The White House is warning that it may cancel the annual Easter Egg Roll if the Congress can’t agree on funding the federal government:
Washington (CNN) – Ticket holders for the upcoming White House Easter Egg Roll are being warned the annual event could be canceled if lawmakers can’t agree on a measure funding the federal government.
As for now, the event will go on as planned – though warnings have gone out to members of Congress and ticketholders that a partial government shutdown would cause the egg roll to be scrapped.
In a memo to lawmakers, who receive tickets to the egg roll, the White House notes that “by using these tickets, guests are acknowledging that this event is subject to cancellation due to funding uncertainty surrounding the Executive Office of the President and other federal agencies.”
The memo adds that if the event is canceled, it would not be rescheduled.
If that’s the White House’s version of “firemen first”, it may be time for a brainpower transplant. Canceling White House tours or Easter egg rolls does not cover the White House with glory. It won’t convince anyone—just aggravate them.
This still confuses me. We want govt to cut spending, but when we cut fluff, it causes an outcry. It strikes me more that people want to believe that spending cuts or increases, revenue cuts or increases, can all be done w/o some cost. Over the last 30 years we increased spending w/o matching revenue and hid the cost by increasing debt. I think that costs should be very transparent. If govt wants to increase spending, taxes should go up. Then people can decide if they really want that new program. Same with cuts. If you cut spending, some service will be affected. If the public is so unable to tolerate cuts in clearly non-essential activities, then they need to pay more in taxes.
Steve
steve, one line of thinking, which I sometimes embrace, is that government needs to make a discernible effort to make cuts in order to justify less popular actions like raising taxes or reducing popular benefits. This may or may not be “fireman first,” perhaps it depends on whether the cuts are well-crafted versus cynical.
Steve:
Yep. People want a bunch of stuff but don’t want to pay for it. They want to put it on a credit card which will be payed by. . . Um. . .
Sweet Jesus, not the Easter Egg roll. Anything but that!
The truth is there’s strong public support for probably 95% of what we spend tax money (and borrowed money) on. And substantial support for the remaining 5%. Once you eliminate Sesame Street and foreign aid (except Israel) you’ve exhausted the cuts conservatives want. And once you cut defense you’re done for the liberals.
It’s a comedy. A very expensive comedy.
This, by the way, is the ultimate failure of the notion of a divided and highly polarized government. Because as a practical matter it goes like this:
D: I want to cut defense. But only a little
R: I want to cut Medicaid. But not much.
D: Unacceptable! Dead grannies!
R: Unacceptable! Commies!
D: We could raise taxes to pay for it all.
R: No way.
D: How about we just borrow more money…
R: …and kick the can down the road? I like it!
Great system. Working like a charm.
Probably because just about everyone realizes these “cuts” are temporary, cosmetic and are only in place as part of a partisan cock-fight.
Well sure, that would be great in an ideal world. But what do the people really want? They want the new program and the low taxes and punt the costs to future generations. It’s been that way ever since the “me” generation became the dominant political demographic.
The partisan’s play a game of wink-wink and vote to continue the status quo even as they argue against it. The people are all to happy to buy into such delusions.
It’s remarkably easy to identify things that people want as long as they don’t have to pay for them. The hard part is finding what people actually want enough to pay for them.
You’re missing my point. The White House is taking the IMO indefensible position that they have absolutely no discretion in how to make cuts required by the sequester. Rather than take any of the 1,001 possible alternatives even within that constraint, they emphasize things they think will touch people to show how much the spending is needed.
Do you think that canceling the White House Easter egg roll because of budget constraints will convince people of the necessity of the president’s position or that they’re a bunch of petty jerks? I think the latter.
Harrumph. I seem to recall that Ida May Fuller started collecting Social Security Retirement Income in 1940 after paying practically nothing into the system and continued to collect until 1975. Not only was she not a member of the “me” generation, the “me” generation hadn’t even been born yet. She was older than many of the “me” generation’s grandparents.
It’s reasonable to blame the Baby Boomers for selfishness but they didn’t invent it. They haven’t even benefited as much by the system as it is as much as their parents did and probably never will.
I remain curiously unmoved by this particular “threat.”
I expect no one to give a damn — because it’s just a silly photo op — but maybe that’s just my giddy optimism.
It’s so trivial it makes me more favorably inclined toward the sequester. I mean, I thought these “harsh” cuts were going to result in culling one out of every five old people and sacrificing them on the altar of Ba’al, so I’m heartened and relieved to discover that we can balance the budget with savings on colored eggs. Who knew that was the problem?
This still confuses me. We want govt to cut spending, but when we cut fluff, it causes an outcry.
I don’t mind cutting the fluff, as long as it starts at the top and works it’s way down to the masses. However, this president and his expensive, muscle-toned, designer-dressed, well-coiffed, Hollywood/ski resort-hopping spouse, continue to splash the money around on their own whims, personal thrills, and pleasures.
