Bill O'Rights

Link
First off...I don't want this degenerating into a party bash-fest. This is not about that. This could just as easily, and I'm sure has, happened with the Democratic Party.

Now...that said, why on earth, should the city of Grand Island, or any other city for that matter, be forced to foot the bill for the Vice Presidential visit? This wasn't a "public" speaking engagement. He wasn't addressing some high school graduation, or some old lady's quilting bee. This was for a Republican Party fundraiser, to benefit...Republicans. This could just as easily have happened with any other party, so I don't wanna hear whining about the mean old corrupt GOP. Why should the entire city be forced to pay the costs associated with bringing in the Vice President just for the benefit of one particular segment? And if not the city of Grand Island, then who should pay the expense? I, for one, believe that it should be the Nebraska Republican Party, as that is who this visit benefits, and that is who invited him. Or...am I just making too much of it?

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Seaver

Both parties do this and it needs to stop.

The_Jazz

Sorry, but this is just the cost of doing business for the city. I agree that the party doesn't matter one iota, but when the occupant of the Office of the Vice President of the United States pays a visit your town, whether to make a political speach, open a high school, pay a campaign visit or visit an old friend who happens to own the local nuclear power concern, you are obligated to take the necessary steps to protect him in whatever way the Secret Service sees fit. Politics doesn't intrude on this issue at all, and this is simply one of the benefits of the office. This happens on ever single visit that Bush or Cheney makes anywhere.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

flstf

I don't think this is a very large problem. I imagine most towns and cities welcome these visits from high ranking government officials and candidates for political office.

I wonder who foots the bill for security etc.. during the primarys when candidates are criss crossing the country sometimes visiting several states each day. Do many towns and cities tell them to stay away because of costs or do they instead welcome the publicity?

pan6467

I whole heartedly agree. It is one thing for official business it is another when it is for private fund raisers. The people who organize the fund raisers should pay instead of the over burdened tax payers.

And on both sides you'll have people at these fund raisers complain about taxes, yet the taxes are payinmg for their guest....I suppose in the world of the elite politicians who feel they know how to run people's lives better than the individual does, they are "entitled" to this.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

Cheny is a multi-millionare, let it come out of his pocket. If he doesn't want to pay, then let him stop having security. See how long that lasts.

Brewmaniac

If the city invites the VP for a city function, a graduation, dedicating a building or whatever, the city should pay. But if the VP is invited by a political party to promote a candidate then then the party should pay!

I don't care how it's been done in the past. This should be part of campaign reform!

__________________
"That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"

The_Jazz

Pan, it's the office that is being afforded the protection/services, not the individual. The individuals who hold the office are due the respect that comes with that office, regardless of your thoughts on their politics, personal life or whatever. I may think that George W. Bush has trouble stringing two intelligent thoughts together, but I will still stand when he enters a room, call him "Mr. President" and generally give him the respect due. Outside that room, I tell you that he's the wrong choice to lead the country, but in the room, I would never say such a thing unless he asked me to honestly give my opinion.

In a word, they are entitled to this kind of service, regardless of party, regardless of what it's for and regardless what kind of leader and person they are.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

roachboy

i dont think the question is whether the office should or should not come with security arrangements attached--it is who pays for them--particularly in the context of a political fundraiser.
you would think that the feds would absorb the costs, wouldnt you?
how did localities come to be stuck with them anyway?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ample

I wish I had a job where I could take off from work when ever I want to go to non-job related events. Gee where do I sign up for a gig like that.

The Republican party should flip the bill. Do you think large organizations that hold conventions in citys get the same treatment? Doubt it.

__________________

Her juju beads are so nice
She kissed my third cousin twice
Im the king of pomona

host

The following is the only precedent that I could find for actually demanding payment from the POTUS for local costs of providing security during a presidential "visit". This "story" was also reported about, several times in the Washington Rev. Sun Yung Moon owned, Times....

This was a highly partisan influenced "move". and I can find no record of whether the $2188.40 "bill" was actaully paid:
For a "world class" city, the added security cost to host Bush's nomination ceremony in 2004, was an extra $40 million for NYC:
IMO, the change that is unusual, is that the one party that controls the congress and the executive branch, does not enjoy a base of voter support that originates in metro areas that are more accustomed, and have more financial and police resources to host the visits of high profile politcal figures.

Bush and Cheney go where they receive the most accolades and friendliest reaction....in less populated, more suburban and rural venues than in past administrations. They are also more challenging to protect....because of the controversy that surrounds both of them, and because of the self fulfilling message of fear that they seem to be the architects of and draw political support from.

Bill O'Rights

You're over thinking it, Host. This particular visit, by a Republican Vice President, is for a fundraiser to benefit a Republican candidate. No problem there. The problem is...why should tax payer money, a good portion of which was collected from non-Republicans, be used to pay for that visit?

Turn it the other way, a visit, by a Democratic Vice President, for a fundraiser to benefit a Democratic candidate...it's every bit as wrong.

Now...had the VP come to Grand Island to officiate the opening of a new swimming pool, or to discuss the War on Terror at the local Farmer's Co-Op...then fine. Grand Island should foot the bill. But not for a partisan fundraiser. I see it as a gross misuse of taxpayer money.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

kutulu

That's how I see it. The party raising funds needs to pay for all associated costs before they see any money from hte event.

snowy

Bill...you said it.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

host

I disagree....Bill O'Rights....because I don't get the impression that you fully understood the context of the examples that I chose to post.

Both of the articles that I posted, referred to exclusively partisan, political events....(that is why I posted quotation marks around the word "visit" in the Clinton Hyde Park appearance.), that involved local security costs for POTUS "visits"....Clinton to a DLC function in Hyde Park, NY in 2000, and Bush at his party's convention in 2004.

