Posted by Sally, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Mar 5, 2013 at 6:32 pm

The WH tourist guides are mostly volunteers. This is just Obama trying to force the issue. Obama is a complete joke. Even so, just call his bluff, and cancel any potential trip to DC.

Posted by Eaton, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 5, 2013 at 7:11 pm

"that you ground Air Force One: Yippee, another Fox disciple that wants our President to fly commercial! Particularly interesting in that this President has received more death threats than any other!

Why aid to Egypt? For the same reasons that we have for decades! (hint: it's a country next to Egypt and it starts with an "I"....) Should we cancel the billions in aid to the "I" country, also?

Tours and security involved in tours? I guess Kate really is a big-government Faux News fan!!

Posted by whine whine whine, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 5, 2013 at 7:11 pm

Thousands of government programs are being cut or limited by the budget crisis. This is the only one you are complaining about?

Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Mar 5, 2013 at 7:38 pm

She needs some cheese w/that whine. Love the all caps. Talk about petty...you pick this thing to complain about?

Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 5, 2013 at 9:51 pm

First of all, after 9/11 the tours were cancelled for years. Now they run a very limited number of tours - a fraction of what it once was. In other words, it won't be missed by most DC tourists anyway.

Posted by So what?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 7:13 am

For security reasons, it is probably best that there are no WH tours, anyway.

As for budget cuts, why not stop giving mega$$ to all those countries that hate us?

Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 7:19 am

Anything to make us feel the pain and fall to our knees to beg for more government.

Don't fall for it, folks. There were many, many decreases in the rise of spending that could have been made that nobody would even notice. Never forget, even with this sequester, we will STILL spend more this year than last year. There is no excuse at all for cutting where it hurts us, except petty vindictiveness. Somehow, prior Presidents managed to shut down "invisible" functions of govt, and specifically exclude any that actually hurt anyone.

But not this one. Hmmm...And that pretty much sums up our President.

BTW, did you know the White House is specifically EXCLUDED from the Sequester, including those who manage the WH tours? Ask yourself WHY the tours were cut...

Posted by Eaton, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 12:06 pm

"Somehow, prior Presidents managed to shut down "invisible" functions of govt, and specifically exclude any that actually hurt anyone."

What does this even mean? And can you explain what the "invisible" functions that were cut without any hurt?

Posted by CrescentParkAnon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2013 at 9:07 am

This is just about the most ridiculous post I've ever "skimmed" ... the idea that President Obama thinks he could send a message to America by temporarily ending tours of the White House is absurd. How many people go on tours of the White House or even care about tours of the White House? Not many, and probably none of them would get the idea that this was President Obama's idea. Republicans must be sure to miss the forest for the trees ... the real problem here is GOP wanting to destroy any piece of government that does not profit them of their small elite.

Posted by Eaton, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 8, 2013 at 10:39 am

Why won't the GOP look at getting rid of wasteful tax subsidies? Isn't that what Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan ran on as they lost to President Obama?

Instead the GOP whines about White House tours.

Who's PETTY, now?

Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Mar 9, 2013 at 6:20 am

Eaton: For the millionth time, tax "subsidies" mean taking less from people who earn it. It is not "petty" to reward the work and business that we need in USA with taking less of the fruits of their labor or risk.

If you want fewer workers, or less work per worker, or less research and development in medicines, procedures, energy production, or less investment in businesses or real estate, then tax it more. The more you tax a behavior, the less you get of it. Why do you think increasing taxes on cigarettes lowers cigarette smoking rate? Same thing.

Posted by Bunny Hill, a resident of another community, on Mar 9, 2013 at 8:05 am

It seems this political cartoon on the sequester might explain why you have to stop tours of the White House for students: Web Link

Posted by Eaton, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 10, 2013 at 12:16 pm

"tax "subsidies" mean taking less from people who earn it."

How does that apply to the tax breaks we give to Big Oil?

It's the most profitable industry in the history of civilization, yet we see years where Exxon pays NO FEDERAL TAXES!!! "Between 2008 and 2010, a dozen major US corporations—including General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon—paid a negative tax rate, despite collectively recording $171 billion in pretax US profits, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice."

Nice try. Isn't it time for Big Oil to pay their fair share, rather than give them corporate welfare by way of OUR tax dollars?

Even Mitt Romney and his mini-me, what's his name, thought so. Their plan was to revamp the code to get rid of the tax breaks riddled in our tax code.