a petty move by a petty little man

Political posturing at the expense of kids....I haven't an ounce of respect for Obama. Anyone notice his approval ratings lately?

John B., the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for today shows that 51% of likely U.S. voters approve of President Obama's job performance

Shameful absurdity. Let's continue to spread the hysteria where it hurts: the disappointed faces of children who have been selling magazines and wrapping paper to earn money for a trip to the White House. Seriously? THIS is where they want to cut spending? Oh wait.. According to Senator Harkin, we don't HAVE a spending problem. We have a distribution of wealth problem. ("We have the highest per capita income of any major nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke? Is it a spending problem? No, it’s because we have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth.") But let's go on ahead and cut the White House tours. Per Yahoo: "The U.S. Secret Service said that Uniformed Division Officers assigned to the public tours will be reassigned to other security posts. The reassignments will reduce overtime costs as well as potential furloughs that could have been required to meet the cuts in spending, the Secret Service said." ABC News reported that the largest expense related to the tours is those SS agents required to secure the area, at $30.00 per hour. I forget the number of agents they quoted. So... by reassining them to other other posts, this will save money how? Show me proof that their paychecks are one penny less than before, and I'll retract my statement. I'm quite sure whatever few dollars this stupid move might save will pale in comparison to even one month's worth of frivolous benefits of a congressman.

John B., three months ago, the majority of American voters approved of President Obama enough that they re-elected him to a second term.

Closing the White House to tours by the average American while keeping it open for access to those who contribute 500K to an action committee says all one needs to know about this administration.

Let's understand what this truly is....a blatant and obvious message to the American people that the President doesn't care about you. You seriously don't think they could have found cuts elsewhere in the White House? But of course they won't do anything that would affect their lifestyle. Maybe Michelle could quit taking vacations for a year....or maybe they could cut household staff, I'm sure there are hundreds of things they could have done. The message, per Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake".

Venezuela has an opening for a Leftist President. Why not give them ours? That way he can declare himself King for life and no one will object.

Did anyone notice that the salaries of the president and congress are exempt when it comes to cuts? I find it ironic that they ask us to tighten our belts and sacrifice, yet show no leadership by demonstrating their desire to work alongside us as fellow citizens. Romney, while doing the olynpics, took no salary. He would have been a great leader. his heart was always to do the right thing. You can google him and find all of the many times that he paid his employees bills, or put his opwn name and money out there when an employee went missing etc... Bush vacationed at his ranch, which cost us nothing, yet the first family today is on vacation or having a hollywood party every time you turn around. Yes, I pray for him, to have his eyes opened and for wisdom.

Has any of our posters ever been on a White House tour? Did anyone have plans to go this summer? My answers are NO and NO. I like Obama, but it still sucks. He really could have cut something else.

Agreed Amy. I think they could use a paycut until morale improves. :)

We still have tens of BILLIONS of unspent money from that 2009 Stimulus Bill rammed through Congress and signed by Obama. You remember the one that was supposed to create all those shovel ready and green energy jobs? Yeah that one...the one that Obama later said jobs of which "weren't so shovel ready."

What we have here is an arrogant, snide administration punishing Americans, or attempting to punish them, and gerrymandering with scare tactics because of the sequester (Obama's idea originally in 2010). And of course the low information voters and the main stream media blame in on Republicans.

With that said, only liberal Democrats would throw a hissy fit over a reduction in the INCREASE in spending! Here's a question I'd like answered: we got by with a $14 trillion debt in 2011. It is now at $16 trillion. Why can't we get by at that same deficit level spending today that we had in 2011? The economy sure as heck doesn't show anything for it, no matter how much BidenGaffe says we need to spend our way into prosperity.

@ r patton - yeah, then we'll start drilling here and cut off Venuzuelan oil forever - lolol

http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/Sequester-Obama-Reagan-tours/2013/03/07/id/493624

Bein' strictly objective, the main reason he cancelled the White House tour is strictly a publicity stunbt by this president to try and gain leverage over a situation where he let himself get into something he never wanted to get into.There are lots of other things they could cut such as letting some of the WH lawyers and party hacks take a cut in pay. It is so wrong to do that mainly because the WH doesn't belong to him or the party in power. it belongs to the American people and should be open for tours regardless.

People have been hollering cut, cut, cut for over four years now. Then when cuts take effect, it's "Not there! Not here!"

The Sequestration cuts were to be across-the-board, applied to discretionary items.

Yes, this was too-happy-an-item to cut, but cheer up - you can still go to the Easter Egg Roll. And John Boehner will give you a tour of the Capitol. Go to the National Archives and the Smithsonian, the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

The WH tours will be back. We lived without them after 9/11. Suck it up.

