Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,548 posts)
7. Not entirely true.
Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:06 PM
Mar 2013

Depends where the cuts fall and what the appropriations says.

The WH has a pool of money for operations. One thing funded by that pool is the WH tours.

NASA has a pool of money for a variety of operations, including the educational and public outreach.

In each case, it's been decided that other things that the money also covers are more important.

It's easy to be cynical. The WH billed the sequester as a kind of fiscal cliff with immediate horrible results. The results have been muted. Except for some horrible results that are at least on the surface voluntary.

Whether or not they're really voluntary depends on what *isn't* being cut. Was it a choice between the Mars mission and the NASA outreach programs? Or was it a choice between upgrading the executive washroom versus the outreach programs? I haven't seen.

Was it a choice between the WH tours and optional visits to Camp David or other presidential trips to Iowa or Idaho? Or was it a choice between the WH tours and some vital function like the switchboard? Again, dunno.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why sequester 'crisis' is...»Reply #7