For instance, why not cancel the St. Patrick’s Day party at the WH, which I think included painting the WH lawn green for color? Then you can deal with those lavish trips and getaways the family takes, and instead they can head for Camp David once in awhile, or back to their Chicago home, as the Bush’s did to Crawford, TX. Isn’t the WH supposed to set an example? Instead they constantly chastise the people to “tighten their belts,” while they grotesquely expand it, at the taxpayer’s expense, for themselves?
Now, in lieu of that terrible sequester, they’re busy cutting the so-called entertainment, WH tour ‘fluff’ of the people, while keeping their own fluff. Isn’t that what 3rd world dictators are inclined to do — stick it to the people, as they live the high life and glom on to some of the country’s assets for good measure?
I suspect the White House has more discretion that most of the federal government. As it stands, most of the rest of us who are subject to the sequester are seeking the least-bad option which, in most cases, involves some pretty tough choices. My organization is in pretty good shape (as am I) and will weather the sequester just fine – my wife is having to decide what capabilities will be permanently diminished in her organization thanks to second and third order effects of the sequestration. And then there are the furloughs which will put many people in a very tough situation. They are, I think, understandably angry they are in that position not as a part of some coherent plan to reduce government spending, but as a consequence of a game of political chicken.
Well, I’ll just say you shouldn’t take it personally. If we had a million Dave Schulers this country would be in a much better place. Make it 20 million. I mean this in all seriousness – you are a great American. Unfortunately, you are atypical for your cohort. I wish you weren’t.
However, bringing up Ms. Fuller is, I think, a rather weak argument. She was the first beneficiary for one new federal program – the first beneficiaries always turn out to be lucky ones. That’s a one-time windfall based mainly on chance.
My point, which I’ve made several times before, is a more general statement about the boomer generation and is an opinion supported by research on the attitudes and ideologies of the “greatest” and all the follow-on generations which, not coincidentally IMO, matches the political and fiscal reality of this country over the last 30 years. The boomers, more than any other generation, feel less obligated to support communal values like military service, paying taxes, etc. while at the same time they feel government has more responsibilities for solving problems and fixing things. And things worked out pretty well for them as a whole. The post-boom generations? Not so much.
And for the record, I don’t think WH easter egg hunts are fluff as long as the celebrations aren’t extravagant. Cost cutting should produce a more modest event, not a cancellation.
OT, but worthy of consideration is this recent poll done by Pew, rating 3 cable news stations as to whom is the most opinioned, versus who offers the most news.
CNN was considered the most newsworthy in having 46% of their coverage based on ‘opinion,’ and 54% delivering news.
FOX came in a close second to CNN with 55% being ‘opinion,’ and 45% of their programing dealing with news. Maybe “fair and balanced’ is more applicable than some think.
MSNBC came in a distant last (Maddow and company) with a whopping 85% of their coverage being ‘opinion’ and only 15% considered just news, or the facts.
The boomers, more than any other generation, feel less obligated to support communal values like military service, paying taxes, etc. while at the same time they feel government has more responsibilities for solving problems and fixing things.
IMO, the boomers have been the most self-centered generation. They grew up in the post WWII era of relative economical stability; spent their youth and/young adulthood in rebellion against social conventions and mores; raised up in the ranks of income during the Reagan fiscal revampment and Clinton’s dot com boom; suffered less in the post 911 shock; and are now collecting benefits in their senior years that may not be sustainable enough to support the generations behind them.
Basically, they’ve always been a little ahead of the curve, reaping the rewards of other generation’s sacrifices, while voting myopically for their own benefits, rather than looking to see what will be hitting others (children and grand children) in the face, later on.
“IMO, the boomers have been the most self-centered generation. They grew up in the post WWII era of relative economical stability; spent their youth and/young adulthood in rebellion against social conventions and mores”
Well, except for those subject to the draft and packed off to Vietnam, 50,000 of whom didn’t really get a chance to spend their youth in anything.
You’re a fucking idiot.
I think it would be nice if you quantified those anti-Boomer sentiments. Think in terms of specific government income and outlays. I honestly don’t think your problem is with the Baby Boomers. I think it’s with the “Greatest Generation”.
My comments about the boomer generation were made, based on who seems to have politically led this country in the last 50 years or so, and how positive or fairly apportioned their influence has been, when considering the future welfare of others — especially the generations coming up behind them. I personally don’t see a lot of long term considerations in this group for others — only what is going to happen to them.
For instance, if boomers were genuinely concerned about the viability of benefit programs many of them are receiving, there would be more support among the middle age and younger seniors for raising the age of SS and medicare, so as to be more in line with the increased longevity enjoyed today. It only makes sense that if everyone is living longer that raising age thresholds (much like how COLA’s function, in keeping pace with changes in the standard of living) are adjusted. in order to increase the sustainability of these programs for younger people heading in that direction.
Regarding that Vietnam comment by Sam — no generation’s life is perfect. Wars, natural disasters, financial melt-downs cyclically occur. But, for the most part, the boomers, as whole, have been the ones most unscathed — having homes that were purchased in sane times, some savings, cheaper, quality HC through a medicare system that is still functioning, recessions that didn’t stall out over an indefinite period of time, economies that turned around faster from recessions, and being able to receive SS benefits, even though this program has reached the tipping point, and is going downhill in it’s funding capacities.