.,I agree that these tours were cancelled for petty reasons. There are many other wasteful items in D.C. that can be cut. Start with discontinuing Obama's campaigning trips and let him stay in D.C. to actually work with Congress in a respectful and honest manner, Maybe then all the politicians might start behaving like mature adults and learn to work together for the good of our country, not their own selfish, party oriented ideas. Nancy B

This President is determined to make these cuts as painful as possible for the sole purpose of furthering his political agenda! In my opinion this man is no longer fit to hold elective office.

Really?

The President of the United States (personally) decided to cancel tours of the White House?

Really?

He seems like that much of a micro-manager?

Jeff, you're right that the Right is wrong.

JB, you're wrong that the Left is wrong. Hyperbole is not logic.

Sharon Swanepoel; please devise a policy to handle trolls. Surely the pattern is quite evident now ... thank you

This sequester is being used as a tool by the administration to put the Republicans in a bad light. The left wanted no cuts, and want to accomplish things only with tax increases. We took in more last year than we ever have before - and we still ran a deficit. But yeah, let's not cut anything. Are you frigging kidding me? We have this sequester purely because of the left's stubbornness to see the right way things need to go.

It is intended to be as uncomfortable as possible. And why? Because we have to cut 2.5%? This is a portion of the increase over last year. You know, last year when we already ran over a trillion dollar deficit. This sequester doesn't even put us down to last year's numbers. The money going to Sandy victims is more than the sequester dollars. So what, really, is everybody freaking out about?

This could go away quietly. Things could be cut that don't matter a hill of beans. God knows we have more than enough of that. But no, let's make it public. Let's have a meeting and figure out what be most visible and inconvenient, and do those things.

Losers....

The comments generally from haters, those who speak differently kudos. Sure cutting the tours is political, but isn't the whole thing political?

A fast way to end the sequestration is to stop the salaries and perks of all them members of the House and Senate until it is settled. Isn't it amazing that the people who cause the problems never suffer the consequences?

A true leader knows how and when to compromise. Obama made a promise and is now reneging on it. Seems he's a parrot who only knows how to say, "raise taxes" raise taxes" raise taxes". The American people are tired (and broke), and the republicans are trying to keep them from having to suffer more tax increase. This would have been a good compromise on the part of obama, but then he doesn't play well with others. He dictates. History will judge this rightly, especially when we get someone in there who begins a common sense people oriented administration. Then, in retrospect, upon comparison, many will say to themselves, "what was I thinking?"
Abby - that was absolutely on the money. Good post!!!

Mr. B, it is difficult to pray for someone that you neither like or respect. Maybe you (and your prayer group) should ask God to help you to respect President Obama. Stevie Wonder can see that you don't respect President Obama.:)

You respect the "Office of the President", not the man sitting in the chair.

I'm far more patriotic than you. I respect the man sitting in the chair, even when it was George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon. I realize that ultimately I'm sinning against God, and will have to deal with Him, if I disrespect the President.

Tammy, there you go again with your incorrect interpretation of Scripture. Please read Romans 13:1-2; 1 Timothy 2:1-3; Titus 3:1-2; and 1 Peter 2: 13-17 and explain to me how we are not commanded by God to respect our President. Wait, knowing you, you will find some way to explain it.:)

@ Mr. B... well said (thanks for your service). I'm trying really hard not to reply when someone makes everything about themselves and their offenses (especially noted when their replies are about YOU and how wrong you are in comparison to them - can you say prideful-lol)). In fact, I have one that's pending approval that can be deleted if moderators want to. The purpose of some is to stir people up (personally) and I'm trying not to take the bait, but to keep with the subject at hand not live to argue over things that have nothing to do with the subject.

I think what the problem ends up being is that many things get proposed, and only one side is supposed to compromise (in the opinion of the whitehouse). Unfortunately, that results in strongarming and blackmail (playing with the lives of the American people while the politicians eat steak). I remember Bill Clinton who would listen to the republican congress and compromise something that all could agree on - turned out to be the most prosperous time we've had in years. Bill Clinton was a lot of questionable things personally, but could not be accused of not having leadership when it counted for the most part. I know he has tried to talk sense into this administration, but to no avail. I think it will bite them in the long run. Obama refuses to budge and not only that, but continues to raise taxes after making different promises. Not very good leadership if you ask me. The cuts should start with SPECIAL INTEREST groups, but noooo, that will never happen.

Maybe it will take we the people figuring out how to send politicians to Washington, on both sides of the aisle, who are prepared to say, "I'm sorry you're not going to support me in the next election, or sink millions into my campaign, but in good conscience I just can't vote for (your specific special project.) You might not like it now, and I might even lose my election next time around, but future generations of your family will thank me and I will sleep better for it." Maybe one day we will figure it out, but so far the big money that goes into campaigns has successfully blinded us too. The little man - or woman - no matter how ethical, just cannot compete with the way campaigns are run. If they want in, they have to take the big money, and so the cycle begins.

