Dem Proposes Capping Amount a President Can Spend on Travel

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Dem Proposes Capping Amount a President Can Spend on Travel


In introducing the Stop Waste And Misuse by the President (SWAMP) Act, the congressman’s office claims that Trump is on track to spend more during his first year in office than eight years of expenses under Obama. According to the conservative group Judicial Watch, Obama spent $96.9 million on family travel during his time in office. Judicial Watch records also show that Trump spent about $1.3 million for two recent flights in February and March to Mar-a-Lago, a resort in Palm Beach, Fla., owned by the Trump family. Lieu’s office estimates the total cost of security for each trip to Palm Beach at $3.7 million, while also listing a $35,000 charge for golf cart rentals ordered by the Secret Service.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton in a recent interview said it’s not a fair comparison between Obama and Trump, as there hasn’t been a large enough sample size for the latter. Some of Obama’s trips were “way out there,” according to Fitton.

“(Trump) is not taking vacation time, frankly, as much as he should,” he said, noting that Lieu’s legislation sounds like a “typical, juvenile, anti-Trump response” to a real problem, which is the cost of the presidency. “Why is it that we need an entire military expedition to move from point A to point B? Is it necessary? I appreciate they want to have all the bases covered, but is it necessary? I don’t know. Those are the sort of questions that only President Trump is going to ask.”

Lieu’s bill describes Trump’s trips to Mar-a-Lago as “unacceptable,” given his direct financial interest in the estate.

“Every time the President travels to Mar-a-Lago, he necessarily promotes his private business interests via free press at the Government’s expense,” the legislation reads, adding that a recent State Department promotion “of Mar-a-Lago on its official website raises serious ethics concerns.”







:killingme
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Ignoring who is in office, and the obvious hub-bub relating to Trump (SWAMP Act :lol:) why is this a bad thing? Assuming it's not limiting official travel or anything.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
How is it a "good" thing? How would it even matter?? It's nothing but a political stunt...a futile symbolic gesture.

Ignoring my statement, yes.

For future presidents, and as someone who advocates for less government spending, I see no problem with this.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Ignoring my statement, yes.

For future presidents, and as someone who advocates for less government spending, I see no problem with this.

Meh. I guess. I'm all about frugal government too, but the amount of money involved is practically within the realm of round-off error. The job doesn't pay squat, so the perks make up for it maybe?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Meh. I guess. I'm all about frugal government too, but the amount of money involved is practically within the realm of round-off error. The job doesn't pay squat, so the perks make up for it maybe?

That's assuming you account for only the President's time and money. Not the locale's security, SS, AF1 fuel, etc. I'm also not saying the President should work all the time without vacation.

Regardless of how small, we'll never reign in our debt problem ignoring the small things. If everything is small enough to ignore, it becomes a bigger issue.

Sure, it's not reigning in Social Security, or Medicare, but it's something. Not to mention the Democrats are essentially doing something to reduce federal spending. Conservatives should be jumping all over this chance.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
“Why is it that we need an entire military expedition to move from point A to point B? Is it necessary? I appreciate they want to have all the bases covered, but is it necessary? I don’t know." - Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton

I actually do think this is a fair question. I do not understand why we do this, yet not for the Chief Justice (the equal position in the co-equal branch of government). Why do we fly SOTH around the way we do? Why do we provide limousine services for any member of congress? Etc., etc. They're fair questions, and I think this legislation is crap because it is aimed at a person, not a problem.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
That's assuming you account for only the President's time and money. Not the locale's security, SS, AF1 fuel, etc. I'm also not saying the President should work all the time without vacation.

Regardless of how small, we'll never reign in our debt problem ignoring the small things. If everything is small enough to ignore, it becomes a bigger issue.

Sure, it's not reigning in Social Security, or Medicare, but it's something. Not to mention the Democrats are essentially doing something to reduce federal spending. Conservatives should be jumping all over this chance.

The job doesn't pay squat, so the perks make up for it maybe?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Not to mention the Democrats are essentially doing something to reduce federal spending. Conservatives should be jumping all over this chance.

You are not that naive. It's simply an anti-Trump political stunt. Nothing more and nothing less.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I actually do think this is a fair question. I do not understand why we do this, yet not for the Chief Justice (the equal position in the co-equal branch of government). Why do we fly SOTH around the way we do? Why do we provide limousine services for any member of congress? Etc., etc. They're fair questions, and I think this legislation is crap because it is aimed at a person, not a problem.

This also isn't limited to federal govt. State officials get tons of perks, such as police officer drivers.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
then why now, a bill by a democrat, while A republican is in office ...

Look, I acknolwedge what it is. It's clear.

I'm asking if this only affects one president. If not, they why is it a bad thing that Congress does something to reduce government spending for once? Why, outside the fact that a Republican is in office, are so-called "conservatives" decrying reduced govt. spending?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Does the bill end with Trump's term? Does it say, "This bill is no longer relevant after Trump is out of office."?

LOL. Since when did that prevent congress critters from pulling stunts for the sole purpose of making that week's news cycle and scoring cheap political points??

Really?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Discussing it is a waste of time anyway. It will never be passed. And even if it was, it's actual effect would not even register on the right side of the decimal point.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Look, I acknolwedge what it is. It's clear.

I'm asking if this only affects one president. If not, they why is it a bad thing that Congress does something to reduce government spending for once? Why, outside the fact that a Republican is in office, are so-called "conservatives" decrying reduced govt. spending?

Realizing that it is a drop in the federal budget bucket and assuming that it covers not only Trump but every other President following him, I have no issue with it. Hell, maybe Presidents will use Camp David more.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Look, I acknowledge what it is. It's clear.

:yay:

I'm asking if this only affects one president. If not, they why is it a bad thing that Congress does something to reduce government spending for once?
Why, outside the fact that a Republican is in office, are so-called "conservatives" decrying reduced govt. spending?

sure ... as soon as a Democrat is elected president, this would get rolled back - IMHO


I'm all for reducing spending, lets start with killing base line budgeting and automatic increases to SSI / Medicare
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
You know what would happen? An army would be hired to train people, new people would be hired so that these regulations are met, software would be developed to track it, etc etc.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
You know what would happen? An army would be hired to train people, new people would be hired so that these regulations are met, software would be developed to track it, etc etc.

And they will spend 7 dollars to track every 1.
 
Top