My point is that the local governments in these less prominent places have to "deal with it" when security costs fall to them from any appearance in their area by a POTUS or a VEE-POTUS. Do you think that the majority of NYC or New York metro area residents were in favor of a $40 million dollar expense to provide security at Bush's RNC convention? Only a minority of the folks who lived in that area voted for Bush in 2000, or in 2004....yet they had to foot the bill, for what was more of a partisan media perfromance, than it was a nominating convention as it was in no sense, a contest. Do you think that NYC spends that amount on extra security for every convention of that size?

The expense was direcrly related to the physical presence of Bush and Cheney and their families when they were present in NYC, and in dealing with the protests against Bush/Cheney poilicies that the majority of NYC residents were against. They had to pay for the security at that convention when a poll showed that half of NYC residents believed that Bush and Cheney were somehow culpable in the 9/11 attacks. Many were of the opinion that the RNC chose NYC as the convention venue, in an attempt to gain a political advantage in their "war on terrior" themed campaign strategy.

NYC and DC perpetually must deal with unreimbursed costs of the fallout from diplomatic immunity afforded by the federal government to high concentrations of foreign diplomats and their relatives. These foreigners cannot be prosecuted for violent felonies, or even for illegal parking or for delinquent parking tickets.

Again....it is the folks in the samller towns and more rural areas who vote for Bush and Chenery. Those are the places where Bush disproportionally held his partisan "town meetings" before screened and ticketed audiences in his 2004 campaign and during last year's SSI "reform", "sixty city" tour. That also seemed to be a partisan campaign that lacked support from metro areas.

There is a new political dynamic in federal politics. Nearly all of the congressional committee chairmen, and Bush and Cheney hail from more sparsely populated areas. The folks who vote for them will have to pay the tab locally to provide security for them when they come to their environs, whether on official business or on partisan fund raising appearance.

These smaller places have a lock on the political process and the earmarked pork that results from that control. Most cities have no equal representation in congress or in the white house, anymore. The recent DHS funding distribution for terrorism related protection, reinforces that. Wyoming....Cheney's home state, has received much higher federal funding, per capita, for homeland security that NYC has, each year since 2002.

Big cities paid the police overtime during events like you described in your OP, BO'R.....for many years. Clinton practically lived in Manhattan whenever possible, when he was POTUS, and NYC taxpayers paid a high price because of his frequent presence. Bush avoiuds NYC and stayed out of New Haven from 1968, until he spoke at the Yale graduation, early in his presidency.

The cost of hosting and of protecting these folks, no matter why the come, while they hold the office, has traditionally fallen disproportionately on local taxpayers. It isn't fair and it isn't evenly distributed to all taxpayers.

Neither is the frustration of deporting the relative of a diplomat who seems guilty of the rape/murder of a young resident of NYC or DC, letting the perp off scott free because of reciprocal treaty agreements. Neither is it fair for secularly influenced local taxpayers to pay for medical and welfare costs of birthing and rearing unwanted children, born to mothers who wanted to abort but who were prevented by local law or protests, from access to safe, legal abortion.

How about the extra litigation and security costs that taxpayers who don't support the death penalty, must pay when a condemned prisioner, who the state has already spent huge sums on, for both sides of the litigation, now comes up for execution, and a large crowd of protestors is drawn to the death house environs, and must be controlled and protected from injury or unsanitary conditions?

As I posted before, small places have been organized to field new politcal clout, and collectively they have achieved new politcal power and new pork.
They also will experience costs and responsibilities that come with their newly gained power. What they've accomplished may not be practical, even for them to shoulder. That is why cities are probably more efficient places for politicians to gather and enjoy professional security services and medical infrastructure, and the like. The current government doesn't see it that way, doesn't fund it that way, and doesn't campaign much in urban areas.

The folks in Grand Island should pay the bill for Cheney's local, security just as the folks in bigger towns have for many years.......

Bill O'Rights

Host...I do understand what you're saying...really I do. But you're arguing around my point. Let me break off a few pieces from the steer that you roasted above, so it can be digested.

A.) I don't think that a partisan fundraiser can fairly be compared to a national convention.
1. NYC, in addition to covering security costs asociated with the President's visit, also reaped the financial benefits associated with hosting the Republican National Convention. That's no small thing.
2. We're talking about a national convention...not a fundraiser for a single candidate in a state election. Apples and oranges? I think.

B.) Whether you intended to or not, you seem to be implying that because larger cities have footed the bill for such "visits", then so should smaller ones. I disagree. I don't think that either one should have to foot the bill for visits centered around a partisan fundraiser. If Cheney had come to Grand Island to raise funds for a monument in the town square, or for more card tables at the Vet's Center...then fine. Grand Island pays because Grand Island benefits. In this case the only ones reaping any rewards are the party, and the candidate. Why should the costs of that come from the general fund? Because it's always been that way? No...that doesn't wash.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

flstf

I always thought that most towns and cities welcomed these types of visits from the newsworthy. Doesn't the influx of media, party members, etc.. offset some of the cost somewhat by additional spending in the local businesses. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that many places lobby to be chosen for these events.

Do you also think that candidates running for office should pick up the tab in all the places they visit to campaign.

Paq

just an aside, and i know that I != VP of US, but i once held a fundraiser that required police officers, etc, and i was presented with a bill for their services. for me, that was about 5% of what was raised, so no biggie, but the taxpayers certainly did not pick it up. In this case, it would have been about 4.6%, which means they should have easily paid it and put it as cost of doing the fundraiser.

it's not that hard to comprehend and it's just aggravating that both parties do this.

__________________
Live.

Chris