Totally right, Sharon. That's actually what the TEA party was about. many got voted out of their own party due to not fulfilling their promises. That's how the republicans got the house. republicans voted out their own and so did Democrats (who are a part of the Tea party as well). grass roots efforts should start everywhere. But, like you said, the little man thinks his efforts don't matter. The first man or woman who says that they propose term limits in Washington and pay cuts for politicians will have my vote. They could come in on a landslide, but there's too much pride (and greed) for that. Sad.

John B all I hear from the right is we need to cut spending. But when it comes to naming specific cuts they would make the only sound coming from that camp is the sound of silence. Republicans don't want to go on record for having suggested cuts to programs that the general public find life sustaining necessities. They would rather the President come up with suggestions. That way they can complain and not share in the blame.

SW - Special interest groups for one. So many promises to groups that contributed to campaigns etc... Obama is so beholden to people for that it isn't funny. He wants to tax the so-called rich, except for the ones that he has exempted. He nixes republicans every time they suggest something. So, the little guy gets punished instead. It's hard to figure special interest as being more important than the American people. If you want to see how a president is supposed to work with congress, look at bill clinton. That's how it is supposed to be done. Remember the 90's?
If Republicans really want to make waves, they would suggest congressional paycuts. Then, they'd have my attention. Hopefully, the next few years we will be disgusted enough to find some republicans with some gonads.

And Sw - I think what the right is saying is that we need to STOP SPENDING. That's a cut right there. How can you cut needed things and then turn around and spend even more? That's insanity and that's what the republicans are trying to say. If you have a credit card, it would be like paying the minimum (on a maxed out card) and then turning around and putting more on the card. If democrats would stop defending this type of irresponsibility and work with republicans for real, we could get something done. But posturing does nothing but stall any actual work that can be done. Seems all he does is posture nad go on vacation. Maybe cut out a few of those.

I notice that no one wants to address this:
dbn said, "Closing the White House to tours by the average American while keeping it open for access to those who contribute 500K to an action committee says all one needs to know about this administration."
those are the 1%ers that he likes. Can you say hypocritical?

and this:
Abby said, "A fast way to end the sequestration is to stop the salaries and perks of all the members of the House and Senate until it is settled. Isn't it amazing that the people who cause the problems never suffer the consequences?"
Can we get a big amen in the house? This applies to republicans and democrats alike. Here's the difference between those that support either party when it comes to patch. The frustration comes in where at least conservatives will admit that their party ain't all that we want it to be, focus on the problems and make suggestions towards a solution. We don't worship our party to the point of being deluded by it. In order to be objective, you have to admit that your man is not a demigod and that he could use some improvement. What happens is, you end up defending things that go against your conscience after a while just to hold onto a person. Our political system is broken whether regardless of what side you support. We don't have elections, we have a situation where whoever can put up the most money for groups in exchange for votes. really sad day when it has come to this.
I used to have a poster in my room that said, "When you make excuses, you give up tihe power to change". That is so true, whether you are an alcoholic, trying to lose weight or talking politics.

In reply to Tammy Osier: The sequester should not have come into existence in the first place. And I disagree with your premise that the problems of the country apply equally to both parties. I also find it hard to believe that you put forth the idea that conservatives are willing to admit anything other than they are right. I also don't see any evidence to back up your claim that conservatives have made any suggestions other than the same ones that put us in the position we are in today which is cut cut cut.

The last thing that you can accuse democrats of doing is party worship. We are too diverse for that to be a possibility. It takes homogeny which is more prevalent on the conservative side of the aisle than the liberal side. It hasn't been the left portraying the President as a demigod and in no need of improvement. That has been the meme of the right.

Your description of one defending things that go against ones conscience fits the republicans more so than the democrats.

Our political system isn't broken. It's the people operating it that's the problem. Sure there is blame for both sides but it isn't equally deserved.

And finally I believe that when you view reasons why something doesn't work as excuses then you give up the ability to navigate around obstacles.

Thank you karsten. You knew what I was trying to say. We gave into tax increases with the provision of getting what we wanted, which didn't happen. Now they want more. No surprise there. So, the answer to spending is to spend more? That's insanity!

Tammy if someone wants to plunk down 500k dollars to tour the White House what is your problem with that?

If it is so important for you to tour the White House just put up your 500k and do the tour.

Dnb was making a statement about the character of those in the whitehouse and I tend to agree. They only have problems with people having money when it creates jobs through free enterprise, but not when it goes into their pockets.

There are some people on here worried about spending now but had no concerns about it during the Reagan years or either of the Bush terms. Especially during W. Bush's two terms when he started two wars on the country's credit card and implemented the expensive medicare drug program. Back then according to vice president Cheny deficits didn't matter. So what has changed?
All these current complaints ring mighty hollow.