There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty, unease, and historically high debt being levied upon younger generations, along with a less free and more highly monitored society. I don’t view that as a great legacy from the boomers..
Go back and check again. By no stretch of the imagination have Baby Boomers led this country politically until quite recently. Check the Senate and House Committee chairmanships.
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all Baby Boomers. The Senate Judiciary committee, on the other hand, has never had a Baby Boomer chairman. The present Secretary of State is not a Baby Boomer.
BTW, the book, The Fourth Turning, regarding cycles in history, and mentioned in an earlier thread posted by Dave, has made a similar observation about the boomer’s less-than-generous contribution to the stability of this current cycle.
The politically led reference referred to the tastes, needs social, moral proclivities of a certain voting populace, not literally to any given politician’s generation classification. The boomer generation, just by their sheer numbers, has been a human bulge, working it’s way through this cycle of history, effecting what is ‘in’, ‘out’, or is highlighted. Now, for instance, geriatric care, medical devices, medications are the magnets for marketing. This all plays into the politics of the time, even though the leaders may not be from that age group.
Yeah, it’s not Boomers running Congress, it’s Bangers. Guys who’ve been there since the Big Bang.
Hey-oooo!
If political leadership is restricted to House and Senate Chairs, then you’re probably right (Of course, those positions are determined mainly by seniority so they tend to skew old). What I was talking about, however, was the electorate and by the mid-1980’s the very youngest Boomers were in their 20’s and the oldest were entering their peak earning years. This is about when the Boomers really started to become the dominant political force.
Just as a point of fact, here’s the current House and Senate makeup by generation. Committee chairs (including the senior ranking member from the other party) are listed in parentheses:
Senate:
Greatest (<1924): 1
Silent (1925-1945): 29 (16)
Boomer (1946-1964): 59 (16)
Gen-X(1965-1982): 11
Gen-Y(1984-2000): 0
House:
Greatest: 1
Silent: 66 (10)
Boomer: 276 (27)
Gen-X: 90 (2)
Gen-Y: 0
And let's consider for a moment the current Senate and House – is there anything positive that can be said about them?
I am with Dave on this. All that debt and spending run up over the last 30 years? Not the Boomers. SS and Medicare, the entitlements killing us? Not the Boomers.
Steve
Steve,
I guess you’re really with Dave on this? 😉
Look, I’m not saying the boomers are solely to blame – obviously they’re not the only players at the table and they play with the hand dealt to them by the previous generations. But what a hand it was compared to the millennials today!
Regardless of past responsibility, we are in desperate need of reform in a host of areas, but reform doesn’t look likely anytime soon. Necessary reform requires consensus and consensus requires a sense of “communal” (for lack of a better term as I’m very tired) responsibility to overcome factionalism and self-interest. The problem, as I see it, is that the Boomer generation has a lot less of that communal responsibility than their elders.
Boomers do have a fundamentally different political identity than previous generations. More than previous generations, they are focused on issues, particularly issues which affect them personally. This cuts both ways since, consequently, Boomers are less interested in issues that they believe don’t directly affect them. The WWII and silent generation, by contrast, focused more on the personal attributes or affiliations of politicians.
To me, that explains where we are today. Politicians understand what they need to do to get elected and in today’s political environment that means they have to adopt the correct stance on whatever “issues” matter to the population they aim to represent. Their competence matters little – just look at some of the people who make it into office. And when the political winds change, these politicians “evolve” to new positions which seems to happen in real time concurrent with the latest polling data. (Oh, funny how Hillary Clinton “evolved” on gay marriage as soon as she got out of her State Deparment gig. Guess her focus group and polling analysts were working overtime!) The fact that some of the old fogeys can play that game too does not say much of anything about the generations from which they came.
So, why is the nation so divided? Why is the fight over 1-2% of the federal budget all out of proportion with its actual importance? Why are judicial nominations little more than “gotcha” games? What is your explanation? Mine is that it’s due to the Boomers. In my estimation, it’s consistent with the Boomer issue-focused worldview which results in a much more atomized politics. As a result, it’s about impossible to build the kind of consensus to make a change on the scale of Social Security, the Civil Rights Act or the 1947 NSA when all people care about is their pet issues.
What is your explanation? Mine is that it’s due to the Boomers. Whatever the mistakes of previous generations, the boomers have been and are now in control and they have the opportunity to fix things. How is that working out? No need to answer since I read about it almost everyday on your blog.
So I don’t see any reason to cut the Boomers any slack. Even if we give them a complete pass on the last 30 years,they are still failing to deal with the pressing issues of the day and that failure will likely cost future generations dearly.
Nicely articulated, Andy.
What you so ardently explained is why I earlier called the boomer generation the most self-centered generation.
Maybe it was their population size, causing them to clump together as a strength-through-numbers kind of force, ultimately dominating various cycles in the last 50 plus years, which have been saturated by their piques, evolving needs, wants, trendy likes and dislikes as they aged. However, I just don’t see much reflective consideration by this group towards younger generations, who will be taking on major heat from the boomers massively indulging themselves in such over-consumption tendencies and whimsical, short sighted thinking .