Conservation or Big Beautiful Ballrooms?

[Big Fin]

Maybe being a former CPA who spends my spare time helping conservation groups causes me to be offended more than it should. Reading a Congressional budget recommendation this morning (I need to stop reading my old CPA newswires), I notice that Congress (Senate Amendment) is going to add $1 Billion to the Presidents budget request for his Ballroom renovation. I now see NYT is reporting this same action by the bootlickers in the Senate.

In a budget that cuts the following conservation programs, just know that we have a Big Beautiful Ballroom for the gilded class to show off the returns on their political donations.

• Cutting funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System by $105 million.
• Eliminating the entire forest and rangelands research arm of the U.S. Forest Service from $300 million to zero.
• Reducing the North American Wetlands Conservation Act from $49 million to $10 million.
• Cutting USFWS funding for state and tribal wildlife grants from $73.8 million to zero.
• Cutting funding for migratory bird management by $11 million.

Those are just a few among many that we are going to notice when it comes to wildlife, access, and conservation.

But hey, we'll have places for Jeff Bazos, Bill Gates, Adelsons, other billionaires, Murdoch, and famous entertainers who kiss the ass of the elected officials whose campaigns they helped fund.

I need to go for a hike.

 

[Irrelevant]

#tiredofwinning

 

[rjthehunter]

MN had an $11 billion surplus a few years ago that was spent in the blink of an eye. Leave it to political members to light money on fire. I'm all for budget cuts but lets be smart about it. I'd rather cut funding to learing centers and funding to foreign countries, then allocate those funds to conservation.

 

[Nameless Range]

There's a whole lotta "instead of this, that" scenarios that a person could run that are indicative of the contemporary Age of the Robber Baron we are in.

We've spent enough money in Iran so far to fund all our public land agencies (USFS,NPS, USFWS, BLM) for two years - that's notwithstanding the personal costs to Americans. We will spend enough on defense in this year alone to fund those agencies for 100 years.

 

[Dave N]

But, but, but... Wasn't it being paid for by "private donations"?

 

[cgasner1]

I read a article awhile back on the ball room and it talked about the amount of money that is currently being spent on other such events is unbelievable and that this ballroom would actually save money within a year or two. Also would probably make it easier to keep The Don alive

 

[Irrelevant]

The BBB is going to save us money? Interesting, I was unable to corroborate that one. It appears that the most expensive dinner was during the Obama years, at about $950k, but that included all the costs. So even if we assume that food, drink, security, parking, general logistics, and entertainment (IDK if that's a thing), are all free with this new ballroom. And that we do these types of things quarterly, it seems like that's 350 years to pay it off (1.3 billion [1 billion request + 300 mill private donation] / 4 million/year) . IDK, maybe my math is wrong.

 

[SAJ-99]

And Democrats are viewed as talking down to the average American? Stupid stuff like this shows how smart Republicans think their voters are. And I bet it changes zero votes.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

The BBB is going to save us money? Interesting, I was unable to corroborate that one. It appears that the most expensive dinner was during the Obama years, at about $950k, but that included all the costs. So even if we assume that food, drink, security, parking, general logistics, and entertainment (IDK if that's a thing), are all free with this new ballroom. And that we do these types of things quarterly, it seems like that's 350 years to pay it off (1.3 billion [1 billion request + 300 mill private donation] / 4 million/year) . IDK, maybe my math is wrong.

And 9 months ago the cost was supposed to be $200m. I'm pretty sure it's going to cost (N + 50m) with N being however much Trump can grift out of the system.

I'm not opposed to a $200-400m privately funded ballroom at the White House. If we're paying for it though it should be modest and congressionally approved.

 

[jryoung]

But we can process game in the shitter at Lake Meredith.

 

[Big Fin]

There's a whole lotta "instead of this, that" scenarios that a person could run that are indicative of the contemporary Age of the Robber Baron we are in.

Agree. The list of comparisons and scenarios could be miles long.

For me, reading the article this morning in my newswire as to who is carrying the water for POTUS on this got me thinking of how much help they could be if they used some of that power to protect the huge cuts in public lands and conservation infrastructure.

And probably nothing in the vast array of Federal spending during this time of supposed "fiscal responsibility" (I know, hard to not laugh at that premise) does a better job of showing the mismatch of the DC spending priorities compared to the priorities the folks out America have than does the BBB. For those of us who have been engaged in DC budget issues around conservation funding, the Big Beautiful Ballroom being funded to this degree, for the benefit of an ego, is the ultimate kick in the groin.

So, I decided to post it in this manner, knowing full well other huge expenditures like the Iran War could be used instead as the example of mismatched priorities. And, some folks who value other programs might compare this lavish spending on what could benefit the issues they advocate for.

By training, CPAs have inherent professional benefit to nerd out on this Federal spending/taxation policy. It has made me skeptical of the policies from Ds and Rs when it comes to spending or tax cuts, which is essentially picking winners and losers in correlation to who has funded those in power. This BBB is probably the most ridiculous of the many that have caused me to shake my head over the last 30+ years as a CPA.

 

[elkduds]

And 9 months ago the cost was supposed to be $200m. I'm pretty sure it's going to cost (N + 50m) with N being however much Trump can grift out of the system.

I'm not opposed to a $200-400m privately funded ballroom at the White House. If we're paying for it though it should be modest and congressionally approved.

The White House belongs to the country, not the President. Private donations open the door, wider than before, to sell the influence of our government to deep pockets.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

The White House belongs to the country, not the President. Private donations open the door, wider than before, to sell the influence of our government to deep pockets.

That ship has sailed.

 

[406dn]

I too, read about this Senate budgetary proposal this morning. The entire concept of an opulent ball room for extravagant dinners, makes me want to puke. One of the things I like about the culture in Montana, is that you are welcome almost everywhere in a pair of jeans, a ball cap, and a casual shirt. Even the politicians running for office are careful to dress down, for their image to the voters.

It bothers me more that it is private funds. It is just blatant influence buying. Frankly, I doubt there is a need for a ball room, even close to the white elephant being built.

We are cheerfully spending our way into a debt crisis. We owe our children and grandchildren more than that. They don't deserve to inherit that, but that is the big beautiful gift we are leaving them. The ball room is just an example of how recklessly we spend the public's money.

 

[SaskHunter]

That ship has sailed.

Through the Strait of Hormuz?

It's been hard to keep track since we've been saved from the evil grasp of Iran... /s

 

[rjthehunter]

Through the Strait of Hormuz?

It's been hard to keep track since we've been saved from the evil grasp of Iran... /s

We? Aren't you still Canadian?

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

But, but, but... Wasn't it being paid for by "private donations"?

Just like Mexico paid for the wall, right?

I can't believe so many people are so easily manipulated, and yet here we are.

 

[jimh406]

Hiking is good no matter what.

From what I've read, they want to spend more money on the Ballroom security. It seems to me after the other day that there is no safe place to hold a large meeting. Sure, you can say there shouldn't be any large meetings. That being said, the ballroom was privately funded. so who knows if Trump would sign a bill if it made it through the House and Senate. The articles might just be trying to wind people up, and the ballroom will still be privately funded.

For the other conservation issues, they seem to be all independent of the ballroom. That is, they might still be cut or were cut no matter if the ballroom has more money or not.

In any case, we are spending a lot of money on things that I don't agree with, and cutting things I want. Maybe I should go for a hike, too.