KT, you may say it again, maybe it will sink in...
And of course somebody that supports the left doesn't see the hypocrisy of cutting tours but still allowing people to buy their way in.

Not that simple. I was under the impression that we were attacked and that started the war. We took out saadam hussein as a matter of something we were supposed to do anyway (was on bill clintons desk since 97). I can give you quote after quote, dates, newspaper clippings etc... where clinton said, "we've got to take him out.." Once we were attacked, why not finish what we started especially since he was financing those who attacked us. We had little choice. Might have took less time had we not stalled for 3 months, telling our enemies where we were going ot search next while stuff was being smuggled into Syria. Unless you were there, you really don't know all the details. My son was there, doesn't know everything of course, but probably knows a lot more than wartime armchair quarterbacks.

Ideal solution (for a start), said by Abby:
"A fast way to end the sequestration is to stop the salaries and perks of all the members of the House and Senate until it is settled. Isn't it amazing that the people who cause the problems never suffer the consequences?"

To Karsten Torch you are doing nothing but repeating the false talking points of the right-wing.
If you remember the last time there was a Democrat in the White House he inherited a declining financial situation and left the country with a surplus. And the next Republican in the White House left the country on the verge of collapse.
So far the current Democrat in the White House is doing a good job of bringing the country back from the brink as the stock market and corporate profits clearly indicate. But of course since in your eyes President Obama can't do anything right you won't be able to see that.

Tammy the only thing getting in the way of Abby's solution is the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which was ratified 5/7/1992.
I know how you on the right are such sticklers for following the Constitution.

Exactly. It limits pay congressional pay raises. The 27th amendment just says they can't do it while in session. I belileve Abby was referring to the need to do it at some point. I think she was being facitious. And, apparently, you haven't been paying attention. I mentioned the 90's a bit ago. The point being that bill clinton had to work with a republican congress. He had to agree with the contract with america and it turned out to be a great success, like you said. Democrats did not do that on their own. They did it by reaching across the asile and agreeing with republicans. Your partisianship is duly noted.

http://www.military.com/military-report/army-marines-and-coast-guard-cut-ta?ESRC=miltrep.nl
Interesting cuts. You'd almost think someone wanted to make us vulnerable to the world. Tuition is the very least we owe them.

The need to penalize is now. You can't do in the future, which would be the only time available, because at the time you would be able to levy any financial punishment it will be a new Congress and not liable for the previous Congresses actions or in-actions.

As far as Abby's facetiousness is concerned it wasn't readily apparent to me since I was basing my response on your quoting of her.

Yes you did mention the Clinton administration earlier but only in some fantasy world remembrance. The true nature of the Clinton Republican relationship can be found here:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/clinton-congress.html

And YOUR partisanship is also duly noted.

Oh and your recollection of the cause and the start of the Iraq War is just as faulty as your recollection of the Clinton Republican relationship. I have placed a link to a program that may bring some sunlight to your clouded perception of the events leading up to the Iraq War. That is if you are willing to take the time to look at it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/18/rachel_maddow_special_hubris.html

What is it that you are asking Mr. B? Are you presuming that the country is turning into another Jonestown or are you advocating for another Jonestown?

Sequestration cannot be too important to our government. They are still going on vacations and outings on the public's dime. I really think there needs to be a push for not paying any government official who is responsible for providing a sensible budget. I bet we would see bipartisanship then...unfortunately, since we are talking politicians it would probably not be good for the "people". We need term limits NOW, we need to reduce benefits of government officials as well as all their perks! The people are suffering and they are still spending billions on their vacations and outings! Let's cut federal departments that have contributed nothing but corruption and waste. Having been a teacher for 38 years (and teaching before the Dept. of Education was re-commissioned) that is the first department that needs to be demolished! According to the Constitution of the US, education is the responsibility of the states! Anyone notice that before the Dept of Education started telling us how to teach, our children were at the top in the world not the bottom they are at now????? Wake up, smell the flowers, the coffee, the rotten smell of government gone bad...☺

Maria we already have term limits. If you are unhappy with your current representation vote them out of office. I think that your anger with some officials is causing you to over estimate the amount that they spend on vacations. They may spend tens of thousands of dollars on vacations but for sure not billions.
Since there are no departments that contribute nothing but corruption and waste your suggestion to cut them is moot. Because YOU don't like the Department of Education is not a good enough reason to as you say demolish it. There are a number of government agencies that aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution but that doesn't cancel the need for them. As far as leaving education to the states I would be all for it except that the states aren't that great at the job either and neither are some local municipalities. I'm sure you could point out a few right here in Georgia. Better education is the result of more concerned parents being involved. As an educator I'm sure you know that better than I. But what are your expectations of that happening with parents working harder and longer for less just trying to maintain the necessities in life.That rotten smell you refer to is the lack of an electorate overseeing the job being done by the people we elect to run our government because they don't have the time and energy to do it.