Who gets the bill?
 

Link to article



I looked this up because I heard on the local televised report that the Nebraska Republican party is calling this "partisan politics at it's worst." I'm sorry. I guess that I just don't see it that way. Why should the City of Lincoln pay almost $32,000, because Cheney wanted to do some stumping for the party, and go visit the spot where he skinned his knee riding his velocipede about a hundred years ago?

I leave it up to y'all. (Ya like that y'all? I'm from the Northeast, y'know. :) ) Who should get the bill?

*edit* By the way. I hold no illusion that this is an isolated case involving Lincoln and Nebraska. It is a very small slice of a very large pie. It happens all over. This one just caught my attention.

Cheney. His trip, his bill.

Re: Who gets the bill?
 

Sorry but without knowing what the "expenses" were I'll say let the town pay. I don't get money from my company without detailing every cent. While I'm sure that they're prepared to do so this article doesn't provide details.

Re: Re: Who gets the bill?
 

Hmmm...good point. Without knowing for certain, my very educated guess would be for the extra security needed from the Lincoln Police Department. Road crews needed to set up roadblocks for the motorcade. Things of this ilk.

I think it needs to be split up. Fortenberry/Republican (state) party should pay for all expenses related to the campaigning. Flights to and from, room and board, etc that had to do with his promoting Fortenberry. I think Cheney should be responsible for his personal expenses that dealt with old family and freinds and such. If the nat'l rep. party want to foot part of that bill, they can, but i dont think they should have to.

I cant imagine any company (though i have no experience) sending someone on a business trip, and then paying for extra costs for him to play around with old freinds/family.

And i cant see any reason the state should have to pay for anyones personal expenses. He wasn't coming in for state business, he wasn't coming in for a state party... it was personal (for him, and Fortenberry).

ditto

Re: Re: Re: Who gets the bill?
 

Certainly not a bad assumption but I think it needs to be detailed a little better. Additionally I would love to know how much of this stuff was necessary for the visit and how much is at the discretion of the towns. Without knowing these details it's impossible to say who should pay.

I know for a fact that a locality near me in NJ constantly inflated their bills to concerts going on in an outdoor concert field. They did it because they could and the amounts they paid for police overtime and the like were ridiculous. It would not surprise me in the least if this occurs with visiting politicians and dignitaries as well.

I can almost guarantee if Cheney does have to pay it will be with taxpayer money and not out of his millions in the bank.

It pisses me off when people expect others to pick up their tabs. I have to pay for everything I do, especially if it's personal business.

I guess the perks of being VP and not fearing repercussions for anything has it's advantages.

Just more nails in Bush's coffin, but then again noone seems to truly care what this man gets away with, as long as the rich get their tax cuts and the poor stay in debt and have to work harder. Cause poor people don't vote anymore, they're too busy trying to make a living.

Fortenberry. It was just a campaign object for him so make him pay for that bit of campaign.

A more detailed report. And it addresses onetime2's questions.

http://debab.omaha.com/np_0/medium/622pccheney.jpg

And...I'm no fan of Dick Cheney, but is that the best picture that they could find? It looks like it should have a caption about young firm breasts, or something. Yeesh

I think it is tacky, and obviously politically motivated, for the City to ask for reimbursement. They need to look at the residual effects to them. It is not like he was only their for that candidate. The whole City gets to take pride in him visiting. Like someone in that article said, "It goes with the territory." That is why they have police in the first place.

I guess if I am being assaulted or robbed, I will get a bill for having the police assist me. Or if they write me a speeding ticket, I will have to pay for that service too. Come on!

I just think it should be paid by someone other than the taxpayers. If it was for official business dealing with something important, maybe I could see the city paying. But otherwise it's just a glorified vacation/fundraiser.

This was a fundraiser for Fortenberry - send him the bill.
Seems pretty simple to me.
If I throw a party - I expect to be charged for any expenses incurred.

Deduct it from the $150,000 that was raised.

Any other scenario leaves the taxpayers holding the bag
__

<i>"This isn't about cost. It's about politics," Kramer said. "Lincoln is sending a message that leaders of the Free World aren't welcome here because the city is too cheap."</i>

Somebody should bitch-slap this moron.

The Federal Government keeps cutting city help yet expects more police. Cities everywhere are going broke because not only have taxes been cut, BUT most people are making less so the taxes from the people are less also.

Cities cannot be expected to pay for unofficial visits or campaign fundraisers from the Pres. or VP. That is abuse of power and shows no respect for the taxpayer.

If either man, Cheney or Fortenberry, were respectful of the people they would pay and not make a case of it. It's not like either can't afford to pay.

If Clinton had done this, the GOP would have been all over him expecting him to pay. It's BS. Just pay the bill, guys and show you have respect for the taxpayers.

Umm, it was done plenty by Clinton and just about every other politician so let's not go down that route.

I don't believe there are any rules to cover this situation. As such there is no clear cut answer. If the localities are concerned about it they need to pass local legislation that covers these situations for the future. I suspect (as noted in the article) that these requirements have been put in force in the wake of 9/11 and as such procedures for the handling of such costs have not been formally created.

For practical reasons Fortenberry should pay them to shut the story down. I think it's inappropriate to make the VP pay for them fully for the same reasons that the President does not pay full cost when he travels on Air Force One or anywhere else for personal reasons, the costs would be unbearable for just about anybody and these are security requirements necessary because of their public position.

If we were in prosperous times and cities weren't facing financial bankruptcy, I could maybe see this. But I just think going on personal business and expecting the taxpayers to pay or the cities to pay is ridiculous.

You can't tell me Cheney couldn't come up with some "official" reason to be there.

As for the Clinton statement, perhaps he did. But did we ever hear of Gore doing this? Course during Gore's VP stretch I don't recall him doing much at all. Hell, he didn't even say much to deflect the problems Clinton was having. Was Gore ever on record about Lewinsky? Just a curious aside. Sorry thinking and typing only leads to rambling off topic.)

Gore was at least as bad as Clinton. Fund raising is fundraising it's done all the time.

If people really want to get into the subject you then have to weigh what towns gain from such visits. In plenty of cases they gain substantial "tourism" dollars from those attending such events. Like most things it's not as simple as that which is portrayed in the news. Hotel stays, car rentals, spending at restaurants, etc, etc, etc typically go up the day(s) preceding such gala events.

This is all pretty much a non-issue. As stated before, localities can pass local legislation requiring any events that force financial outlays by the town to be covered by parties involved prior to the events occurring. They didn't do it. No doubt they knew before now that they would incur costs yet suddenly it's a big issue? Please.

My thoughts exactly.