trips overseas seems to net our state five small subsidiaries of large companies employing about 600 people and these companies will pay no state taxes for at least 15 years offsetting the job gain by 400 jobs to cover the lost revenue.

IF congress was smart, they would defund the trips by cutting the budget for the key agencies and the WH slush fund.

chefdennis · Nov 5, 2010

They are also removing the cocanuts from the palms in the area's that he will travel in...you know they need to protect the brain of one of the best "thinkers" in the world....

Coconuts removed from trees in preparation for Barack Obama's India trip - Telegraph

He is also going to SK and China...I bet that china trip is going to be good...they are about to quit buying our debt because of this printing of toilet paper...i mean us dollars and they have made it real clear that they aren't happy...they also have let it be known that turbo timmy nor barry is not going to influence them on where they set the yuans exchange rate.....

Turtle · Nov 5, 2010

witness23 said:
Yeah, well, they still haven't came out and said what it will cost US, the American taxpayer!

Don't hold yer breath, because they never will come out with the actual number. Those numbers are never released.

Do you really think WE should be paying for an overseas trip when we have no money? Oh wait, we do have the money, the Fed just printed $600B. And after an election where we saw a Republican wave take over Congress? Don't you think he should be here, in his office, working on getting America back on track?

Without exception, every single president this country has ever had has been criticized every time he's stepped out of his office, whether it's to take a trip to Monticello or to Kenebunkport or to Crawford or to Little Rock or to Africa or to China or to India. We pay the president to do his job. Sometimes that job entails travel.

witness23 said:
Yeah know? This is pretty outrageous when you think about it. Even if this trip cost only $2000, its still too much considering we have people here out of work.

So every trip every president has ever taken has been too costly, because we've always had people out of work? Are you seriously suggesting that whether or not a president travels should be tied to unemployment figures?

I have a friend who's been out of work for 2 years, luckily his wife has a good job, but they are having a tough time. This trip is offensive to those that are just scraping by. I am starting to see why so many are upset and the Tea Partiers message about over-spending. This is just another example of over-spending, vacation overkill, all the while preaching to our citizens about how we must tighten our belts and learn to cutback. I really hoped that this President would be different, but he is just like the rest of them, but worse because of shenanigans like this.

This is not a vacation. Even if it were, the taxpayers wouldn't be paying for it, same as they didn't pay for his vacation to Maine a few months ago. All of the press on this trip, like all other trips, pays their own way. As the chief executive of this country, some travel is necessary. The president makes several trips a year romping through the Midwest making speeches and nobody says a word, but he goes on a 10 day trip overseas, and they start crapping high moral integrity. Obama, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Reagan, all of them, they all got lambasted every time they took a trip, especially if it was out of the country. And each and every complaint was baseless and useless.

Not one job has been cost because of this trip. No jobs would be saved or gotten if he were to stay at home. Cutting back, in comparison to what? Obama has traveled far less than many of the more recent presidents.

chefdennis said:
Presidents have to travel to other countries, but to take 3000 people!?!? That seems a bit over the top.....

If it seems to good to be true, then it probably is. Do you really think the president is taking along 3000 people at the taxpayer's expense? Really? $66,666.67 per person per day, according to the press and some of the more wacko simpletons. Never mind the fact that the press pays their own way, including air fair, meals and hotel accommodations, but lets say it is 3000 people (even though they didn't rent nearly enough hotel rooms for that many people, even if they tripled up), what would a 3000 people entourage do? Lets get wild and go with a few hundred Secret Service and military personnel for the advanced team and other security, and the handful of administration officials and politicians that are with him. What's the other 2500 or so people gonna do? A military brigade is a significantly large unit, consisting of between 1500 and 3200 soldiers. So, what is Obama going to do with an entire brigade of people while in India?

witness23 · Nov 5, 2010

Turtle said:
Don't hold yer breath, because they never will come out with the actual number. Those numbers are never released.

They should be, especially during these difficult times when we have unemployment at 9.6%. I thought they were going to be transparent? This would be a great start.

Turtle said:
Without exception, every single president this country has ever had has been criticized every time he's stepped out of his office, whether it's to take a trip to Monticello or to Kenebunkport or to Crawford or to Little Rock or to Africa or to China or to India. We pay the president to do his job. Sometimes that job entails travel.

We are living in extraordinary times and I think extraordinary actions need to be taken. Little junkets like this are just unnecessary and a waste of money.

Turtle said:
So every trip every president has ever taken has been too costly, because we've always had people out of work? Are you seriously suggesting that whether or not a president travels should be tied to unemployment figures?

All I am saying is, some discretion should be used when making decisions like these. Prove that you can fix things here first, then go on your little trips.

Turtle · Nov 5, 2010

witness23 said:
They should be, especially during these difficult times when we have unemployment at 9.6%. I thought they were going to be transparent? This would be a great start.

I thought they were going to be transparent, too, but they haven't even been transparent on the things they said they'd be transparent on. I can't imagine why they'd be transparent on the things (like presidential travels costs) that they're not supposed to be transparent with. What would releasing the actual numbers accomplish? Nothing. Regardless of who the president might be, all it would do is let others (including our enemies) know how much it costs to move the president. Once you know precisely how much it costs, then you can begin to figure out where and how exactly the money went, and then you can begin to see where any weakness might be. That would be just stupid.

We are living in extraordinary times and I think extraordinary actions need to be taken. Little junkets like this are just unnecessary and a waste of money.

Everyone of every epoch says that. We are always living in extraordinary times. Always have been, always will be. Whether this or any other junket is necessary or not is up for debate, I suppose. We elect officials to represent us and do their jobs, and while some abuse it, many do not. If the president and his administration feels this junket is necessary, then as a duly elected public servant he really doesn't have to get popular approval to do it. Being able to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it is necessary would require full and complete information regard all aspects of the trip, something that few if any Americans can possibly have.

All I am saying is, some discretion should be used when making decisions like these. Prove that you can fix things here first, then go on your little trips.

All of the things that need fixing here will never be fixed. That rules out any and all future presidential travel, I guess. It could be that this trip helps to fix some of the things here. You don't know. This Asian trip is intended to expand export markets and strengthen security cooperation in what he considers a region vital to U.S. interests. What does that mean? On the simplest level, it sure seems that it's something that can be done over the phone. There must be more to it than who buys what and what kind of security we have. The Office of the President of the United States carries with it a lot of power and influence, and a personal trip carries even more. That's not something that can be or should be so easily dismissed, no matter what political party the President might be.

Parts of this trip have been rescheduled from previous postponements for one reason or another. People say he shouldn't have taken this trip right after the election, yet nothing has changed since the election. All those people who were elected, none of them have taken office yet. Technically the elections aren't even over yet, as the results aren't actually in yet.

Bottom line is, I can't think of a single time of year, month or week that the president can take a trip in which everyone approves. Somebody will always criticize it for one reason or another. And all of the criticisms fall flat when closely examined, because they are usually politically or ignorance based criticisms.