Obama is the campaigner in chief, breaking records for the number of campaign stops and fundraisers he’s made so far, all over America. He’s also breaking records for the amount of money he is costing the places he travels too for these campaign events. And neither he, nor his campaign, nor the DNC, are interested in paying the costs incurred by local communities as a result.
We had our own example in Durham, where an anonymous donor finally volunteered to cover costs, some of which which Durham outsourced to other towns who did not–to our knowledge–have anonymous benefactors themselves. That means that taxpayers are still fronting the cost of Obama’s campaign everywhere his campaign roams.
Democrat advocates claim these costs can’t be avoided. Obama is the president. Others suggest that the presence of the commander in chief is good for local business, which results in revenues that could offset those costs. I say that’s all a load of Obama loving Bull and the President’s campaign is off-loading campaign expenses on local taxpayers; and in the case of Obama, more instances of these unwanted in-kind taxpayer donations to his campaign than any president in history. He is using his office to cover costs to his re-election effort.
And he does not have to do that. He has a choice. He could pay, or simply stay away. Wouldn’t that save taxpayers all those costs, hmmmm? Wouldn’t that keep them having to clean up his fiscal messes–just like the real messes his supporters leave everywhere they go?
As to the matter of commerce offsetting costs, there is no way to determine that, nor is it likely to come even close. In most cases the presence of the President disrupts normal traffic, blocks roads, diverts traffic, and makes the typical days custom impossible. In some cases businesses could be less busy as the abusers roll through town like tornado. And since we are talking about Democrats, the cost of clean-up alone after the departure is likely excessive. (Democrats are well documented litter-bugs.)
And none of that addresses the principle problem; that this is not a presidential visit in the service of the people. The sole function of the visit is a campaign stop, for the benefit of the candidate, and that candidate’s political party. It is a political expense.
So here’s an idea. I think these towns should send the bill to the appropriate State Democrat party instead of the Obama campaign. By all accounts
they are the ones benefiting from the drive-by, tax and spend, visitor, hoping local candidates receive some long term lift from the appearance (which includes fundraising events they benefit from directly).
It’s just as likely that state party leadership lobbied endlessly for the visit to begin with, to energize…in this case, local Democrats. Why should Republicans, independents, and members of the nonaligned political firmament pay for an Obama dance party designed to put money in state party coffers or to keep him coming back in another two years, to waste more of their money, whenever Democrat party Chair Ray Buckley gets an itch to rile up the groundings for the next local contest?
(I’d expect a Republican President or the GOP state party to do the same.)
But there is one distinction between them worth noting. Seeing as Democrats are so keen on running everyone elses money through national organs before taking credit for getting some of it back for this or that “signature” project of a party-agenda-specific nature, in the future, if for some reason the State Party thinks it unfair that their masters have left them to bear the cost of a national candidate campaign visit to some local burb, they can always lobby the national party for a campaign visit bail out. That is how they justify bail-outs, and earmarks, yes? So bill Ray Buckley and let him find a way to get the DNC to send him a refund.
This will allow him to grasp the true nature of his party, something I am sure he is already aware of–they’re all a bunch of cheapskates. Just ask Connecticut. DNC refuses to pay CT town for Obama fundraiser visit.