Why are taxpayers funding President Obama's Midwest bus tour?
President Obama this week is hopscotching through politically vital Midwest states on a big black bus and holding town hall meetings on the economy. To the White House, it is business as usual, the sort of national listening tour that sitting chief executives do all the time. But Republican leaders say it鈥檚 politics, and they say it鈥檚 something taxpayers shouldn鈥檛 be forced to fund.
鈥淎ll he鈥檚 doing is campaigning. That鈥檚 what this bus tour is, it鈥檚 a campaign trip,鈥� said Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus.
The RNC has thus labeled the trip the 鈥淒ebt End Bus Tour鈥� and put together a for the event. They鈥檝e even taken the little White House logo that鈥檚 splashed on genuine briefing papers and twisted it so the building looks like it鈥檚 crumbling.
The tour is 鈥渁 totally non-political, taxpayer-funded administration event that just happens to criss-cross several battleground states critical to the president鈥檚 reelection,鈥� says the book.
Well, is it? Let鈥檚 go to the videotape, as the late great Washington, D.C., sportscaster George Michael used to say.
On Monday, Obama stopped at a state park in Cannon Falls, Minnesota to address a crowd. Among other things, he criticized the entire GOP presidential field for its refusal to accept any new taxes as part of any deficit reduction deal.
鈥淚 mean, that鈥檚 just not common sense,鈥� he said.
He hit at Mitt Romney in particular for opposing an individual mandate that Americans buy health insurance 鈥� something Romney supported when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Republicans 鈥渉ave amnesia鈥� on this subject, he said.
He also mentioned House Speaker John Boehner by name and complained that he had walked away from a budget deal that included $2 trillion in budget cuts just because it would have raised taxes on the rich.
鈥淗e walked away because his belief was, we can鈥檛 ask anything of millionaires and billionaires and big corporations in order to close our deficit,鈥� said Obama.
This sort of rhetoric is certainly political, in the sense that it鈥檚 promoting a certain outcome of the political process. The rest of Obama鈥檚 remarks, which were stump-speech-style promotions of administration proposals and accomplishments, were political by that definition as well.
However, Obama was careful to not mention that other party by name. His foil was not Republicans, but Congress, which he said could do things right now to help put Americans back to work. (He did say 鈥淩epublicans鈥� once, when he was talking about the individual mandate thing. Other than that, nada.)
And as White House spokesman Jay Carney noted, for Obama, it鈥檚 not yet election season per se. He does not face a primary campaign, as GOP contenders do. He is not raising money for his reelection effort during the Midwest swing.
鈥淗e is doing what presidents do, which is go out in the country and engage with the American people, have discussions about the economy and other policy issues ... to suggest that any time the president leaves Washington it鈥檚 a political trip would mean that presidents could never leave unless they were physically campaigning on their own behalf,鈥� said Carney.
Hmm. We鈥檒l note this is happening in a context in which candidates announce the schedule for their presidential announcements, in order both to build media coverage and skirt FEC financial disclosure laws to the last possible minute.
Who鈥檚 right here? Discuss amongst yourselves.
